LDS Content Wars

[Nofear]

Jacob Hansen makes the case that in the content creator space, faithful LDS content creators are winning, but that they ought not to rest, and continue to press forward. Endeavor to set aside confirmation bias (pro or con)? Do you have or can you provide data to back up your assertion (pro or con)?
 

 

[Duncan]

Mormon or exmormon, it's all the same topics, they just keep round and round, which is why it's bores me to no end. For example something bad happens or shocking or new comes out, it makes the rounds and no one has any more info than anyone else, they would all read the same announcement, they don't have any insider info. 

[Pyreaux]

Better late than never.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

Better late than never.

Meaning?

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Duncan said:

Mormon or exmormon, it's all the same topics, they just keep round and round, which is why it's bores me to no end. For example something bad happens or shocking or new comes out, it makes the rounds and no one has any more info than anyone else, they would all read the same announcement, they don't have any insider info. 

Mostly I agree with this. I actually find the atheist vs. general Christian back and forths more interesting as there is often more to discuss there. Even there though it can be dull depending on the creator and the content. Still I can often learn a lot about archaeology and textual criticism and the like. LDS vs ex-LDS discussions tend to be less evidential.

[Pyreaux]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Meaning?

Jacob just now heard the demographics of anti-LDS channels and how there are signs of struggling... Though he may have known it a while but between debates, only now had time to make a video.

[The Nehor]

Also there can be many different ways to “win”. Producing the best arguments is one and I try to make that one my favorite. Convincing those on the sidelines or converting people on the other side is another. Reinforcing the convictions of those that already agree with you is probably what everyone involved is most successful at.

[MrShorty]

Along the lines of what @The Nehor said about "best arguments" being a favorite definition of winning, I would agree. At one point (about 8.5 minutes in) Hansen says that there are still hard questions, but, in his opinion, there are good answers. As I see it, having good answers for the hard questions is the real definition of "winning" in this kind of apologetic space. For me, I'm not so certain that we have good answers for all of the hard questions. One evidence -- the hard questions keep coming up. Race and the church, was polygamy from God, LGBTQ+ issues are questions that never seem to go away. To the point that the church officially expresses its frustration that the questions keep coming up (See Pres. Oaks comments in the "Race and church" topics and questions section of gospel library, for example). At the extreme is the problem of evil and suffering that religionists have been wrestling with for thousands of years. We might have answers that we like for many of these questions, but I'm not certain they are as good as we think if the questions and problems keep surfacing. IMO, the content creators who are the best examples of winners are those like Faith Matters who usually don't claim answers, but express a desire to be in dialogue with the problems (my impression is that Hansen and many of the content creators he referenced usually don't like to include more nuanced/progressive channels in their group of winners).

If anyone asked me (and they didn't), if I could recommend things that would help us "win." I would start with examining why these "good answers" to the persistent questions don't satisfy everyone. Too often, I see more conservative LDS seem quicker to make people's failure to accept a "good answer" as some kind of character flaw of the questioner rather than explore why the "good answer" isn't quite satisfactory. I think a bit of epistemic humility would be warranted so that we talk about what helps me stay in the church rather than declare something "a good answer." I think a willingness to stay engaged in the marketplace of ideas (in good faith) rather than retreat into our echo chambers helps us "win."

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Along the lines of what @The Nehor said about "best arguments" being a favorite definition of winning, I would agree. At one point (about 8.5 minutes in) Hansen says that there are still hard questions, but, in his opinion, there are good answers. As I see it, having good answers for the hard questions is the real definition of "winning" in this kind of apologetic space. For me, I'm not so certain that we have good answers for all of the hard questions. One evidence -- the hard questions keep coming up. Race and the church, was polygamy from God, LGBTQ+ issues are questions that never seem to go away. To the point that the church officially expresses its frustration that the questions keep coming up (See Pres. Oaks comments in the "Race and church" topics and questions section of gospel library, for example). At the extreme is the problem of evil and suffering that religionists have been wrestling with for thousands of years. We might have answers that we like for many of these questions, but I'm not certain they are as good as we think if the questions and problems keep surfacing. IMO, the content creators who are the best examples of winners are those like Faith Matters who usually don't claim answers, but express a desire to be in dialogue with the problems (my impression is that Hansen and many of the content creators he referenced usually don't like to include more nuanced/progressive channels in their group of winners).

If anyone asked me (and they didn't), if I could recommend things that would help us "win." I would start with examining why these "good answers" to the persistent questions don't satisfy everyone. Too often, I see more conservative LDS seem quicker to make people's failure to accept a "good answer" as some kind of character flaw of the questioner rather than explore why the "good answer" isn't quite satisfactory. I think a bit of epistemic humility would be warranted so that we talk about what helps me stay in the church rather than declare something "a good answer." I think a willingness to stay engaged in the marketplace of ideas (in good faith) rather than retreat into our echo chambers helps us "win."

90%+ of the content out there isn’t there to persuade the unconvinced or help people with genuine doubts. Most of it is there to reinforce the convictions of those that already agree with them and give them a dopamine hit. Then it becomes less about being convincing on any kind of academic or intellectual level and more about emotion and conveying a strong sense of conviction and reassurance.

[bluebell]

37 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Along the lines of what @The Nehor said about "best arguments" being a favorite definition of winning, I would agree. At one point (about 8.5 minutes in) Hansen says that there are still hard questions, but, in his opinion, there are good answers. As I see it, having good answers for the hard questions is the real definition of "winning" in this kind of apologetic space. For me, I'm not so certain that we have good answers for all of the hard questions. One evidence -- the hard questions keep coming up. Race and the church, was polygamy from God, LGBTQ+ issues are questions that never seem to go away. To the point that the church officially expresses its frustration that the questions keep coming up (See Pres. Oaks comments in the "Race and church" topics and questions section of gospel library, for example). At the extreme is the problem of evil and suffering that religionists have been wrestling with for thousands of years. We might have answers that we like for many of these questions, but I'm not certain they are as good as we think if the questions and problems keep surfacing. IMO, the content creators who are the best examples of winners are those like Faith Matters who usually don't claim answers, but express a desire to be in dialogue with the problems (my impression is that Hansen and many of the content creators he referenced usually don't like to include more nuanced/progressive channels in their group of winners).

If anyone asked me (and they didn't), if I could recommend things that would help us "win." I would start with examining why these "good answers" to the persistent questions don't satisfy everyone. Too often, I see more conservative LDS seem quicker to make people's failure to accept a "good answer" as some kind of character flaw of the questioner rather than explore why the "good answer" isn't quite satisfactory. I think a bit of epistemic humility would be warranted so that we talk about what helps me stay in the church rather than declare something "a good answer." I think a willingness to stay engaged in the marketplace of ideas (in good faith) rather than retreat into our echo chambers helps us "win."

I think it's helpful when we can recognize that a 'good answer' to us isn't a good answer to everyone.  The reverse is also true.  A problem to us is not a problem to everyone.  This isn't necessarily because of differences in morality or knowledge or maturity. Often it's just because we are different.  Full stop.

Both groups are really good at projecting moral failings onto those with different perspectives and reactions to similar information.  It's a defense mechanism for sure and another way to feel better when something is uncomfortable.  It's also just another version of an echo chamber where the only voices we allow ourselves to hear are the ones that tell us we are right.

Echo chambers are bad bad bad.  And so comforting.