Fair Strives To Be Objective

[Sky]

I wanted to share this article about FAIR from the San Francisco Chronicle. Not exactly a newspaper I would have expected to see something like this. It was nice to get some more background information. What do you think, folks?

[Evergrow]

Yep, it's alway's fascinated me how our enemy's can claim FAIR or LDS Apologists aren't "objective".

We take every claim of our enemy's, every available fact from history etc., and then we tell the full truth which debunks the claims of our enemy's.

Our enemy's on the other hand only use half truths, misrepresentations, ignore facts and history to make their claims.

Sure, they can have a "small" case that (The Church) only tells a basic history. But basic is not the same as lying or hiding the truth, and further, LDS scholarship verify's the basic telling, and simply adds more of the facts. Conclusions are still the same.

[frankenstein]

Yep, it's alway's fascinated me how our enemy's can claim FAIR or LDS Apologists aren't "objective".

We take every claim of our enemy's, every available fact from history etc., and then we tell the full truth which debunks the claims of our enemy's.

Our enemy's on the other hand only use half truths, misrepresentations, ignore facts and history to make their claims.

you might not want to speak in such absolutes. stones and glass houses comes to mind. my observations lead me to conclude that both sides engage in same if not similar conduct. Both side will cherry pick quotes, will strain to make a square peg fit, etc. A prime example is the the Church defenders almost complete unwillingness to correctly state the LDS Church position concerning the Priesthood ban; Dr. Petersen, Scott Gordon, Juliann, and many others claim the Church position is "we do not know", when infact the Church position is "not known precisely". And as though this was a twilight zone, pointing that the Church did not say "we do not know" but rather that the Church stated "not known precisely why" gets persons either banned or threatened with such. so like I said, you might want to be careful about absolutes concerning those who claim to otherwise defend the Church.

Edited April 3, 2012 by frankenstein

[bluebell]

I thought the article was good.

[Evergrow]

you might not want to speak in such absolutes. stones and glass houses comes to mind. my observations lead me to conclude that both sides engage in same if not similar conduct. Both side will cherry pick quotes, will strain to make a square peg fit, etc. A prime example is the the Church defenders almost complete unwillingness to correctly state the LDS Church position concerning the Priesthood ban; Dr. Petersen, Scott Gordon, Juliann, and many others claim the Church position is "we do not know", when infact the Church position is "not known precisely". And as though this was a twilight zone, pointing that the Church did not say "we do not know" but rather that the Church stated "not known precisely why" gets persons either banned or threatened with such. so like I said, you might want to be careful about absolutes concerning those who claim to otherwise defend the Church.

I never claimed "infallibility" in those who defend the Church, they are human after all, and we all have our nuances, and even some different opinions of fringe issues where evidence and facts can be a bit more harder or ambuiguous. Never the less, my comment is still correct and accurate.

To every error or honest mistake a mormon might make, the anti-mormon makes a 100+.

The anti-mormon for example will say Joseph was a Pedophile. That statement however is completely false. The Anti cherry picks a couple of facts, a couple of under 18 Marriages, makes a couple of other claims from the history that sound inflammatory and supports that claim. In contrast, the actual facts and full history tells much more to the story, and telling a different story. Joseph was not a Pedophile or otherwise.

Essentially, there are "facts" and then there is the actual truth based on ALL the facts. This occurs in politics also. People claim one group is racist, or certain people in that group are. That also is a lie. People are claiming "racism" and a murder with the Trayvon shooting by only looking at a "few" of the facts. That's a lie also, given the full facts.

[wenglund]

I watched the UVU presentation and panel discussion upon which the article was based. And, while the article did justice to Scott's comments, it neglected to mention the audible surprise from audience members, and panel member John Dehlin in particular, at the very suggestion that objectivity was the goal of FAIR.

I must admit to some surprise myself--though for different reasons than Dehlin. I was not surprised that FAIR members intend or strive to be as objective as may reasonably be expected. Rather, I just didn't think that it was "the goal" of FAIR. Instead, I thought the goal was to offer ways of reasonably looking at things so as to allow for continued faith--not that the goal couldn't be both.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

I thought fair was an adjective?

(Oh never mind)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I wanted to share this article about FAIR from the San Francisco Chronicle. Not exactly a newspaper I would have expected to see something like this. It was nice to get some more background information. What do you think, folks?

I worry about such accolades, it can create and appetite for more.

[Ares]

No politics please.

[Wiki Wonka]

I was not surprised that FAIR members intend or strive to be as objective as may reasonably be expected. Rather, I just didn't think that it was "the goal" of FAIR. Instead, I thought the goal was to offer ways of reasonably looking at things so as to allow for continued faith--not that the goal couldn't be both.

One of the primary goals of FAIR is "Defending Mormonism." At the top of every FAIR Wiki article is the statment "Defending Mormonism by providing well-researched answers to challenging questions within a faithful context." As the article states, "FAIR's writings are directed internally to members of the Church." Our purpose is not to apply some form of critical "pseudo-objectivity" to the data which results in a conclusion that criticizes the Church or the Brethren.

In the article, Scott Gordon states, "I will admit we have a bias," because we are believers. "However, he further explained that in defending the Church, FAIR members strive for an objective approach to the evidence and answers based in the best scholarship available." That means that we do not ignore any sources of information simply because we may find them objectionable or unpleasant. We do not selectively present sources while ignoring or hiding others (a popular criticism of FAIR by ex-Mormons). Whenever a new source of information is found, we try to address it. In that sense, we are trying to be objective.

There is tendency among criticis in thinking that negative critical examinations of sources are always "objective" while any positive examination of those same sources by FAIR is "biased." The reality is that FAIR is biased toward providing answers to criticisms "within a faithful context." This is not a secret - it is our purpose. However, we will make our best effort to objectively address every critical claim that we can find. We will attempt to objectively examine all of the sources of information and evaluate whether or not they have been fairly treated.

Many critics are simply apologists for non-belief. Everyone is "biased." Some of us simply admit it and move forward.

I have yet to see a website that examines all known critical issues objectively. FAIR, however, strives to be objective in including and addressing all of the available data. The idea that we try to hide data is absurd. If we don't know the answer, we will say so. If new data appears, we will incorporate it, whether it is positive or negative. Our conclusion will be based upon a faithful believer's interpretation of that data - it will be positive.

WW

[Eldwynn]

Never the less, my comment is still correct and accurate.

To every error or honest mistake a mormon might make, the anti-mormon makes a 100+.

Please CFR. That is, show me every single error or honest mistake a mormon makes, and then show how the "anti-mormon" (you can even use your own definition) crowd has greater than 100 times more.

By your own admission, you said that your comment is correct and accurate. If this statement was indeed a mistake, am I to assume that some "anti-mormon" somewhere is allowed up to 100 errors/mistakes?

I personally agree that both sides are human, and are subject to human tendencies. The same can been seen from Politics to the best way to upkeep a saltwater aquarium (my own personal hobby).

FAIR obviously has a mission statement to defend the faith. By definition (and of it's own admission) it is not objective in that sense. It may be the best darn tooting non-objective defense of a faith in the entire universe- it is not objective. If I produced good evidence that the church is not what it claims it is, FAIR would not all the sudden say "You're right! We will stop attending tomorrow". Rather, it would at best (hopefully) admit that it has no explanation for the data at this time, and continue to investigate until there is one.

This is historically how it has always operated. To say otherwise I believe is a misrepresentation, thus allowing non-mormons everywhere up to 100 more allowances of misrepresenting the church

Edited April 4, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Tarski]

Yep, it's alway's fascinated me how our enemy's can claim FAIR or LDS Apologists aren't "objective".

We take every claim of our enemy's, every available fact from history etc., and then we tell the full truth which debunks the claims of our enemy's.

Our enemy's on the other hand only use half truths, misrepresentations, ignore facts and history to make their claims.

This is very far from my experience with FAIR.

Our enemy's on the other hand only use half truths, misrepresentations, ignore facts and history to make their claims

I disagree here too.

In fact, half truths, ignoring facts and history sounds like "correlation" to me. For example, how many times do we see mention of Joseph Smiths polygamy or Brigham Youngs many wives (as if these women were not worth mention).

How often do we see mention of any one of the many problems with the BoA that lead even apologists into the corner they call catalyst theory?

How straightforwardly honest are the answers given when outsiders ask about the circle of ideas which include many gods, divine procreation, heavenly mothers (plural), and so on? Did you say "half truths"??

These are things that any rational invesigator would like to know about up front. The church doesn't mention them for the same reason that a used car salesman doesn't mention a cars troubled repair history or the fact that it shakes violently when one hits 59 mph.

I'll be more impressed when at least one of the BIC missionaries that regularly shows up at my door has any idea of more than two of these things.

we tell the full truth which debunks the claims of our enemy's

I suppose you can supply plenty of substantial examples of this--right?

Consider this extreme example. FAIR like to pretend that debunking people like Ed Decker is a great achievement as is this is representative of critics.

It isn't.

But hold on! Looking through the Godmakers clip I notice that if I reworded the claims therein to just have a better tone and choice of words (and presented it with better music and no creepy cartoons) then I would have something that would be 96% indistinguishable from what I was taught by my church leaders and parents as an active member of the church in the 70s and 80s. In other words, most of what is said really are things found among the past common teachings apostles and prophets. Ed Decker reports things more accuratly than FOX news! LOL

I see sneaky misrepresentation on both sides.

Now I know that all things considered, Ed Decker is a sleezeball and Gordon B. Hinckly is a good man....

but consider:

Ed Decker: Mormons believe that God was once a man. They believe that Satan is Jesus' brother.

President Hinckley (on the God was a man teaching): "I don't know that we teach that". (??) "We don't emphasize that". "I wouldn't say that" (on a different occasion).

When asked whether Mormon theology was a form of polytheism. "I don't have the remotest idea what you mean,"

Really?? Not even the remotest idea?

Where is the half truth?

I'm fine overlooking this kind of human behavior until I start hearing too much about how critics tell half truths or are outright liars.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Tarski

[wenglund]

One of the primary goals of FAIR is "Defending Mormonism." At the top of every FAIR Wiki article is the statment "Defending Mormonism by providing well-researched answers to challenging questions within a faithful context." As the article states, "FAIR's writings are directed internally to members of the Church." Our purpose is not to apply some form of critical "pseudo-objectivity" to the data which results in a conclusion that criticizes the Church or the Brethren.

In the article, Scott Gordon states, "I will admit we have a bias," because we are believers. "However, he further explained that in defending the Church, FAIR members strive for an objective approach to the evidence and answers based in the best scholarship available." That means that we do not ignore any sources of information simply because we may find them objectionable or unpleasant. We do not selectively present sources while ignoring or hiding others (a popular criticism of FAIR by ex-Mormons). Whenever a new source of information is found, we try to address it. In that sense, we are trying to be objective.

There is tendency among criticis in thinking that negative critical examinations of sources are always "objective" while any positive examination of those same sources by FAIR is "biased." The reality is that FAIR is biased toward providing answers to criticisms "within a faithful context." This is not a secret - it is our purpose. However, we will make our best effort to objectively address every critical claim that we can find. We will attempt to objectively examine all of the sources of information and evaluate whether or not they have been fairly treated.

Many critics are simply apologists for non-belief. Everyone is "biased." Some of us simply admit it and move forward.

I have yet to see a website that examines all known critical issues objectively. FAIR, however, strives to be objective in including and addressing all of the available data. The idea that we try to hide data is absurd. If we don't know the answer, we will say so. If new data appears, we will incorporate it, whether it is positive or negative. Our conclusion will be based upon a faithful believer's interpretation of that data - it will be positive.

WW

I agree...and I am glad you clarified further.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tarski]

Our purpose is not to apply some form of critical "pseudo-objectivity" to the data which results in a conclusion that criticizes the Church or the Brethren.

Instead of "pseudo-objectivity" you might try to aim for the ideal we refer to as (plain old) objectivity.

..and yes that would entail facing up to conclusions that are not faith promoting. Promoting faith shouldn't be the goal when the more honorable goal of promoting the truth is available.

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

NCCJ’S POSITION

The National Conference of Christians and Jews

THE GODMAKERS FILM

Because showing of The Godmakers is an Integral part of the program of the

Concerned Christians group, we offer these opinions based on our viewing of the

film, research and reflection.

The film does not – In our opinion – fairly portray the Mormon Church,

Mormon history, or Mormon belief. It makes extensive use of “half-truth,”

faulty generalizations, erroneous Interpretations, and sensationalism. It is

not reflective of the genuine spirit of the Mormon faith.

Page 4

We find particularly offensive the emphasis In the film that Mormonism

Is some sort of subversive plot – a danger to the community, a threat to the

Institution of marriage, and Is destructive to the mental health of teenagers.

All of our experience with our Mormon neighbors provides eloquent refutation

of these charges.

We are of the opinion that The Godmakers relies heavily on appeals to fear,

prejudice and other less worthy human emotions. We believe that continued use

of this film poses genuine danger to the climate of good will and harmony which

currently exists between Valley neighbors of differing faiths. It appears to us

to be a basically unfair and untruthful presentation of what Mormons really be-

lieve and practice.

[wenglund]

Promoting faith shouldn't be the goal when the more honorable goal of promoting the truth is available.

This, ironically, is an expression of faith, and thus a promotion of your own faith.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[frankenstein]

Tss, I believe tarski point was, that with slight modifaction God Makers would not seem would accurately represent what is or has been taught in the LDS Church. Thus what the NCCJ thinks of the film is completely irrelevant to tarskis point.

[Buzzard]

My PERSONAL experience (YMMV) in reading FAIR articles is that they strive to present things in context. Of course, they are biased-show me someone who isn't. But the complete explanation IS there, to the best of their ability.

Anti's, again in my experience, strip their statements of context. Since it is a pattern, I can only assume it is purposeful. And they do make their statements as inflammatory as possible. Hence, they don't say: "Joseph Smith married a 14 year old", they say "Joseph Smith was a pedophile". It's not too hard to tell the difference in the way those statements might be recieved.

[Skylla]

you might not want to speak in such absolutes. stones and glass houses comes to mind. my observations lead me to conclude that both sides engage in same if not similar conduct. Both side will cherry pick quotes, will strain to make a square peg fit, etc. A prime example is the the Church defenders almost complete unwillingness to correctly state the LDS Church position concerning the Priesthood ban; Dr. Petersen, Scott Gordon, Juliann, and many others claim the Church position is "we do not know", when infact the Church position is "not known precisely". And as though this was a twilight zone, pointing that the Church did not say "we do not know" but rather that the Church stated "not known precisely why" gets persons either banned or threatened with such. so like I said, you might want to be careful about absolutes concerning those who claim to otherwise defend the Church.

Time to part ways, Frankenstein. We have had too many complaints.

Skylla

[Wiki Wonka]

Instead of "pseudo-objectivity" you might try to aim for the ideal we refer to as (plain old) objectivity.

..and yes that would entail facing up to conclusions that are not faith promoting. Promoting faith shouldn't be the goal when the more honorable goal of promoting the truth is available.

What in my statement lead you to believe that I stated that we "aim" for "pseudo-objectivity?"

You state that we should "instead" aim for "objectivity." There are NO objective conclusions. To my view, "pseudo-objectivity" is when one claims to be objective, while in reality consistently forming negative conclusions and then establishing that those conclusions constitute "truth." Any critical website that claims to objectively assess the facts and present unbiased conclusions is not unbiased.

I do not believe that faith and truth are mutually exclusive. Conclusions themselves do not constitute "truth." Conclusions are based upon facts. Believers and non-believers will interpret those facts differently, thus forming contradicting conclusions.

Therefore, my position is that critics must assume that believers exclude some of the facts in order to draw a faithful conclusion. My earlier point was the FAIR strives to objectively incorporate all of the known facts into its analysis. Our conclusion will be a faithful one, consistent with our openly stated mission.

WW

[Evergrow]

Please CFR. That is, show me every single error or honest mistake a mormon makes, and then show how the "anti-mormon" (you can even use your own definition) crowd has greater than 100 times more.

Well, on the LDS side, Hugh Nibley apparently made a couple of errors in his volumes of writing.

Some LDS believe BOM events took place in New York, while the rest of us believe BOM event's took place in Meso-America. That's some honest LDS errors. In whatever book or otherwise an LDS might write, there might be one or two errors or false assumptions.

As far as anti-mormon errors, that's easy, just look at http://www.fairmormon.org or http://www.fairlds.org

There are many examples of anti-mormon websites, books, videos, whatever in which LDS show MANY errors and falsehoods by anti-mormons. A good recent example is the Joseph Smith vs. Jesus Christ video. There's likely a 100 falsehoods stated in that video. The same thing occurs with any anti-mormon book, website etc., they don't just have a couple of honest human errors, they have 100's or 1,000's.

By your own admission, you said that your comment is correct and accurate. If this statement was indeed a mistake, am I to assume that some "anti-mormon" somewhere is allowed up to 100 errors/mistakes?

They all do. Nearly every word an anti-mormon utters about Mormons and Mormonism is false. That's not normal human error, that's serious sin and evil.

FAIR obviously has a mission statement to defend the faith. By definition (and of it's own admission) it is not objective in that sense. It may be the best darn tooting non-objective defense of a faith in the entire universe- it is not objective.

This is simply a falsehood. What makes you believe that when it concerns facts and absolute truth that there can't be objectivity? What makes you think that if the Church IS actually true, that that can't be determined and known objectively?

I've been involved in law enforcement and the courts for some time. I know for a fact people can have personal biases but still do their job and get at the facts and truth in an entirely objective way. Mormons and FAIR are the same. Our only interest is the absolute truth of all things. Our belief in the truth claims of the Church doesn't change our objectivity at getting at the truth, in fact it enhances it, because we are only in this religion because it is true, and we have no interest in man-made religions. Thus, our bias in belief doesn't inhibit us in any way at getting at the truth. Not that some can't sometimes be humanly fallible and allow their bias to cause them to error and not be objective, but for most of us, our bias is irrelevant. We are professionals first.

It is the anti-mormon that actually has a bias that effects his objectivity, because they only see what immediately offends them, rather than the full story, facts, and truth. You can for example tell the anti-mormon till the cows come home a particular fact or facts which entirely debunks their claims on an issue, and they will go right along as if you've said nothing, and repeat the same claim. Take the claim that "Tithing" paid for the Salt Lake Mall. You tell them the actual facts, that it wasn't Tithing or the Church, but the Churches business interests, and they might waffle a little at first, but then the next day, they will make the same false claim again. Tell an anti-mormon that the Mormon fully believes in the Grace of Christ, that we can't save ourselves, and we further explain the differences etc., they will ignore you and go right back claiming the lie that we believe our works save us, and don't believe that the Grace of Christ is a free gift, etc.

Every single issue it is the same. They will claim a 100 a 1,000 lies about Mormons and Mormonism before the Mormon himself makes a mistake.

If I produced good evidence that the church is not what it claims it is, FAIR would not all the sudden say "You're right! We will stop attending tomorrow". Rather, it would at best (hopefully) admit that it has no explanation for the data at this time, and continue to investigate until there is one.

I disagree. If your evidence is actually "good" evidence, and not just a false assumption, such as no metal swords have been found "yet", that's not "good" evidence against the claims of the Church, enough to leave it, especially since we now know that metal swords have been found, as well as tons of other Book of Mormon claims which didn't exist in the America's when Joseph wrote the book. The Book of Mormon is only being proven, not debunked. If good evidence is found against the Church, most of us wouldn't be in it.

Your FAIR example would only be the case if you didn't actually have "good" evidence against the Church.

Take the Book of Abraham and the found fragments. The anti-mormon will claim that this debunks the Church and is "good" evidence against it's claims. Problem is, that this is a false anti-mormon narrative and abuse of the facts. There is little to no evidence that the found fragments are actually pieces of "the" scroll Joseph said he took the BOA from. We know that Joseph had many scrolls, we know he gave away most, we know that Facsimiles are plentiful, etc. Nothing at all really proves it's "the" claimed BOA. Thus, in that case, the LDS Scholar will say we don't have enough information yet to explain the data, and thus we will continue to investigate. Not only that, but then you ad the many internal and external evidences that have been discovered proving many of Joseph's Facsimile's translations, materials related to the BOA itself, etc. all of which adds to the validity of the BOA, contrary to the anti-mormon claim of "good" evidence against the Church.

This is historically how it has always operated. To say otherwise I believe is a misrepresentation, thus allowing non-mormons everywhere up to 100 more allowances of misrepresenting the church

I've said the truth accurately and well. I also know for sure what I speak of as a convert and a former anti-mormon.

BTW, "non-mormons" aren't really a problem, anti-mormons are. Most non-mormons don't speak ill of the Church or misrepresent it much, or even really know anything about it. There is also the rare non-mormon who does know the Church who also isn't anti-mormon, is honest of their fellow men. Sadly, there are very few of such people. Most who deal with Mormonism in any way are anti-mormons, people who falsely represent, unfairly degrade, etc. the Church and it's people.

[Mariner]

Come on, folks.

First of all, the "article" is a press release. It is from PRWeb, no less, which charged me an arm and a leg for releasing my "news" last time I used them. (Check out <www.prweb.com>).

Press releases are not exactly considered objective sources of information. They are, in fact, a not-so-subtle form of paid advertisement.

Secondly, the title of the article is: Mormon Apologists Strive for Objectivity Says President of FAIR. The article goes on to admit that FAIR does not actually achieve objectivity (see below).

At least Bro. Gordon is honest enough to admit that FAIR is biased in his following statement as quoted in the article.

"I will admit we have a bias," Gordon said, explaining that FAIR members believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is really the ancient Church of Jesus Christ restored in the latter days through Joseph Smith. However, he further explained that in defending the Church, FAIR members strive for an objective approach to the evidence and answers based in the best scholarship available.

So, all that this "newspaper article" really demonstrates is that the LDS Church can afford the best press money can buy.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Mariner

[Areabird]

Why are the moderators allowing Evergrow to go on like this? He claims antis lie, and then he goes and lies about how much antis lie. Who is this guy?

[Eldwynn]

Well, on the LDS side, Hugh Nibley apparently made a couple of errors in his volumes of writing.

Some LDS believe BOM events took place in New York, while the rest of us believe BOM event's took place in Meso-America. That's some honest LDS errors. In whatever book or otherwise an LDS might write, there might be one or two errors or false assumptions.

As far as anti-mormon errors, that's easy, just look at http://www.fairmormon.org or http://www.fairlds.org

There are many examples of anti-mormon websites, books, videos, whatever in which LDS show MANY errors and falsehoods by anti-mormons. A good recent example is the Joseph Smith vs. Jesus Christ video. There's likely a 100 falsehoods stated in that video. The same thing occurs with any anti-mormon book, website etc., they don't just have a couple of honest human errors, they have 100's or 1,000's.

I only counted 247. That still gives the anti-mormons 53 more potential errors they could make. Could you count for me ?

Oh, and if someone repeats false information, are we counting that? Doesn't really seem fair... It also makes it a lot harder to count.

Your attitude doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me though, is that you seem to be perfectly aware of confirmation bias (you accuse the other side of it frequently) and yet in the same breath, you exhibit it to an astonishing degree!

Let me restate the point you ignored:

You are a human being. I am a human being. The group you describe as "anti-mormon" is made up of human beings. Human beings unfortunately are limited in their behavior by their brains. For perfectly understood reasons, the brain is really good at remembering things that support your position, and forgetting things that does not. Indeed, the scientific methods major strength is to try and get around this fact. To make matters worse, people like to divide positions up into black/white groups to simplify complex issues. Democrats vs. Republicans. Mormons vs. Anti-Mormons. This football team vs That football team.

By your own words, you state that you are being honest (after all, you are a member of the "mormon" group), and in the same breath, you pull a number out of thin air that you can't possibly be sure about (by all means, if you ARE sure, then prove it. Your position must have been based on some data... so post it). By definition, this is dishonest or at the very least an incredible exaggeration. I was merely trying to point this out to you. That you are unwilling to see this shows just how deeply entrenched in group think you really are.

But you aren't brainwashed.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Eldwynn

[Tarski]

You state that we should "instead" aim for "objectivity." There are NO objective conclusions.

Not any that you like at any rate.

To my view, "pseudo-objectivity" is when one claims to be objective, while in reality consistently forming negative conclusions and then establishing that those conclusions constitute "truth."

What do you call it when one claims to be objective, while in reality consistently forming positive (read "faith promoting) conclusions and then establishing that those conclusions constitute "truth."

I do not believe that faith and truth are mutually exclusive.

True. One may accidentally have faith in something true. Of course, I prefer a connection between evidence, rational warrant and my beliefs. Good stuff it you can get it.

Therefore, my position is that critics must assume that believers exclude some of the facts in order to draw a faithful conclusion.

On the contrary we discover that they leave out facts and more or less exactly the ones that work against the conclusion they seem bound and determined to arrive at.

Frankly, at this point I consider the church to be not only "not true" but obviously so. I could throw out 75% of the negative data and it would still be obvious in practical terms--you know, the same way that Scientology (Xenuism) is obviously false. I don't see any of you giving Scientology a second or third look.

My earlier point was the FAIR strives to objectively incorporate all of the known facts into its analysis. Our conclusion will be a faithful one, consistent with our openly stated mission.

When the conclusion is a forgone conclusion, we may as well have gone without the evidence and the facts. The result was gong to spin to the faifull side at all costs anyway. I couldn't be proud of that myself.

The bottom line is always that the church is somehow still true. You may as well write that in stone before any evidence gets to the table.

Edited April 5, 2012 by Tarski