(In this post, when I say "you", I mean the FAIR team).
I spent over 2 years reading almost every tiny bit you published in articles, wiki or faq.I believe I know why you do what you do, but It doesnt work for me.
I think it is better to leave certain things to faith, or the church leadership, than to try to make something that is spiritual and faith based, be strengthened by attempts of "scolarship" and logical approach.
I can tell you about the one thing that I did find comfort and hope in, that made my now weakened faith and spirits feel more understanding and less angry with the church.
John Dehlin and the Mormon stories. Due to his work I can find peace in my wife and children still going to church, and in not talking to my siblings and friends about the difficulties I feel regards to the church.
To me his approach is the future, and your approach is like the old days on the mission field when we thought we could win hearts with arguments.
So, if I understand what you are saying, it was not so helpful reading scholarship, but it was helpful listening to stories of people who are not believing... did I get that right?
Looks to me like you are from Europe. That is where I "grew up". I believe that being people of faith in Europe is a challenge because you are surrounded by a sea of skeptics.
I am a convert to the Church and I took a year to study Church History before I joined. I had read Fawn Brodie and the first volume of the History of the Church before I joined. As a result I was aware of many of the things that bother people before I joined. And, as a result, I am not really able to understand the issues people have with Church History -- how they say it affects their testimony. I just don't get it.
Uther said: I also wish you could know how let down I felt when browsing your boards, and seeing you demean and attack people with questions, so I decided I didnt want to come here with my questions.
Clarification: This board is not FAIR. It has not been owned by or run by FAIR in many, many years. If you think that the views expressed on this board represent FAIR, you are mistaken.
Quote
Uther said: I can only speak for myself, but I am appaled by the treatment you give JD, as well as the other ad hominem attacks I have seen over the years. You removed quite a lot of them from FAIR a while ago, but I still remember.
I don't really think that there is a problem with ad hominem declarations/attacks/defenses simply because they are ad hominem. The truth is that many anti-Mormons are anti-Christ, evil, hard-hearted, and liars. Every single one of them is in error and is seeking to undermine and destroy the work of God. That is just the way it is. That is why they are anti-Mormon.
Correctly describing them and their motives is not wrong or invalid.
The worst that you can say is that if a discussion devolves to ad hominem with negative, personal declarations going back and forth, that nothing is accomplished. But with anti-Mormons, what is accomplished in discussions with them anyway?
Anti-Christs and their fellow travelers will object, but Jesus righteously used ad hominem in His day and we are encouraged to emulate His path. The Apostles and Prophets have also done the same.
My favorite examples are:
Marcion: "Dost thou know me? Polycarp: "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan."
Jesus: "Go tell that fox....." "Ye hypocrites"
Jesus: Woe be unto them who offend my little ones... for "It were better for them that a millstone were hanged about their necks and they were drowned in the depths of the sea"
Are we somehow "better" than Jesus if we do not respond with correct labels?
(Note: I have not addressed the error in describing ad hominem as being an automatic fallacy. That's a whole different issue. I am speaking to it as an emotional issue --- where the charge of ad hominem is used as a complex way of saying "You hurt my feelings by insulting me somehow")
As a semi outside observer to this hubaballoo, I do have one observation. Both Rufus and Uther-and others on other threads-have come on and said (very loosely paraphrased) I was a TBM, had some doubts, went to apologetic sources, and because their arguments were so weak and those who wrote them so nasty to me, I now have completely left the church-or at least don't believe anymore. For some reason however, they are not willing to disclose just exactly what their issues were. I find that puzzling, it smacks of arrogance-your just a bunch of pinheads posting on an internet forum, unworthy of my time, except to let you know that you are collectively out to lunch, while I, on the other hand, have seen the light.
Contrast that with reelmormon a few threads ago. Once he started talking specifics, there was some substantive back and forth (not without a few hurt feelings, but this is the internet after all), and unless my perception is wrong, I think all parties involved felt like some questions were actually resolved by the time the thread wound down. Reel, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about that.
I guess my experience is so completely different that it leaves me scratching my head. Maybe I just have an appreciation for dry humor, because I do see marginal snideness in some FAIR articles, but on the whole, I find the scholarship sound, the insights valid and elucidating, and have added to my testimony. I'm not brilliant, but am reasonably intelligent, I think I could spot at least some scholarly BS if it was thrown out there. Perhaps it is because I have read those articles as a believing member looking for further light and knowledge rather than someone with one foot out the door looking for and excuse to stay in the church-or leave, perhaps.
Both Rufus and Uther-and others on other threads-have come on and said (very loosely paraphrased) I was a TBM, had some doubts, went to apologetic sources, and because their arguments were so weak and those who wrote them so nasty to me, I now have completely left the church-or at least don't believe anymore.
Maybe I have missed something, but I think Rufus has said, a couple of times in different ways, that he is still a believing member with his testimony intact.
I am not inclined to question him on that. I do agree though, it could be useful if he would explain what exactly he found offensive or objectionable. He has, so far, declined that invitation from multiple people on the board. Maybe because he felt it would just lead to more arguments and attacks. I don't know. Or maybe its that he does not have them at the ready.
William Schryver, on 10 May 2012 - 11:40 PM, said:
So ........... back to the inimitable Dehlin.
Aren't you the thick-headed, antagonistic dunce for ironically using the epithet "Inimitable" with respect to Dehlin? How far do you think that sort of aspersion is going to get you? Especially since it is wrong -- as there are several people I know who could imitate him.
Uther, I absolutely love your honesty. There are some areas of your post I want to address if others have already spoken to them, I apologize, this thread has grown so huge that I am not up to speed yet) I'll be in bold.
Uther, on 11 May 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:
(In this post, when I say "you", I mean the FAIR team).
I have been a active member of the LDS church for 39 years, including missionary, templemarriage, templeworker, and various callings.
I have always been strong in my personal faith, and in relation to strengthening the hands and knees in need with service or blessings.
My whole family is heavily committed to the church, including high level leadership(I live in Europe).
Until about 3 years ago, I was a firm believer and my only perception of ANTI-MORMON information was that it was evil lies made by those that chose to follow Lucifer, designed to tear holes in faithful members spiritual armor.
My only experience with ANTI-MORMON information was from hearing the rantings of ministers of other denominations on my mission, but I easily discerned that to be false accustions.
3,5 years ago several of my friends and family, who went to the US to study at BYU, suddenly became inactive. They started talking in chat and in emails about problems they had encountered in regards to discrepancies in our church history. I was able to calm and convince a few of them just based on my testimony, that this was just false information.
At the same time I decided to delve into the problems so I could show the others how these were just lies.
Now 3,5 years later I stand corrected.
I now see that what I believed and what is the real story, are two completely different things.
This autobiographical bit is just heart-rending. I know because I walked through that fire myself over a decade ago. I think it can be difficult for people who've had access to all the complex bits of church history to appreciate just how in the dark many of us have been. The only source of LDS history that I had which was uncorrelated was what I heard from my friends who watched the GodMakers and the pamphlets which I was handed as a teenager walking into the Sacred Grove. My youth leaders ripped those pamphlets from my hands before I could read them. My naive, 16 year old self didn't even know people met at our historical sites to "save" us. The only thing I knew leaving NY was that there were numerous, seemingly contradictory accounts of the First Vision, and after the reaction my ward leaders had to seeing the pamphlet in my hands, I didn't dare mention it again. I know from experience that to suddenly become aware that what you thought you knew was not entirely accurate, especially when it comes to some of the more difficult details (polyandry, etc) is enough to make you question everything. I literally had to drop ten and punt. I had to look at what I really knew. My spiritual experiences were undeniable and my testimony of Jesus Christ was unshaken so I started there. To this day, I tell people "I was a Christian long before I was a Mormon" to explain that I had to become converted to the restored gospel even though I was already a member of the church in very good standing.
I know it is still possible to believe, based on a "I chose faith approach", or based on "I cant deny my spiritual experiences" approach, or "I trust other peoples testimony" approach. I do not think it is possible to still believe based on what FAIR i trying to do. I know that many people close to me, including my wife, is now reading what you write in hopes of finding answers. My mother and father in law, as well as my parents, are all over your pages in hope of finding answers. Not because I have shared any problems with them, but just because they know I dont believe anymore due to some historical issues, and they try to figure out how to help me. I spent over 2 years reading almost every tiny bit you published in articles, wiki or faq.I believe I know why you do what you do, but It doesnt work for me. I think it is better to leave certain things to faith, or the church leadership, than to try to make something that is spiritual and faith based, be strengthened by attempts of "scolarship" and logical approach.
I actually agree with you here also. I appreciate good academic approaches for what they offer but only a foolish man would use them as the foundation for his testimony. Of course, that is something I learned by experience. I was the fool who tried to prove my faith only to find that such isn't effective. My increasing feeling is that if you turn to apologetics to bolster your faith, you're making educated guesses your god of choice and this god is bound to let you down. The problem is, and it's a real catch-22, is that when someone is struggling with faith because they've encountered complex, new, and difficult information, the natural inclination is to seek answers laterally rather than vertically. We immediately turn to arms of flesh we hope are stronger than our own rather than turning to God. Then, many blame God when those arms of flesh turn out to be just another set of meat and bones. It's so, so, easy to deconstruct faith based on the limited observations of historians and philosophers.
I can tell you about the one thing that I did find comfort and hope in, that made my now weakened faith and spirits feel more understanding and less angry with the church.
John Dehlin and the Mormon stories. Due to his work I can find peace in my wife and children still going to church, and in not talking to my siblings and friends about the difficulties I feel regards to the church.
To me his approach is the future, and your approach is like the old days on the mission field when we thought we could win hearts with arguments.
I wish I could express the feeling I felt in my heart, when discovering the loophole reasoning and weak arguments in defence of that I believed to be the ROCK of my life. I agree with much of what you say here also. The best defense of faith is living it, not arguing about it. If ever our arguments are not a reflection of the great identifier "By this shall all men know...", we are doing harm. And whatever biases John has, the message I have taken away from his work is that the issues are complex, people who leave or struggle are just people, and we need to be more compassionate in our treatment of each other. John and many members of the bloggernacle are doing wonders to make the conversations that must be had, easier to have without the need to erect defensive walls. For that I am very grateful.
I also wish you could know how let down I felt when browsing your boards, and seeing you demean and attack people with questions, so I decided I didnt want to come here with my questions.
The only hearts you help are those that come to FAIR and shallowly browse to get comfort, without looking in depth. Just as the struggling and disaffected are people, apologists are people, too. Some of the people on this board have been waging war on a bloody battlefield of words and ideas for a very long time. Some are rightfully mistrustful and reactive. Most who post on this message board (which isn't really run by FAIR) are armchair apologists weighing in on issues about which they themselves are still learning. When I started posting here, I was attacked and rejected right off the bat by a self-described stalwart member of the church. I was shocked and hurt by the treatment I received. But rather than leave, I decided that I would stay, if for no other reason than to reach out and help other sincere people like you and I navigate the tumultuous waters. Be the change, and all that. Stick around Uther, if you have a different, more Christlike approach, don't be run off, add your testimony to ours. Over time, people will come to know that you are sincere.
Just like putting on gym clothing can make you feel more sporty. But still you dont exercise.
It is better to say: "I dont know the answer, but I still believe due to the spirits promptings", than to say: "maby horse is tapir".. "maby JS didnt have physial intercourse with the teenagers".
I can only speak for myself, but I am appaled by the treatment you give JD, as well as the other ad hominem attacks I have seen over the years.
You removed quite a lot of them from FAIR a while ago, but I still remember.
If offensive material was removed, let it ago. The atonement applies to apologists, too.
I understand to some extent why you hare so harsh, as I recon you have recieved a lot of hostility over the years.
Many have been very rude and mean to you for defending what yo believe in.
Still I would hope you could be above that, because it is so easy to see through what you do while acting the way you do, You have no moral altitude, but am in the mire.
For the sake of those that still believe(I have a brother in deep RL problems who's ONLY hope is the church, I want him to believe), please show the strenght to have an inward look, and maby let pride fall and see that JD is not the threat you percieve him to be. The threat in the future for the church is the way it treats its questioning members..
Yep. How we treat others is the sign of discipleship, isn't it? So as we love one another, in spite of our varying levels of faith and commitment to the church, perhaps we can also show some love to those who, battle weary, have become a little hardened. Perhaps that will even soften them up a bit. Welcome aboard, Uther.
Uther, Joanna Brooks gave a keynote address at the UVU conference on Mormonism and the Internet in which she discussed the defensive/protective way we talk about our faith and the historical background for such. She also describes why this can be troublesome in an internet age. You might enjoy it.
Edited by mercyngrace, 11 May 2012 - 07:34 AM.
Mitius imperanti melius paretur
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
The only hearts you help are those that come to FAIR and shallowly browse to get comfort, without looking in depth.
This is just an observation, which i feel was illustrated well in your post Uther but which has seems to have been brought up repeatedly in this thread and other places.
What i've noticed is that some people claim they have been helped by JD, and some claim he has caused harm, and that some claimed they have been helped by FAIR and others claim they were harmed by them.
Maybe we could all understand each other better and find some sort of neutral ground if we could stop trying to demand that if something didn't help us, then it can't possibly help anyone else and any who claim differently obviously have serious flaws.
I don't think that means that we can't disagree about JD or FAIR or that we can't believe one or the other has weaknesses in our opinion, and try to prove that through evidence, but at least we could stop declaring the people who are partaking of each source only find them useful because they aren't as spiritually mature as we are.
Uther, i wish you well on your journey of faith.
Edited by bluebell, 11 May 2012 - 07:43 AM.
"Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."
Aren't you the thick-headed, antagonistic dunce for ironically using the epithet "Inimitable" with respect to Dehlin? How far do you think that sort of aspersion is going to get you? Especially since it is wrong -- as there are several people I know who could imitate him.
My sincerest apologies.
I meant inconsequential.
My thesaurus has become so dog-eared these days ... sometimes it slips a page or two.
Exchanging views with people who really love Mormons since 1984
Contributor
4,147 posts
Posted 11 May 2012 - 08:00 AM
Dehlin and his supporters have been claiming that the GAs have vindicated him and are attempting to stop apologetics. There is no evidence that this is true. It is just as likely that, in response to Dehlin's letter, someone sent a letter requesting information about the situation, and that Jerry Bradford decided on his own not to publish the article so as to not rock the boat. (It is a typical bureaucratic response to try to make a problem go away rather than to resolve it.) At any rate, I don't know if this is true or not--it is pure speculation. But it is no more speculative than what the Dehlinites have been claiming. I think it is extraordinarily foolish on their part to claim universal GA support for what they are doing based on an anonymous letter of unknown contents from an unknown GA. Nothing gets a GA's attention like someone falsely claiming to speak for GAs.
Yeah, it's important to know at you believe, and why you beleieve it. The act of growing the heck up and opening your eyes to reality, tends to be responsible for a lot of population shifts. Not only out of this church, but also into it. And not only this church, but other churches as well. As well as systems of faith. As well as politics.
And just to restate, from where I'm standing, the only ultimately good reason to be a mormon, is you figure God wants you to be one. Testimonies built on anything else are heading for a bumpy ride. Like testimonies built on your parents' taking you to church, or you liked your Primary teacher, or your cultural upbringing just sort of made it happen, or you really accepted a bunch of urban legends.
If I were rich, I'd have the time that I lack, to sit in the synagogue and pray. And maybe have a seat by the Eastern wall. And I'd discuss the holy books with the learned men, several hours every day. That would be the sweetest thing of all.
Since Dehlin is eager to tell all sides of every story, I'd be happy to volunteer to appear on his Mormon Stories podcast to discuss Greg's paper, Dehlin's attempt to suppress its publication, and the state of LDS apologetics.
Well, John, will you accept my offer?
If John doesn't accept I'll take you up on the offer.
Kind of gets right to the heart of the thread, doesn't it?
The issue incarnate.
Mitius imperanti melius paretur
The content or message of any medium is about as important as the stenciling on the casing of an atomic bomb. ~ Marshall McLuhan, The Medium is the Message
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
0
This topic is locked
Uther, on 11 May 2012 - 01:43 AM, said:
