FairMormon's "Most of"

[Hagoth]

The latest FairMormon newsletter is all about the massive audience they reached in 2018.

Their most watched video was Dan Petersen's dismissal of the CES letter (I haven't watched it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJgO42sdYK0&t=9s

This video, which is a little over an hour long, racked up a whopping 3917 hours watched. How many times do you think the CES letter was read in 2018? I'm not sure the More Good Foundation is getting such a great return on their investment.

[jfro18]

I don't think I can bring myself to watch that video - there's just so many dishonest writings from Dan Peterson to sit through an hour long video.

3917 hours is not a small amount for a year, but to your point for a site like FAIR I would think that's not great considering how wide the CES Letter has gotten.

3,900 views is effectively 10 views a day and we have no idea how many are unique views vs people rewatching. I wonder how many downloads the CES Letter is getting per day, and it takes over an hour to get through it.

[Palerider]

The latest FairMormon newsletter is all about the massive audience they reached in 2018.

Their most watched video was Dan Petersen's dismissal of the CES letter (I haven't watched it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJgO42sdYK0&t=9s

This video, which is a little over an hour long, racked up a whopping 3917 hours watched. How many times do you think the CES letter was read in 2018? I'm not sure the More Good Foundation is getting such a great return on their investment.

Just because they're watching it, doesn't mean they're believing it either.

My son did the Fairmormon thing for quite awhile until he realized they weren't really answering the questions. Just throwing up as big of a smoke screen as possible.

Those numbers also tell me that the amount of members looking for answers is increasing, when if things were going well in the church, they would be decreasing.

If Fairmormon were honest they would realize there may be a good percentage of the membership who aren't buying into Dan's crap.

[StarbucksMom]

I cannot tolerate Dan Peterson, he is honestly repulsive to me.
I think it’s telling that his video has 285 likes and 143 dislikes. (may or may not include my own vote.)
Like others said, 10 people watching a day is really pathetic compared to the CES Letter’s views.

[Hagoth]

Just because they're watching it, doesn't mean they're believing it either.

Too bad there's no way to determine how many of those views are ex/postMos/NOMs/crtics, or just curious outsider eye-rollers.

[jfro18]

Just because they're watching it, doesn't mean they're believing it either.

Too bad there's no way to determine how many of those views are ex/postMos/NOMs/crtics, or just curious outsider eye-rollers.

That's just it -- now only can we not know what percentage are in each group, but we don't know how they're coming across the video, how long they're sticking with it, etc.

I've done some YouTube videos with my kid and they give some great analytics - how long they stick with the video, repeat views, unique views, etc. In addition, we don't know if FAIR was using paid ads for that video on social media, etc... that's not to diminish the # of views, but it's important to assessing the impact of those #s.

Just to make the point - I run a small business and we do ads on Facebook sometimes for it. When you do those ads you see a huge influx of people visiting the site, but it doesn't lead to many conversions. And those ads are super targeted to the audience most likely to buy. Put another way, I could show a TON of views for that website but it doesn't necessarily mean anyone is buying the product and certainly doesn't mean those with doubts are walking away feeling better about those doubts.

I just don't think that's nearly as great as they want people to think, although if you're a believer glossing through you'd probably see that and think "Wow we're winning the war."

[Corsair]

It's funny to listen to FairMormon on several levels. First, I can only imagine the agony of trying to remove "Mormon" from their name. I'm sure that the rebranding will be like watching Dan Peterson and Kerry Muhlestein run a three legged race.

It's additionally amusing to see how apologists say things that they know will get them in trouble in far too many Gospel Doctrine classes in your average ward. This is dismissed by noting that the details of Joseph's polygamy are simply not important when talking about the doctrinal teachings of Joseph Smith. This is nutty on it's face, but the last class I attended talking about D&C 132 was hilariously dismissive of plural marriage. "Today we are discussing D&C 132. We will not be talking about plural marriage. It was simply a complicated time." The rest of the hour was taken up talking about how successful marriages should work. This was an amazing irony.

LDS apologetics are not for the mass of weekly attending Mormons. Apologetics is only for those Mormons foolish enough to wander into uncorrelated questions about early LDS history. The Gospel Topic essays continue to be largely unknown in the church even as apologists lament this strange condition. But, the LDS church does not want these things to be known, really.

[jfro18]

LDS apologetics are not for the mass of weekly attending Mormons. Apologetics is only for those Mormons foolish enough to wander into uncorrelated questions about early LDS history. The Gospel Topic essays continue to be largely unknown in the church even as apologists lament this strange condition. But, the LDS church does not want these things to be known, really.

And this gets to the heart of the whole "Is the church purposefully trying to keep members in the dark argument."

If you listen to the first part of Bill Reel's discussions with Jim Bennett (who wrote a 370+ page response to the CES Letter), you'll hear Bennett say that the church has never been actively dishonest but just doesn't like talking about embarrassing areas.

And I get why that's the argument you have to make, because there's really nothing between that and actively trying to hide damaging issues. He brought up the essays and Saints to show the church is being more full and honest now, but neglects that those things only happened due to people finding the info so easily now and having no answers.

This is a church that has no foresight whatsoever as to what is happening, and they are always reacting to problems. All the while they want members to believe that they are receiving revelation from God... it just doesn't work. Either they have no more revelation than you and I do, or God really sucks at this.

[RubinHighlander]

Instead of addressing the issues raised in the CES letter directly, he spends a significant amount of time and effort in weaving in little appologetic metaphors and examples that try to discredit the author and anyone who believed it or believed things like it. So much BS at the beginning of his talk. Interesting he used the evolutionist creationist story. He sets up an exit strategy to any of the issues with debate examples of being backed into the corner of "I don't know." Again, he's setting his own stage for his play of appologetics. All of that deliberating....ug! In my mind I just kept begging him to get to a point! Then finally he talks about DNA and the BOM...

This was one of my shelf issues - the introduction change in the BOM on the ancestry of the Nephites and Lamanites, made in reaction to DNA evidence. Dan says he knows a secret back story about that change and says that some church leadership folks back in Late 1970's early 80's didn't want that "primary ancestors" thing in the BOM, but that they were over ruled. First of all, this is a crappy story because it reveals nothing about who the people were that wanted it out and who overruled them to keep it in. Second, how does the cogdis of these unknown people who wanted it out in the 70's give the COB a pass on the actual truth claim of the BOM? He goes on to say the BOM never makes that claim directly in it's contents, but I'd argue that it does indeed make that claim. I could give many examples from the pages of the BOM that support that claim. Not too mention JS himself making that claim, which is why that introductory paragraph got in there in the first place!

Damn that makes me mad! What a pathetic apologetic DB! I guess if was actually there to ask him directly to address the actual issues he'd just brush me off and say "I don't know." because he gave himself that out in his introduction. It's at this point in the video I could not listen to this man anymore as he moved right on to the next CES issues on anachronisms. He never answered the damn issue on the DNA evidence he just talked a bunch of half BS around it. I'm sure the rest of his talk was the same for each of the issues.

[Hagoth]

I can only imagine the agony of trying to remove "Mormon" from their name.

The Apologists on Temple Square?

[Hagoth]

If you listen to the first part of Bill Reel's discussions with Jim Bennett (who wrote a 370+ page response to the CES Letter), you'll hear Bennett say that the church has never been actively dishonest but just doesn't like talking about embarrassing areas.

I guess dishonest, like translate, is a word that carries multiple definitions. I could give you several example of dishonesty in the BoA essay.

[jfro18]

If you listen to the first part of Bill Reel's discussions with Jim Bennett (who wrote a 370+ page response to the CES Letter), you'll hear Bennett say that the church has never been actively dishonest but just doesn't like talking about embarrassing areas.

I guess dishonest, like translate, is a word that carries multiple definitions. I could give you several example of dishonesty in the BoA essay.

Agree 100%... when he talked about Saints being a giant leap forward I wanted to scream since I've noted a lot of areas where they use thinly sourced info, ignore more sturdy info, and so on and so on.

The church is not being honest in any objective way, but merely crafting a new version of "their truth."

[Reuben]

Agree 100%... when he talked about Saints being a giant leap forward I wanted to scream since I've noted a lot of areas where they use thinly sourced info, ignore more sturdy info, and so on and so on.

The church is not being honest in any objective way, but merely crafting a new version of "their truth."

So you're saying that propaganda and spin are dishonest.

On an unrelated note, have I ever told you that I'm worth at most $2 billion? Also, every doctor that has tried my herbal supplement said that it caused every penguin they hatched to be super intelligent.

[Corsair]

I can only imagine the agony of trying to remove "Mormon" from their name.

The Apologists on Temple Square?

Technically, a name like "Apologists on Temple Square" is preferable to the name branding injunctions from Russell Nelson. Bill Reel released his commentary on Jeff Holland chewing out FairMormon and the Maxwell Institute for this naming problem. This is additionally overshadowed by wanting the Maxwell Institute to be slightly less scholarly and slightly more (no, a lot more) apologetic.

[Corsair]

And I get why that's the argument you have to make, because there's really nothing between that and actively trying to hide damaging issues. He brought up the essays and Saints to show the church is being more full and honest now, but neglects that those things only happened due to people finding the info so easily now and having no answers.

I asked my bishop two years ago if he had heard of the Gospel Topic Essays and he had no clue about them. My stake president did know about the essays and it was refreshing to hear him acknowledge them. It makes me a bit confused why Stake President has not introduced his bishops to the essays. I'm sure he has his reasons, but I suspect I would disagree.

That particular bishop from two years ago has since been honorably released and I do with him well. I will have to ask my new bishop about the essays. He's a good man and a kind bishop and he works in a technical field that required lots of study. He's a smart guy, but I'm not optimistic that he will have heard about the essays.