Article Re Dan Reynolds

[Teancum]

On 7/10/2024 at 5:09 PM, smac97 said:

You may be correct.  I started the thread, and so should have expected beyond-the-pale-of-civil-discourse comments from folks such as yourself.

Pot, meet kettle.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Having a piece of paper from an Ivy League School doesn't mean you can't be utterly wrong in your methods and conclusions. In fact, the arrogance some adopt from being so educated can blind them to their shortcomings.

The fact that you seem to not like what Hassan does or maybe how he may classify Mormonism does not mean his degrees are worthless. Back it up.

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Actually, it is his BITE model that I find problematic.  It's application is overly broad and malleable, so much so that it fails to meaningfully differentiate between "cults" (whatever those are) and other groups/organizations.  It makes Hassan the arbiter of cults.  It seems to lack scientific rigor and empirical assessment, nor do his methods appear to have been widely accepted in professional psychology.  He appears to have heavily lifted/plagiarized the work of others.  There seem to be substantial ethical concerns about whether his model allows for informed consent.

Yes, he has credentials.  

I acknowledged his PhD as well.  Credentialism doesn't do much for me.

Qualified to do . . . what?

Thanks,

-Smac

Which of Hassan's books or papers or anything have you read by him?

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

You or anyone else insisting Smac is saying/implying something and he insisting you or analytics or someone else is saying/implying something after you have both corrected the claims gets old fast and is bluntly boring and causes me as soon as I read such to skip the post.  Rare times I might force myself to go back and read it if I am participating in a conversation, but often times this is where I will disappear from a thread or at least that part of it.

I so wish all of you would just assume the other person you are insisting is making a certain claim or whatever is just a poor communicator at times and accept when they say they mean something that they really mean it even if it doesn’t seem that way and stop making whatever is in dispute a thing.

Sorry momma! 😁😉

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Credentialism doesn't do much for me.

Umm really? Were you not just complaining that Hassan had not been an expert witness and thus downplayed his expertise?  Isn't that a credential?  What does do something for you?

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  I have been on this board for 20 years, and regularly read what "those outside Mormonism" have to say about how they "view Mormonism."

The people you have interacted with on this board really are not representative of what I meant by outside Mormonism.  Most, if not all, have familiarity with the church much more than the average Joe.  So based on your comment I don't think you have had much interaction with non LDS persons and what they think about Mormonism.

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the BITE model is vague and malleable, to the point of worthlessness.  It is not objective or empirical.

What is a better model that would be objective or empirical. It seems to me that the subject of what is a cult, or to what degree an organization is cult like, seems rather subjective.  What objective or empirical criteria would you use?

[Teancum]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you also agree with Roger that the Church exercises so much "cult mind control" over its members that if it stopped doing so, "members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist"?  If so, how do you square that assessment with the Church being "a three to four on a scale of one to ten on cult like mind control methods"?  

I think that the church may shrink some if it dropped some of the methods that I view and mind control, and it would also gain less converts.  The latter is already happening in developed nations due to the ease of access to information about the church that the missionaries certainly do not offer.  But no, it would not cease to exist.

[ZealouslyStriving]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think that the church may shrink some if it dropped some of the methods that I view and mind control, and it would also gain less converts.  The latter is already happening in developed nations due to the ease of access to information about the church that the missionaries certainly do not offer.  But no, it would not cease to exist.

2 Nephi 9

"When they are learned [and I would add rich] they think the are wise and they hearken not unto the commandments of God."

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Yes.  I have been on this board for 20 years, and regularly read what "those outside Mormonism" have to say about how they "view Mormonism."

The people you have interacted with on this board really are not representative of what I meant by outside Mormonism. Most, if not all, have familiarity with the church much more than the average Joe. 

I agree.  Some in our crop of critics exhibit disproportionate levels of antagonism, hostility and prejudice toward us.  So these folks' views may well reflect something of a sampling error in that they present a more extreme, more ugly, more unfair perspective on "view{ing} Mormonism," and are therefore not representative of how run-of-the-mill normal people view us.

These days I think the more virulently hostile elements of anti-mormonism no longer originate in Evangelical Christianity, and instead arise in and amongst former Latter-day Saints, many (most?) of whom have, in leaving the Church, also left behind religion (organized religion, at least) altogether.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So based on your comment I don't think you have had much interaction with non LDS persons and what they think about Mormonism.

My comment was by way of example.  Anti-Mormons are the only people I have encountered who freely characterize the Latter-day Saints as bigots, ignorant dupes, malevolently dishonest, etc.  Most normal people who disagree with a religion tend not to go out of their way to publicly disparage it.  This gets skewed here, where critiques of our faith are, in a sense, invited.

I think most people who "view Mormonism" tend to do so in a primarily abstract sort of way.  They don't know much about us, and so may be a bit put off by the unique aspects of our beliefs.  And yet they typically end up adopting something of a "results oriented" approach to evaluating us.  Active Latter-day Saints collectively earn and enjoy a pretty good reputation in the broader community, and much of that is attributed - albeit sometimes grudgingly - to their observance of the tenets of the faith: clean living, focus on the family, hard work, education, service, etc.  The particular oddities unique to our faith - belief in modern prophets, an open canon, etc. - just don't seem to matter as much when the results are there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some in our crop of critics exhibit disproportionate levels of antagonism, hostility and prejudice toward us.

If you think this board has ugly, more extreme critics, I am shocked.  I have heard more extreme insults about the church that they were tossing out for fun when I was in high school than on here.  There are a few extreme antimormons that show up here, but they only last as long as the mods aren’t here.

Reddit’s exmormon forum is soooo much nastier.

Edited July 18, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Credentialism doesn't do much for me.

Umm really? Were you not just complaining that Hassan had not been an expert witness and thus downplayed his expertise?  Isn't that a credential? 

No.  "Credentialism" is "belief in or reliance on academic or other formal qualifications as the best measure of a person's intelligence or ability to do a particular job."  It is associated with the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Hassan has a PhD.  Big whoop.  

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

What does do something for you?

Being qualified as an expert witness is, in my view, a pretty good indicator of actual competence and expertise.

Some empirical results would also be good, particularly given the highly subjective nature of the enterprise (designating a group as a "cult").  AFAICS, all Hassan ever points to is anecdotal (and mostly anonymous) "endorsements."

Here's a supposed example of Hassan's prowess with applying diagnostic criteria:

Quote

Regarding Mormonism, Steve has an article on his blog entitled "An Expert Responds to the Cult Controversy re: Mormonism - 12/12/2011 - by Steve Hassan". Steve does not flat-out call Mormonism a cult. He leaves that judgment to the individual to decide. Steve uses the BITE (behavior; information; thoughts; emotions) model when he applies it to organizations that have attributes of cults. An ex-mormon applied the BITE model to Mormonism and posted the results here

Steve Hassan was invited to speak at an ex-Mormon conference in 2008 and gave his perspective being a former Moonie and now a cult expert. Here is the youtube video of Steve's presentation. I personally attended the presentation and very much enjoyed it. I do remember someone asking at the end if he thought Mormonism was a cult. Steve did not reply with a yes or no but said, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck—it's a duck".

So he's both evasive ("Steve does not flat-out call Mormonism a cult"), and insinuating ("If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck—it's a duck").  

Empirical, clinical analysis, thy name is Hassan.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Some in our crop of critics exhibit disproportionate levels of antagonism, hostility and prejudice toward us.

If you think this board has ugly, more extreme critics, I am shocked.  

As compared to the Average Joe?  Yes.  As compared to the dregs on Reddit, Exmormon.org, etc.?  No.

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have heard more extreme insults about the church that they were tossing out for fun when I was in high school than on here.  There are a few extreme antimormons that show up here, but they only last as long as the mods aren’t here.

Reddit’s exmormon forum is soooo much nastier.

I agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

2 Nephi 9

"When they are learned [and I would add rich] they think the are wise and they hearken not unto the commandments of God."

Man made "scripture' does not worry me much.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Man made "scripture' does not worry me much.

You've made yourself clear many times...

"Scriptures" are just an invention by religious leaders to bind people down to a belief that they might offend some unknown being in order to keep them under control- and "prophecy" is a bunch of bunk because no one can know the future.

I get it.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  Some in our crop of critics exhibit disproportionate levels of antagonism, hostility and prejudice toward us.  So these folks' views may well reflect something of a sampling error in that they present a more extreme, more ugly, more unfair perspective on "view{ing} Mormonism," and are therefore not representative of how run-of-the-mill normal people view us.

Oh good lord.  Your hyperbole is over top with your extreme persecution complex. But sure, you are all so very picked on and poorly treated on this obscure little message board that you voluntarily participate in. 🙄  Maybe you should take the beam out of your own eye a bit. On this very thread it seems to me that your treatment and comments towards @Analyticsas well as your misrepresentation of his argument is as bad or worse as you claim his is of you.

 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

These days I think the more virulently hostile elements of anti-mormonism no longer originate in Evangelical Christianity, and instead arise in and amongst former Latter-day Saints, many (most?) of whom have, in leaving the Church, also left behind religion (organized religion, at least) altogether.

Yes I think secular disaffected Latter-day Saint pose the greatest threat to the church. And they are much more successful IMO.

 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

My comment was by way of example.  Anti-Mormons are the only people I have encountered who freely characterize the Latter-day Saints as bigots, ignorant dupes, malevolently dishonest, etc.  Most normal people who disagree with a religion tend not to go out of their way to publicly disparage it.  This gets skewed here, where critiques of our faith are, in a sense, invited.

Yes. This is after all a discussion board. Most non LDS people I know don't really think or care much about the church.  But when they do consider it they think the Mormon people are very nice and wonderful people but that their religion is damn weird and cult like.  Of course this is just anectdotal.

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think most people who "view Mormonism" tend to do so in a primarily abstract sort of way.  They don't know much about us, and so may be a bit put off by the unique aspects of our beliefs.  And yet they typically end up adopting something of a "results oriented" approach to evaluating us.  Active Latter-day Saints collectively earn and enjoy a pretty good reputation in the broader community, and much of that is attributed - albeit sometimes grudgingly - to their observance of the tenets of the faith: clean living, focus on the family, hard work, education, service, etc.  The particular oddities unique to our faith - belief in modern prophets, an open canon, etc. - just don't seem to matter as much when the results are there.

Thanks,

-Smac

i would not disagree other than my point above about the weirdness and cultish feel of Mormonism to them.

[Teancum]

33 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

You've made yourself clear many times...

"Scriptures" are just an invention by religious leaders to bind people down to a belief that they might offend some unknown being in order to keep them under control- and "prophecy" is a bunch of bunk because no one can know the future.

I get it.

Perfect. Now internalize it.  Free yourself from false myths and superstitions. Really my snarly remark is just the only way to interact with your attempt at one liners that add nothing to the discussion.  If you want to discuss then discuss. 

[Teancum]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  "Credentialism" is "belief in or reliance on academic or other formal qualifications as the best measure of a person's intelligence or ability to do a particular job."  It is associated with the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy.

Hassan has a PhD.  Big whoop.  

Being qualified as an expert witness is, in my view, a pretty good indicator of actual competence and expertise.

Some empirical results would also be good, particularly given the highly subjective nature of the enterprise (designating a group as a "cult").  AFAICS, all Hassan ever points to is anecdotal (and mostly anonymous) "endorsements."

Here's a supposed example of Hassan's prowess with applying diagnostic criteria:

So he's both evasive ("Steve does not flat-out call Mormonism a cult"), and insinuating ("If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck—it's a duck").  

Empirical, clinical analysis, thy name is Hassan.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Again what have you read by Hassan?  And what objective and empirical data sets can be used to evaluate the cult like tendencies of an organization?

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

So he's both evasive ("Steve does not flat-out call Mormonism a cult"), and insinuating ("If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck—it's a duck").  

Empirical, clinical analysis, thy name is Hassan.

I don’t think he is being evasive. I think he is being circumspect about something that is irrelevant to his actual point. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to think the BITE model is a way to determine whether or not a group is a “cult.” That isn’t the purpose of the BITE model. Rather, its purpose is a way to help people understand how manipulation works and start thinking about whether they or somebody they care about is being manipulated.

The reason I brought this up in the first place wasn’t to label your church a “cult.” The reason I brought this up was to help you understand what Reynolds meant when he said he didn’t want his kids to be manipulated. From your original response, it was clear you didn’t understand what the difference is between healthy influence and unhealthy manipulation. I brought up the BITE model to help you understand that difference.

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Perfect. Now internalize it.  Free yourself from false myths and superstitions. Really my snarly remark is just the only way to interact with your attempt at one liners that add nothing to the discussion.  If you want to discuss then discuss. 

Your argument is that more educated (learned), more developed (richer) countries see through the "lies" of the Church and that once less educated, less developed (poorer) countries have access to more information (learning) they will do the same... I think the verse I quoted fits perfectly.

Is the fact that Alma 30 has been my "Come, Follow Me" reading the last couple of days ironic or what?

[Analytics]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And what objective and empirical data sets can be used to evaluate the cult like tendencies of an organization?

Another possibility of how to evaluate whether a group is exercising undue influence on its group is the “MIND” model that Dr. Cathleen Mann developed:

 M:  Manipulation.  These are techniques used by cults to ensure compliance by using undue influence.  The definition of undue influence has been recognized in common law for 500 years and is a legal definition, not a psychological one.  Manipulation can consist of a variety of factors including those put forth by Cialdini (1984 ).   Manipulation also involves several other elements such as: impression management; lying about facts and history; assuring conformity to a teaching without question (Lifton, 1961); betraying of confidences; denying reality; and changes to diet, sleeping patterns, and overactivity (Schein, 1961).  Hypnosis or other artificial techniques are not necessary when ordinary techniques such as those mentioned above are more than adequate.  The confirmation of manipulation occurs when ordinary cult members are successful in activity to convert others (Kent, 2001).

I:  Indoctrination.  This is a process of deliberate changes to a person’s environment without consent, knowledge, or awareness (Zablocki, 2001).  Indoctrination does not include personality change, only attitudinal and behavior change.  The changes are not permanent and dissipate when the process of indoctrination ceases (Lifton, 1961; Gallanter,1999). There is no research support for “snapping,” “precult/postcult identities,” or “sudden personality changes.” Personality is a fixed, permanent variable; only behavior changes.  Indoctrination begins with recruitment, binding an individual to the group through ritual and secrets, creating a sense of specialness, and replicating family bonds (Lifton, 1961; Satir, 1964), perverting social controls such as innate prosocial attitudes such as respect for authority and fear of negative consequences, among others (Bowbly, 1998; Shermer, 1997; Kent, 2005).

N: Negation.  A process of devaluing the individual and their past through sustained criticism often labeled as feedback or disengagement.  All successful cults downplay the ego and consider it the ultimate enemy (Langone, 1986). Other forms of negation include triangulation (Satir, 1964), the silent treatment, lack of or inconsistent reinforcement, rejection, questioning of motives, etc.  Any cult failures are the result of improper group dynamics (Festinger, 1956; Kent, 2001; Ofshe, 1992).

😧 Deception.  Lack of informed consent (Routh, 1994). Successful cults use deception in a wide variety of forms.  Without deception, no one would affiliate or stay. Termed the true hallmark of a cult, deception prevents critical thinking and good decision making (Layton, 1998). Deception is not prevented by intelligence or rational thought, but is maintained by emotions, fear, and isolation. It is a temporary betrayal of self (Lifton, 1993) without awareness of the reasons driving it.  Deception occurs in a pyramid fashion where those above know more than those below, and leaders at the top restrict knowledge through the use of loyalty tests to climb higher in the pyramid. Deception is also detailed in the article by Langone, where he shows with great clarity, the interplay of the three D’s: deception, dependence, and dread. This is more accurate than the sensationalized term, “phobia indoctrination,” which does not capture the process of leaving a cult.

It is encouraged to teach,  and link to the MIND model everywhere, just give proper citations to Dr. Cathleen Mann and if possible a link to me at cultscults.com  If you can’t do both then give credits to Dr. Mann for her research.

I’d be curious about whether @smac97 thinks his religion fairs any better under the MIND model than the BITE model.

[california boy]

15 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

2 Nephi 9

"When they are learned [and I would add rich] they think the are wise and they hearken not unto the commandments of God."

 

55 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Your argument is that more educated (learned), more developed (richer) countries see through the "lies" of the Church and that once less educated, less developed (poorer) countries have access to more information (learning) they will do the same... I think the verse I quoted fits perfectly.

Is the fact that Alma 30 has been my "Come, Follow Me" reading the last couple of days ironic or what?

I am a bit confused.  Are you really arguing that it is better for people to be ignorant than educated?  

[MustardSeed]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

I am a bit confused.  Are you really arguing that it is better for people to be ignorant than educated?  

This has always concerned me- the caution against being “learned men”- 

(Editing to eliminate identifying info)- 

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2024 by MustardSeed

[ZealouslyStriving]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

I am a bit confused.  Are you really arguing that it is better for people to be ignorant than educated?  

When a people increases in worldly knowledge there is a greater chance of pride and arrogance, which is why the scripture says that to be learned is good, if there is a hearkening unto the commandments of God.

But as we know by the very successful, faithful Latter-day Saints throughout the world- just because one has acquired much learning, and wealth, that doesn't mean they will walk away- which was the argument being made- that only ignorant people accept the claims of the Restoration.

[JVW]

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Another possibility of how to evaluate whether a group is exercising undue influence on its group is the “MIND” model that Dr. Cathleen Mann developed:

 M:  Manipulation.  These are techniques used by cults to ensure compliance by using undue influence.  The definition of undue influence has been recognized in common law for 500 years and is a legal definition, not a psychological one. 

I know you asked smac, but I'd like to take a stab at it if that's alright with you.

"Undue influence is typically perpetrated by a person who is trusted by the victim and is dependent on them for emotional and physical needs. Perpetrators of UI operate in shadow, enacting their manipulation behind closed doors where there are no witnesses. A person being unduly influenced may become withdrawn, depressive and passive... The effectiveness of cult tactics (e.g. love bombing) on young and healthy individuals illustrates that anyone, regardless of mental status, is a potential victim of UI under certain circumstances... Love bombing is an attempt to influence a person by demonstrations of attention and affection. It has been described as psychological manipulation in order to create a feeling of unity within a group against a society perceived as hostile."

My church preaches that one must become entirely reliant on Jesus Christ in order to experience true peace and joy. If you don't believe me I could spend an hour gathering 10 quotes from every canonized work, church president, and every apostle who's ever lived to prove my point. If one is dependent on the prophet for their emotional and physical needs then there is a problem. It's like how people were dependent on Fauci during covid for their emotional and physical needs. I do know people who have told me they depend on the prophet. So yes, I know people who act as if they are in a cult. I don't believe that the church doctrine encourages this behavior, but I do believe that some cultures do.

I don't see the "operate in shadow", "behind closed doors", "no witnesses" thing in my church. I also don't see the "withdrawn, depressive and passive" behavior in the average church member.

The reason I noticed the love bombing is because it surprised me. The description of love bombing perfectly fits every experience I've had attending non-denominational Christian churches. As far as my church goes, on my mission I'd try to find friends for investigators b/c going to my church is like learning a new language and it's nice to have a buddy. My mom, who is a lifelong member, complains about how nobody has reached out to her in 7 years at her ward in CA, and the rare occasions in which she attends nobody will take the initiative to meet her. So no love bombing there.

16 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Manipulation can consist of a variety of factors including those put forth by Cialdini (1984 ).   Manipulation also involves several other elements such as: impression management; lying about facts and history; assuring conformity to a teaching without question (Lifton, 1961); betraying of confidences; denying reality; and changes to diet, sleeping patterns, and overactivity (Schein, 1961). 

"impression management" (idk what this is). "Lying about facts and history": Different prophets have approached church history in different ways. Since the church I'm participating in is today's church, I will not be spending much time on the past. The discussion hasn't been "did the church used to be a cult and isn't anymore?" it's "is the church currently a cult?". The current prophet's attitude to church history is to get it all out there. There's been a lot of investment into publishing church history and acknowledging it under president Nelson's leadership. "assuring conformity to a teaching without question": I can kind of see this. I will not argue against someone who believes this to be the case. I personally don't conform without question, but I regard myself as somewhat rare in this area. I do see this clearly in some scientific fields like evolution, climate change, and big pharma. "safe and effective" slogans have been used for over a century, and "the science is settled" is a phrase I've heard a lot to assure conformity to a teaching without question. "betraying of confidences": no. "denying reality": I don't think so? "changes to blah blah blah": no.

I guess I'm going to stop at M. This is super fun to dive into, but it's very time consuming too and I need to do some work. If I get some time I'll check out "I" next and have some more fun learning about cult stuff. By the way, I agree with the 3-4 out of 10 on the cult scale various people have tossed out earlier in the thread. However, I don't think there's any organization or belief or science system that is a 0 on the scale. Everything can draw out cult-like behavior from the people that participate in it. I also think that anything under a 7 shouldn't be identified as a cult, because to get to a 7 or higher the leadership has to really try hard. So they know it's a cult and are doing it on purpose, there are no accidental 7+ cult organizations.