Article Re Dan Reynolds

[Rain]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I think this was an inappropriate framing as being very busy has nothing to do with trying to limit time to think since we are encouraged to take time to study daily, etc.

Overstatement imo.  Most archives (likely all of larger size) have tracking inventory issues, limit access to many, even scholars in some cases depending on conditions imposed by those who donate material, etc.  You made it sound like all this information is secret and completely restricted except to top leaders and that the purpose of the vault is to hide such rather than protect records of all sorts, restricted and not.

“Ultra secret”?

This is taught to new members in the first opening paragraphs of Gospel Fundamentals as in he is a man with a perfect, immortal body.  And it is explicit in the last part of the manual he was a human being on an earth at one time, “same as we do”. (pg 204)

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/31129_eng.pdf

Similar info is in the general basic manual for new and old members, Gospel Principles.

Gospel Fundamentals hasn't been used in a long time.  Looks like it was last printed in 2002.  There is no longer a Gospel Principles (last printed in 2011?) class.  New members now use Come Follow Me if they have a new member class. 

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

Gospel Fundamentals hasn't been used in a long time.  Looks like it was last printed in 2002.  There is no longer a Gospel Principles (last printed in 2011?) class.  New members now use Come Follow Me if they have a new member class. 

His commentary was from that time (2005), so it works as a critique of his then comments.  I suspect if he did it again today, he would change some of his answers as policies and emphasis have changed (a temple marriage is still excluded, but they can now be married first, but I responded in disagreement when I did based on how it was in 2005 rather than today).

Edited July 17 by Calm

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

This was meant to be just the missionary program and not general membership, correct?  The title is in error?  It however reads as applying to general in quite a few answers, so I am confused.

There should be two links--the first link has my answers for the church as a whole, and the second has my answers for the missionary program.

In any case, thank your for actually addressing this. If I may make a few points:

1- The purpose of this is to help evaluate how much undue influence (i.e. manipulation) is happening. Is information being withheld? Is the system exerting psychological and sociological pressure in a problematic way?

2-  My answers weren’t intended to paint a full picture of what the Church teaches or what members believe. Rather, they were intended to show the extent, if any, to which manipulation is happening.

3- The purpose of the answers isn’t to determine whether the church is guilty or innocent on each point in a black-or-white way. Rather, they are provided as something to think about.

4- If you are going to use this to judge me on how much I can be trusted to accurately represent the Church, please judge me on the curve and remember Smac was saying things like how on his mission, "What I did all day, every day was purely a matter of choice,” as if there are no such thing as mission rules. Who is looking at this honestly, really?

 

 

 

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I read both.  Since the questions posed call for opinions regarding subjective topics, and not objective facts, your opinions are just that.   I understand that the responses were given for a narrow purpose and wouldn’t say anyone reading the responses would glean much of an understanding of the Church.  When you used quotes from Church leaders you generally didn’t try to characterize the quotes, which is good, but using a single quote on any topic gives a narrow snapshot rather than a rounded, nuanced overview of the topic.

The responses also lack context that would be helpful…something like (if the responses were given today), the Church has over 14 million members, over half of whom live outside of North America.  Local congregations are led by lay leaders who are changed at regular intervals.  The following responses reflect my experience within the Church as well as my understanding of generally held beliefs and opinions of other members with whom I am familiar.  Each individual’s experience in the Church is unique.

Such context would have mitigated the problem with a number of the responses such as this one:

Missionary life is often characterized by a few bursts of inspiration and success surrounded by months and months of drudgery.     

I’ve spent 3 1/2 years in the mission field and wouldn’t characterize any of that time as drudgery.  Additionally, if your answer describes your mission experience, I’d be interested in hearing about your “bursts of inspiration.”

Also, I noted that you responded to a number of the questions with “depends on the individual.”  I think that response would have been the best one for many of the topics.  

Best regards.
 

 

On the highlighted line, I qualified the “drudgery” observation with the word “often.” I think that is accurate. But every mission experience is unique, and I’m glad yours was a good one.

I’d be glad to tell you about a few bursts of inspiration and success that I had as a missionary, but is the point of this to provide an honest description and evaluation of what the entire experience was like, or is it to capture a highlight real that we can then pretend is representative? 

Edited July 17 by Analytics

[Teancum]

On 7/9/2024 at 10:11 PM, smac97 said:

That's not a bug, but a feature of Hassan's reasoning.  It's malleable.  People like Roger can arbitrarily apply it, or not apply it, at their preference.  And Roger can then declare that this arbitrary application is authoritative and helpful because a (self-designated) "cult expert" came up with its (notably vague, overgeneralized, subjective, value-judgment-laden) parameters.

And who can argue with Steve Hassan?  The man is credentialed!  He has an undergrad in poetry and a Ph.D in Organizational Development and Change!  And he's a former Moonie!

These days, Hassan is plying his self-described "cult expert" trade to . . . politics (I'll give you three guesses which notably orange political figure has been in his crosshairs).  Doing so requires Hassan to utilize, as this article puts it, "expansive definition of cult" and his "scientifically debated terms like brainwashing."

Wow you really have it out for Hassan. How come?  Did he attack you or the Church is some vicious way?

[Teancum]

On 7/9/2024 at 10:11 PM, smac97 said:

And who can argue with Steve Hassan?  The man is credentialed!  He has an undergrad in poetry and a Ph.D in Organizational Development and Change!  And he's a former Moonie!

Hassan is far more qualified then you are leading your readers to believe:

Quote

 

Dr. Hassan holds a Master’s Degree in Counseling Psychology from Cambridge College and a Doctorate in Organizational Development and Change from Fielding Graduate University School of Leadership Studies. He is a member of the Program in Psychiatry and the Law at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Hassan is an experienced educator, having served as an instructor for the Harvard Law School Trial Advocacy Workshop, as a presenter in the course Spirituality, Religion and Psychiatry in the Harvard Longwood Psychiatry Residency Training Program, as a repeat presenter of Harvard Longwood Psychiatry Grand Rounds, and in other educational and training capacities for higher education, professional, law enforcement, governmental, non-governmental and advocacy group audiences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/contributors/steven-a-hassan-phd

 

Did you miss this or ignore it because it does not meet your ad hominem attack of him?

[Teancum]

On 7/9/2024 at 10:11 PM, smac97 said:

Not only has Mr. Hassan failed to persuade a single judge in the United States of his supposed expertise, he apparently can't even find a publisher willing to go along with the idea.

One need not have been an expert witness in a court of law to be an expert on something. I am an expert on tax law and specialize in international tax law.  I have never testified in court on the subject but am none the less, an expert.

[smac97]

Just now, Teancum said:

Hassan is far more qualified then you are leading your readers to believe:

"Qualified" to do what?  Arbitrate which groups and organizations are legitimate, and which are "cults"?

Just now, Teancum said:

Did you miss this or ignore it because it does not meet your ad hominem attack of him?

I have criticized Hassan's methods and rhetoric, not Hassan as a person.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

There should be two links--the first link has my answers for the church as a whole, and the second has my answers for the missionary program.

In any case, thank your for actually addressing this. If I may make a few points:

1- The purpose of this is to help evaluate how much undue influence (i.e. manipulation) is happening. Is information being withheld? Is the system exerting psychological and sociological pressure in a problematic way?

2-  My answers weren’t intended to paint a full picture of what the Church teaches or what members believe. Rather, they were intended to show the extent, if any, to which manipulation is happening.

3- The purpose of the answers isn’t to determine whether the church is guilty or innocent on each point in a black-or-white way. Rather, they are provided as something to think about.

4- If you are going to use this to judge me on how much I can be trusted to accurately represent the Church, please judge me on the curve and remember Smac was saying things like how on his mission, "What I did all day, every day was purely a matter of choice,” as if there are no such thing as mission rules. Who is looking at this honestly, really?

Of course to all four comments.  I took the commentary those ways.  The problem with number two is in a few cases since you weren’t clear about the extent, it could give the impression a certain policy was typical of global behaviour rather than an exception or uncommon and imo in a few cases your comment implied the intent was to manipulate when the probability is it was not. 

I don’t have a problem with how Smac views his experience on his mission as what he did was his choice.  I believe that is a proactive and usually healthy and realistic way to view one’s life, to see one’s focus on control as internal and not external***….as long as one is consciously examining one’s life and actually making those choices with awareness and not just operating on autopilot or even consciously making those choices, but without examination or evaluation of whether or not one should choose that way.

It is also understandable that many would label a lifestyle with a lot of rules and where the day is mapped out in many ways by others as highly externally controlled especially if their typical POV has them placing their locus of control as external even if it’s the individual’s choice to accept that control and even if the level of enforcement is mostly emotional or social pressure (and therefore highly dependent on the individual’s personality and personal circumstances for effectiveness as in whether or not their family will have a strong negative reaction if they come home early or would be the type to want to hop on a plane themselves to bring them home as soon as they know their child is suffering) and limited physical control (I see placing someone in unfamiliar physical surroundings as a level of physical control, what amount of such control depends on their ability to access other resources to change their physical experience and in some cases that could be quite high, especially in the past, but even now if the MP holds onto the passports…which is wise imo, but may be constructed in some missionary’s mind as trapping them in that location even if the MP has no problem with turning it over when asked and has been clear about that as some have difficulty engaging with authority at all).

BTW, I checked out the BITE model a long time ago and wasn’t impressed based on my psych background.  It is quite interesting to now learn the background of his initial exposure to Mormonism.  Do you know if he collected data from anyone else at that time or in the future?  I am curious as to how much effort and rigor he put into his examination of the Church.  If he posted that info based on one person’s ideas and someone he knew was a former member and therefore likely was biased against the Church even in a minimal way and did not reach out to others, including active members and nonmembers who were familiar with the Church for their perceptions it would reinforce my view that he is not that careful in his research to try and be objective and likely has a heavy bias built into the model if this was his typical method.

My review doesn’t change my perspective of you much, your level of bias back then seems consistent with your current one imo, which is you do not have extreme biases/perceptions of the Church, I would definitely include most of your opinions in the reasonable part of the spectrum of reactions with a few that veer into more skewed.  You do fall enough, imo, on the negative side of center (neutral) so I would want to confirm your descriptions with others just as I would want to confirm the perceptions of several faithful members that are on the board, including myself as we tend to have overly favorable responses in many ways.  You do have imo a blind spot to your own biases at times, not seeing how strong they are for some things.  That’s not unusual though. 

***https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/locus-of-control

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Not only has Mr. Hassan failed to persuade a single judge in the United States of his supposed expertise, he apparently can't even find a publisher willing to go along with the idea.

One need not have been an expert witness in a court of law to be an expert on something.

Broadly, yes.  But it sure is a good benchmark.  And it is one that Hassan would be trumpeting to the skies if he had ever managed to actually get qualified as an expert under a fairly impartial framework created in the Federal Rules of Evidence (and most state court equivalents based on the federal rules).

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

I am an expert on tax law and specialize in international tax law.  I have never testified in court on the subject but am none the less, an expert.

Hassan has not demonstrated "expertise" in arbitrating "cults."  To the contrary, his methods are pretty darn questionable.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 7/9/2024 at 10:52 PM, bluebell said:

I saw he was stating that MAGA is a cult.  That kind of watering down of the definition can't be good for his brand.

MAGA is a cult of personality. 😁

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Qualified" to do what?  Arbitrate which groups and organizations are legitimate, and which are "cults"?

I have criticized Hassan's methods and rhetoric, not Hassan as a person.

Thanks,

-Smac

You said he only had a degree in poetry which is totally false. You are attacking his allege4d lack of credentials which you ignored and still are ignoring.  You don't like him because he thinks Mormonism may be cult like.

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Broadly, yes.  But it sure is a good benchmark.

Baloney. There are myriads of experts on a variety of things that never set foot in court. I would guess that would be most experts in any given field.  A small % of an expert in a given filed ever end up as an expert witness.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 And it is one that Hassan would be trumpeting to the skies if he had ever managed to actually get qualified as an expert under a fairly impartial framework created in the Federal Rules of Evidence (and most state court equivalents based on the federal rules).

Would he? And so what if he did. Still not required to be considered an expert.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hassan has not demonstrated "expertise" in arbitrating "cults."  To the contrary, his methods are pretty darn questionable.

Thanks,

-Smac

I find his methods and books pretty accurate and spot on.

[ZealouslyStriving]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hassan is far more qualified then you are leading your readers to believe:

Did you miss this or ignore it because it does not meet your ad hominem attack of him?

https://www.ranker.com/list/ivy-league-killers/chase-christy

*Going to a fancy school/s doesn't automatically qualify you for greatness *

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Baloney. There are myriads of experts on a variety of things that never set foot in court.

I would guess that would be most experts in any given field.  A small % of an expert in a given filed ever end up as an expert witness.

I said getting qualified as an expert witness in court is a good benchmark.  I did not say it is the only benchmark.

31 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Would he? And so what if he did. Still not required to be considered an expert.

I find his methods and books pretty accurate and spot on.

I am not surprised.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://www.ranker.com/list/ivy-league-killers/chase-christy

*Going to a fancy school/s doesn't automatically qualify you for greatness *

Do you ever offer anything of substance?  The point is @smac97has posted a number of disparaging posts that attack Hassan's credentials. I responded that he actually it well credentialed and has more than a "degree in poetry" as Smac claimed. I did not say that made him great but he is certainly much more qualified than Smac makes him out to be.

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I said getting qualified as an expert witness in court is a good benchmark.  I did not say it is the only benchmark.

The implication is there and it is nonsense.

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not surprised.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course not.  Do you ever really wonder how those outside Mormonism view Mormonism?  As @Analyticsnoted, I have never read anything by him about Mormonism.  I heard him on a Dehlin podcast say he had not viewed Mormonism as a cult like religion in the past.  He seemed open to reconsidering it but I do not know where he ended up. I have read a few of his books. I think they are well written and informative.  Cult like methods, our mind control techniques can and are used by all sorts of groups.  Not just religion. Heck I did Amway for 6 years and was quite successful with it. But I find the approach to that business to be somewhat cult like working what our upline called "The Plan." political groups can be cult like. A lot of religions are as well. I agree with @Analyticsthat Mormonism probably is a three to four on a scale of one to ten on cult like mind control methods.  That offends you.  But I would not call it a full blown cult at least as far as modern Mormonism goes.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do you ever offer anything of substance?

Occasionally.

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The point is @smac97has posted a number of disparaging posts that attack Hassan's credentials. I responded that he actually it well credentialed and has more than a "degree in poetry" as Smac claimed. I did not say that made him great but he is certainly much more qualified than Smac makes him out to be.

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.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Do you ever offer anything of substance?  The point is @smac97has posted a number of disparaging posts that attack Hassan's credentials.

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.

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I responded that he actually it well credentialed

Yes, he has credentials.  

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

and has more than a "degree in poetry" as Smac claimed.

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

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I did not say that made him great but he is certainly much more qualified than Smac makes him out to be.

Qualified to do . . . what?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I said getting qualified as an expert witness in court is a good benchmark.  I did not say it is the only benchmark.

The implication is there and it is nonsense.

There is neither an express statement nor an implication.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Of course not.  Do you ever really wonder how those outside Mormonism view Mormonism? 

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."

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As @Analyticsnoted, I have never read anything by him about Mormonism. 

And yet, his methods are being touted as applicable to the Church.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I heard him on a Dehlin podcast say he had not viewed Mormonism as a cult like religion in the past. 

Strange, then, that Roger has trotted out Hassan, applied his BITE model to the Church, and concluded that "{i}t's as if the missionary experience was designed based on Hassan’s model for Cult Mind Control," and so on. 

Hassan says the Church is not a "cult like religion."   Roger is saying that - per Hasson's methods - that the Church exercises "cult mind control" over its members, so much so that if it stopped such "mind control," its "members would stop believing and the religion would cease to exist."

So who is right, Hassan or Roger?

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

He seemed open to reconsidering it but I do not know where he ended up.

Meanwhile, we know where Roger ended up by using Hassan's methods.

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

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I have read a few of his books. I think they are well written and informative.  Cult like methods, our mind control techniques can and are used by all sorts of groups.  Not just religion. Heck I did Amway for 6 years and was quite successful with it. But I find the approach to that business to be somewhat cult like working what our upline called "The Plan." political groups can be cult like. A lot of religions are as well. I agree with @Analyticsthat Mormonism probably is a three to four on a scale of one to ten on cult like mind control methods.  That offends you.  But I would not call it a full blown cult at least as far as modern Mormonism goes.

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"?  

Also, wouldn't be odd for the Church, if it were using "cult mind control" techniques so as to stave off the obliteration of the Church (which is Roger's supposition), that it would limit itself to level 3-4?  Wouldn't the Church ratchet its efforts up to 10 if its very existence were at stake?  

Are you are Roger just talking out of both sides of your mouth here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 17 by smac97

[Analytics]

7 minutes 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.

The BITE model isn’t about making a binary decision about whether or not a group should be labeled “a cult.” 

And it is very similar to Cathleen Mann’s MIND model. 

With both models, the point is to help you identify the extent to which a group is using things like Manipulation, Indoctrination, Negation, and Deception to exercise undue influence. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The implication is there and it is nonsense.

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.

[JVW]

Just a couple of cents I wanted to throw in the ring as I haven't read this perspective in the thread yet. I think there can be a distinction made between what the leaders of an organization do and how members of an organization behave.

As far as the leaders of the church are concerned, I would say that, generally speaking, the farther back you go in church history the more cult-like you could ascribe the leaders motives. On the one hand, Joseph Smith did not behave like a cult leader in any capacity (though I understand people could argue against my views here). I don't see his motive for starting a church/cult to be drugs, women, power, and/or money. A normal cult leader would have booked it when they knew they were going to be murdered. On the other hand, Brigham Young had like 60-80 wives (and children with like 20-30 of them) and said that the Lord would remove the prophet if he ever lead the church astray, implying that members could have total faith in the leader of their church. That can reasonably be considered to be in the realm of cult leadership behavior. The 15 brethren who currently run the church do not give me cult vibes in the slightest. Every once in awhile they bear testimony that President Nelson is God's prophet, but other than that they just preach about following Jesus Christ. I will also note here that today's church is a different church than it was pre-2018 and pre-1890. There is literally no aspect of the church that has not been touched and altered by president Nelson. I will also note that God has revealed to me that president Nelson is His chosen prophet today (and how to tell when Nelson is speaking on God's behalf, because he doesn't always), so yes, I have some bias here.

As far as members of the church go, there are many who act as if they are in a cult, they worship the prophet and view him as infallible. So I often tell people that the church is not a cult, but many members of the church behave as if they are in a cult. But that's largely a choice that members make based off of their own personal beliefs.

[smac97]

28 minutes 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.

Fair counsel.  I will give it due consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Fair counsel.  I will give it due consideration.

Thanks,

-Smac

I would so greatly appreciate it and I bet I am not the only one.

And if you try, even if others do not do the same at first (they may, here’s hoping, just saying worse case), they may eventually stop because what it looks like from here is you guys are mirroring each other, responding in kind.  If you stop, they may feel eventually there is no nothing gained by doing it.  Or the reverse if someone else stops first.