inquiringmind Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 How reliable is FAIR?I mean if I email a doctrinal question to the apologists there (instead of posting it here), how confident can I be that the answer I get will doctrinally sound (from an LDS pov)?
frankenstein Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) Probably as good of chance as posting your question here. You will find the same claims there as you find here. You might as well pose your question here to get wide view of what lds persons think, rather asking fair which has no more intellect or right to say what the doctrine is than an other person here. Edited November 11, 2011 by frankenstein
wenglund Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 How reliable is FAIR?I mean if I email a doctrinal question to the apologists there (instead of posting it here), how confident can I be that the answer I get will doctrinally sound (from an LDS pov)?There is typically little differences between us on actual doctrinal issues--i.e. those issues we all would agree are doctrinal. Where the disparity usually occurs is with non-doctrinal issues.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Bob Crockett Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 FAIR is a great resource. I like how they don't hesitate to tackle controversial challenges to the Church. If they err they will entertain reasoned challenges.
Calm Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 As a member of FAIR, I can tell you every effort is made to ensure that what doctrinal information is given is accurate. We have a variety of individuals who help ride herd on each other to make sure no one takes it too far, if some one ventures into speculation, they will identify it as such plus the experience and scholarly level is overall very high with a huge pool of informational resources.One thing is guaranteed...all viewpoints will be from a fully believing basis, you don't have to wonder if someone is playing games or has doubts about the Church's role, etc. You won't have to wade through a flood of info wondering which is accurate and which is off target.
cinepro Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 How reliable is FAIR?I mean if I email a doctrinal question to the apologists there (instead of posting it here), how confident can I be that the answer I get will doctrinally sound (from an LDS pov)?It's not hard to find out. Just post your question (or email it to FAIR), and wait for the response. If the answer to your question is referenced to official Church publications with links to the Church website, it's probably doctrinally sound. If the answer is mostly comprised of quotes from apologists, articles from Sunstone and Dialogue, and old conference talks that don't appear anywhere on the current Church website, then....?
elguanteloko Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 If the answer is mostly comprised of quotes from apologists, articles from Sunstone and Dialogue, and old conference talks that don't appear anywhere on the current Church website, then....?Kind of funny because they are themselves self-described apologists.
Mariner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Information from FAIR is primarily intended to support the faith of believers. While it may accurately reflect LDS Church doctrine on a given subject or issue, it can be scientifically or factually inaccurate in the larger context.If the material that the FAIR apologists generate and publish regarding the history of the Western Hemisphere, for example, were scientifically or factually accurate, it would be (or could be) published in mainstream academic journals. The fact that it is not (nor can it be) should be taken into consideration when assessing the accuracy and value of FAIRS work product for anything other than promoting the faith of members. 1
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) If the contributers to "mainstream academic journals" ever took the time to read the Book of Mormon and judge the claims made therein based on internal evidence (rather than relying on, say, Fawn Brodie's interpretation to do their thinking for them), they might have something useful to say about the veracity of LDS geographical or historical claims. As it is, they provide few reasons to conclude that their condemnatory judgment should be seen as anything but the most crude of authoritarian dismissals. ...FAIR is great. So is the collection of Neal A. Maxwell Institute authors. Just remember that there is no one who can decide what it's right for you to believe. I think Section 91's description of the process used to obtain truth from the Apocrypha can be applied to just about any collection of texts; that is, "there are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly; there are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men. Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth; and whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom."Basically, judge each case on its individual merits. FAIR is another useful tool, but the organization is not inerrant, and it doesn't pretend to be. Think of the metaphor of the Tree of Wisdom in Alma 32 - if it gives light and understanding, cool. If not, no need to incorporate it into one's worldview. Line upon line, precept upon precept. I also like Section 50:"And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand; let us reason even as a man reasoneth one with another face to face. Now, when a man reasoneth he is understood of man, because he reasoneth as a man; even so will I, the Lord, reason with you that you may understand. [...] Wherefore, he that preacheth and he that receiveth, understand one another, and both are edified and rejoice together. And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day."One of the fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from where it may."The Church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts. [...] While all members should respect, support, and heed the teachings of the authorities of the church, no one should accept a statement and base his or her testimony upon it, no matter who makes it, until he or she has, under mature examination, found it to be true and worthwhile; then one's logical deductions may be confirmed by the spirit of revelation to his or her spirit, because real conversion must come from within." - President Hugh B. Brown"The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter Day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived it's members of the privilege of believing anything not contained therein, whereas the Latter Day Saints have no creed, but are ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are made manifest from time to time." - Joseph Smith Edited November 11, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith 3
Brant Gardner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Information from FAIR is primarily intended to support the faith of believers. While it may accurately reflect LDS Church doctrine on a given subject or issue, it can be scientifically or factually inaccurate in the larger context.If the material that the FAIR apologists generate and publish regarding the history of the Western Hemisphere, for example, were scientifically or factually accurate, it would be (or could be) published in mainstream academic journals. The fact that it is not (nor can it be) should be taken into consideration when assessing the accuracy and value of FAIRS work product for anything other than promoting the faith of members.I have recently read a couple of books on historiography, and it strikes me how much this statement is counter to what historians say they do. They certainly understand something about the nature of the scientific method as it applies to what they do, but certainly not in the terms presented here.What you have stated is an apologetic for a position that really has no justification in secular historiography. I wonder if there are any secular journals that present the historical process in anything like the way you are describing it? If not (and according to the books I just finished, it would be very surprising), per your judgement, you have no argument. Interesting paradox, isn't it?
John Larsen Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 You would first have to define what "doctrinally sound" means. lol. Good luck with that one. 2
Mariner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 If the contributers to "mainstream academic journals" ever took the time to read the Book of Mormon and judge the claims made therein based on internal evidence (rather than relying on, say, Fawn Brodie's interpretation to do their thinking for them), they might have something useful to say about the veracity of LDS geographical or historical claims. As it is, they provide few reasons to conclude that their condemnatory judgment should be seen as anything but the most crude of authoritarian dismissals. There are, in fact, a number of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that address directly the falsifiable truth claims in the Book of Mormon and the faith promoting spin put on these truth claims by organizations such as FAIR and the MI.Problem is that, without exception (as far as I can tell), findings in these relevant papers directly contradict key truth claims based on the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures.In looking into this issue, I (and I am sure others) have come up with lists of such papers. In contrast, I could come up with none that directly support key falsifiable LDS truth claims based on the Book of Mormon or on the Book of Abraham, for example.If you could come up with mainstream academic papers that directly support key falsifiable truth claims of the Book of Mormon, I would be very interested to read them.
Mariner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 I have recently read a couple of books on historiography, and it strikes me how much this statement is counter to what historians say they do. They certainly understand something about the nature of the scientific method as it applies to what they do, but certainly not in the terms presented here.What you have stated is an apologetic for a position that really has no justification in secular historiography. I wonder if there are any secular journals that present the historical process in anything like the way you are describing it? If not (and according to the books I just finished, it would be very surprising), per your judgement, you have no argument. Interesting paradox, isn't it?One need not appeal to historiography (an extremely soft science, if indeed, it is science at all) to make a determination regarding falsifiable truth claims in the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. According to my reading, publications in the mainstream scientific literature have pretty much refuted many (if not all) of the key falsifiable Book of Mormon truth claims.As mentioned above, I would invite you to come to the table with a mainstream scientific papers that directly support any of the key falsifiable truth claims in the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.If, by chance you were able to find any such papers, I would suggest that you consider the overall weight of evidence on the issue they address before proposing them as definitive.
ldsfaqs Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Information from FAIR is primarily intended to support the faith of believers. While it may accurately reflect LDS Church doctrine on a given subject or issue, it can be scientifically or factually inaccurate in the larger context.Absolute BULL......FAIR is made up of highly knowledgable LDS and scholars within the Church. Thus, it endovor's to be the highest quality of scientific methodology and especially facts. It is not at all "inaccurate" in a larger context.If the material that the FAIR apologists generate and publish regarding the history of the Western Hemisphere, for example, were scientifically or factually accurate, it would be (or could be) published in mainstream academic journals. The fact that it is not (nor can it be) should be taken into consideration when assessing the accuracy and value of FAIRS work product for anything other than promoting the faith of members.You clearly know nothing about the issue. Many scholars in the Church that publish on Church issues most certainly ARE published in wider scientific journals, some even publish Church related materials in those journals. Your ignorance of this is not fact to the otherwise. Further, what published journals in the wider scientific community actually focus on "Mormon" things? NONE...... Thus obviously, there is not going to be the same contribution that you somehow want to see.LDS scholarship through FAIR is the exact same quality of work those individuals who are involved in the sciences produce out in the scientific community itself. Thus, your comments are completely off base and false.
Brant Gardner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 One need not appeal to historiography (an extremely soft science, if indeed, it is science at all) to make a determination regarding falsifiable truth claims in the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. According to my reading, publications in the mainstream scientific literature have pretty much refuted many (if not all) of the key falsifiable Book of Mormon truth claims.Then you will have to be more specific. If you are speaking of archaeology, that is a combination of artifact with historical theory that dresses the artifacts in meaning - in other words, something very similar to history. I don't know of any truth claims from the text that have been refuted. I know of a lot of ideas people have had about the text that have been refuted, but you don't need to go to secular scholars to see that. The faithful have become fairly good at policing random ideas.The point remains, however, that you are ascribing the idea of science improperly. You are actually suggesting that someone's interpretation of data differs from another. That is, of course a tautology, but not a refutation.As mentioned above, I would invite you to come to the table with a mainstream scientific papers that directly support any of the key falsifiable truth claims in the Book of Mormon or Book of Abraham.My field is the Book of Mormon. I am curious as to what you think are the falsifiable truth claims, Without specifics I have no way to address anything except your assertion --- which is clearly based on a misrepresentation of science and I strongly suspect a lack of understanding of the current state of Book of Mormon studies.So, if you would like to move from generalities to specifics, it would be very helpful.
Brant Gardner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 There are, in fact, a number of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that address directly the falsifiable truth claims in the Book of Mormon and the faith promoting spin put on these truth claims by organizations such as FAIR and the MI.Please provide examples. I am really interested in the ones you have found.
ldsfaqs Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 There are, in fact, a number of scientific papers in peer reviewed journals that address directly the falsifiable truth claims in the Book of Mormon and the faith promoting spin put on these truth claims by organizations such as FAIR and the MI.You mean some Evangelical or Catholic Journal that willingly posts anti-mormon articles???Why don't you point out these "journals" buddy..... There are several scholars who do read and post here who DO in fact publish in peer reviewed journals, many of which are non-LDS related, who know very well the professional journals out there.Further, LDS publications and FAIR are in fact "peer-reviewed". Even more, FAIR publications directly address anti-mormon claims, articles, etc., thus you can't say we are "ignoring" important facts (like the anti-mormons do to make their claims against us).Problem is that, without exception (as far as I can tell), findings in these relevant papers directly contradict key truth claims based on the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures.You would be wrong.In looking into this issue, I (and I am sure others) have come up with lists of such papers. In contrast, I could come up with none that directly support key falsifiable LDS truth claims based on the Book of Mormon or on the Book of Abraham, for example.If you could come up with mainstream academic papers that directly support key falsifiable truth claims of the Book of Mormon, I would be very interested to read them.You know, you people always come up with these double standards...... that you then expect LDS to match, standards by which your own faith traditions didn't match.Tell us..... For the first 1800 years of Biblical scholarship, which was done primarily only by Jews and Christians..... is all their work somehow "invalid" and only "faith promoting" to you??? So, simply because the Bible is now "mainstream", and the BOM and other LDS scriptures aren't yet fully mainstream, that that somehow "invalidates" the scholarship done by LDS..... people BTW, who are some of the most respected in their fields of study, people who also are well more qualified than those who did the first 1800 years of Biblical scholarship???
Mariner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Absolute BULL......FAIR is made up of highly knowledgable LDS and scholars within the Church. Thus, it endovor's to be the highest quality of scientific methodology and especially facts. It is not at all "inaccurate" in a larger context.You clearly know nothing about the issue. Many scholars in the Church that publish on Church issues most certainly ARE published in wider scientific journals, some even publish Church related materials in those journals. Your ignorance of this is not fact to the otherwise. Further, what published journals in the wider scientific community actually focus on "Mormon" things? NONE...... Thus obviously, there is not going to be the same contribution that you somehow want to see.LDS scholarship through FAIR is the exact same quality of work those individuals who are involved in the sciences produce out in the scientific community itself. Thus, your comments are completely off base and false.You can't be serious. Perhaps you would care to provide examples of this published high quality mainstream academic research that directly supports key falsifiable truth claims of the Book of Mormon and/or the Book of Abraham. Maybe you would care to start with Kolob cosmology as described in the Book of Abraham, or better yet, why not put in evidence mainstream academic research that verifies the presence of Semitic DNA in the descendants of pre-Columbian populations of the Western Hemisphere. In fact, any piece of archeological evidence that has been interpreted by qualified authors in mainstream academic publications to directly support the Book of Mormon narrative of events in the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere would suffice.
Mariner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Please provide examples. I am really interested in the ones you have found.I would be happy to do so, provided that the mods would agree that posting such references would not lead to my being banned for reference to, or display of, non faith promoting materials.
elguanteloko Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) In looking into this issue, I (and I am sure others) have come up with lists of such papers. In contrast, I could come up with none that directly support key falsifiable LDS truth claims based on the Book of Mormon or on the Book of Abraham, for example.I would be really interested in seeing those papers. Can you please send me a link through PM if the mods (for some strange reason) don't allow them here? I would appreciate it. Edited November 11, 2011 by elguanteloko
Wiki Wonka Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 (edited) If the material that the FAIR apologists generate and publish regarding the history of the Western Hemisphere, for example, were scientifically or factually accurate...What do you consider an example of something that FAIR apologists have published "regarding the history of the Western Hemisphere?" If you could please link to such an article, it would be interesting to compare our perspectives on its purpose and technical accuracy.WW Edited November 11, 2011 by Wiki Wonka
Brant Gardner Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 I would be happy to do so, provided that the mods would agree that posting such references would not lead to my being banned for reference to, or display of, non faith promoting materials.Why would you possibly be banned for talking about articles in scholarly journals? I would certainly welcome it.
Scott Lloyd Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 How reliable is FAIR?I mean if I email a doctrinal question to the apologists there (instead of posting it here), how confident can I be that the answer I get will doctrinally sound (from an LDS pov)?There are many issues pertaining to the Church on which the Church itself takes no formal position (such as specific Book of Mormon geography). My experience with FAIR and its members is that if there is no formal position taken by the Church on a matter, they will make that fact clear. Armed with that knowledge, one is then free to evaluate a response without concern as to whether that response is binding upon oneself or others as Church members.By the way, this board is the successor to a board that was owned and operated by FAIR, but of which FAIR divested itself. As such, it is populated by several individuals who are FAIR members.
Minos Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 I would be happy to do so, provided that the mods would agree that posting such references would not lead to my being banned for reference to, or display of, non faith promoting materials.You may not post what any religion considers to be too sacred to be displayed in public. For Mormons that is what occurs inside the temple. You may not link to anti-Mormon websites that have such content on them anywhere on the website. Cross-posting to anti-Mormon websites is generally not allowed to prevent board wars. Other than that this board is filled with "non-faith promoting materials". I strongly advise you to read the board guidelines before jumping to conclusions. We do enforce what is referred to as a call for references (CFR). Everyone who makes an assertion or accusation is expected to provide sources and documentation if asked for it.
CQUIRK Posted November 11, 2011 Posted November 11, 2011 Probably as good of chance as posting your question here. You will find the same claims there as you find here. You might as well pose your question here to get wide view of what lds persons think, rather asking fair which has no more intellect or right to say what the doctrine is than an other person here. I disagree. Even I have asked FAIR on a few issues and got a clear answer back within a day. And since those that work in that organization are knowledgeable scholars and well educated members of the church, with some even serving in church leadership positions as well; I find their take on doctrine and church history to be quite accurate and valid, while not in conflict with the church, or church doctrine.In fact when comparing their opinion and study of the church, its doctrine and history, with the opinions and research of people like Will Bagley, or even the infamous Ed Decker- the FAIR people win overwhelmingly in their accuracy, logic, and even their reliability of presenting the facts straightforward.Unlike you, I've done my heavy research on almost everything related to the church and looked at ALL sources, and FAIR gets the highest grade in my book.
Recommended Posts