The podcast "Informed Saints" has an aspirational title, but the hosts continually misinform their audience because they are determined to promote specific agendas instead of enabling their audience to make informed decisions. This is the same approach used by anti-Mormons with great success, such as the Mormon Stories podcast and the film "The Godmakers."
I've been curious about where the hosts of "Informed Saints" learned this behavior.
Maybe they are simply mirroring Mormon Stories and other outcome-driven podcasts. After all, many other LDS podcasts, along with FAIRLDS, the Interpreter and the old Book of Mormon Central, have long employed this tactic, and young LDS scholars have been trained to think this way. I've observed several examples, including these:
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/joseph-smith-papers-awesome-except-for.html
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/p/the-sith-problem-1829-2024.html
https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2017/12/opening-heavens-but-censoring-history.html
This problem is not unique to LDS/anti-LDS culture. As a recent DesNews article (see below) explains, it is systemic.
The psychology of this outcome-driven content has been described as the "documentary effect."
Documentaries can put us in a cognitively vulnerable state, and like lambs to slaughter, we can be misled about what is true.
The Documentary Effect is what happens after watching a one-sided documentary (or book, article, podcast, etc). We get a comforting feeling of being informed about the subject, but this feeling is often a misplaced one and we may end up less informed than we were before - more on this later.
The Documentary Effect puts us into a state of overconfidence. Experts are testifying, producing indisputable facts left and right with premises leading to undeniable conclusions and it’s hard to imagine they could be wrong. It’s all too convincing.
It’s like that by design....
... you may have come across documentaries that give arguments against what they're trying to convince you of. They do this to build credibility. They’ll show an assertion from the other side, but this is usually followed up by why those assertions are wrong. They won’t show you the good objections, only ones they can make look foolish. As a layman on a foreign topic, it’s difficult to know a good or bad argument, let alone the facts. They are able to present a case for each side and we as the viewers have no way of knowing the strength of each of those arguments.
It takes mental effort to undo a belief in an initial set of ‘facts’. After hearing and accepting them, one becomes anchored to them as truth, anything that contradicts these facts is viewed as suspect and makes it harder for us to change our minds.
It should be obvious that any serious conversation, debate, exchange, etc., starts with the common ground of facts. That is why I advocate the FAITH model of analysis, which starts with Facts and then proceeds to Assumptions, Inferences, etc.
But the "Informed Saints" podcast, like Mormon Stories, the Godmakers, and similar content, reject this approach.
Rather than establish facts at the outset, they start with their Hypothesis and then employ theories, inferences, and assumptions to filter out facts that don't fit.
The recent podcast with Brant Gardner is a good example of how to employ the "documentary effect," including the use of "an assertion from the other side" which "they can make look foolish."
Brant is obviously convinced of his own M2C theory, which is fine. But it is also obvious that he doesn't want Latter-day Saints to know all the relevant historical facts. Instead, he advocates his own assumptions and inferences as facts, and his like-minded hosts and guests play along.
Consequently, viewers have no idea of the historical facts about Cumorah, nor of the logical and factual fallacies in Brant's presentation. The hosts and guests on "Informed Saints" not only do not invite representatives of other faithful interpretations, they don't even want their viewers to know about those faithful interpretations and the facts behind them.
Like Mormon Stories, Informed Saints leaves viewers convinced but uninformed.
_____
A recent DesNews article about civic dialogue offered insight into why intelligent, educated, and well-meaning LDS scholars might engage in these tactics. They've simply never learned the key skills. Either that, or they decline to use them.
A key quotation:
When 10% of the room has read the Federalist and the rest have not, the room is not really having a debate about federalism. It is staging an asymmetry: Some students are arguing from a tradition, while others are left to argue from fragments.
https://www.deseret.com/opinion/2026/05/28/after-25-years-has-america-forgotten-how-to-argue/
In the case of the Brant Gardner podcast, we cannot tell whether Brant or the hosts of "Informed Saints" have read the relevant Church history sources, but they did not discuss them and they certainly did not inform their viewers about these sources.
The DesNews article made some good points but needed some editing for clarity, so I asked Grok.
Here's a clearer, easier-to-understand rewrite of the article:
Main Idea
America is approaching its 250th birthday, but we've forgotten a key skill: how to argue with each other productively. A country that can't disagree constructively is a country that can't govern itself well. The author argues that we need to deliberately teach young people two essential things so they can become good citizens.
The Problem
- Many young people today (including college students) struggle to disagree without getting overly emotional or shutting down.
- They are good at expressing their feelings but often lack the ability to reason, persuade, or truly listen.
- This didn't start in college — the habits (or lack of them) are formed much earlier, in childhood and school.
- As a result, we have weaker public debate, less trust in institutions, and more division.
The Two Things We Need to Teach Young People
1. Civic Skills (How to Argue Well) These are practical skills that must be taught and practiced, just like reading or math. They include:
- Disagreeing respectfully
- Listening carefully
- Weighing evidence
- Changing your mind when proven wrong
- Building arguments with logic instead of just emotion
Examples of good approaches already working:
- Some schools (like Birch Wathen Lenox in New York) have created year-by-year programs to teach constructive dialogue starting in elementary school.
- Classical charter schools in states like Idaho, Wyoming, and Colorado emphasize structured debate, Socratic questioning, and studying founding documents.
2. Shared Knowledge (A Common Foundation) Skills alone aren't enough. People also need a shared understanding of America's history, ideas, and values. This includes:
- The Constitution and founding documents
- Key historical events
- Major philosophical and religious influences (Hebrew Bible, Gospels, Enlightenment thinkers, etc.)
- America's successes and failures
Without this common knowledge, "debate" becomes just people sharing feelings about a country they barely know. Real debate requires arguing from a shared foundation, not just personal opinions.
Why Both Matter Together
- Skills without knowledge → People argue eloquently but ignorantly.
- Knowledge without skills → People know facts but still reach angry stalemates.
- Both together → Citizens who can disagree, learn from each other, make decisions, and stay on speaking terms.
The Author's Core Suggestion
We need to focus on formation — the deliberate shaping of children into citizens — starting in elementary school, not waiting until college. This should happen through:
- Schools (especially K-12)
- Families
- Communities of faith
- Shared spaces where people can't just "mute" those they disagree with
The founders themselves were young (Jefferson was 33 when he wrote the Declaration) and were able to build America because they had both deep knowledge and strong skills in argumentation. Today's young people can do the same — but only if we give them the tools they’ve been missing.
Bottom Line
If we want America to thrive for the next 250 years, we must intentionally teach our children how to argue well and give them a rich, shared understanding of the country they're inheriting. This work starts now, in childhood.
_____
Becoming less informed.
The article about the "documentary effect" goes on to explain this. My emphasis:
How can someone end up being less informed after watching a documentary that’s supposed to inform them? Because hearing one side of an argument isn’t being informed. Throughout the documentary, you’ll gradually be guided towards a conclusion the creators intended rather than the conclusion you would have come to of your own volition.
If you watch a pro-vegan documentary, their aim is to turn you vegan. If you watch a climate change denial documentary, you’ll walk away with doubts about the climate. Why would they jeopardise their goal by showing strong arguments which disagree with them? The evidence and arguments they show will only be ones that bolster their point of view.
However, in saying that, you may have come across documentaries that give arguments against what they're trying to convince you of. They do this to build credibility. They’ll show an assertion from the other side, but this is usually followed up by why those assertions are wrong. They won’t show you the good objections, only ones they can make look foolish. As a layman on a foreign topic, it’s difficult to know a good or bad argument, let alone the facts. They are able to present a case for each side and we as the viewers have no way of knowing the strength of each of those arguments.
It takes mental effort to undo a belief in an initial set of ‘facts’. After hearing and accepting them, one becomes anchored to them as truth, anything that contradicts these facts is viewed as suspect and makes it harder for us to change our minds.
No comments:
Post a Comment