Greg Smith, Dan Peterson, John Dehlin, & Lou

[CASteinman]

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.

[CASteinman]

With regard to ad hominem...

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.

[mercyngrace]

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.

(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 May 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[bluebell]

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 May 11, 2012 by bluebell

[William Schryver]

With regard to ad hominem...

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.

[William Schryver]

... Joanna Brooks gave a keynote address at the UVU conference on Mormonism and the Internet ...

Hopefully, once this Dehlin article is finally printed and out the door, Greg can turn his sights on Brooks.

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

[LoudmouthMormon]

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.

[ttribe]

If so, then all your finger-pointing will be missed. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Lovely.

[David T]

Hopefully, once this Dehlin article is finally printed and out the door, Greg can turn his sights on Brooks.

Wow.

[John Larsen]

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.

[Bob Oliverio]

Thanks for joining in, not once, but twice. You sure know how to make a point. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well to my point, and for what it's worth, the news about Harry Reid was even covered by Utah's main newspaper:

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54089953-90/church-gay-lds-marriage.html.csp

But as hard as I tried I couldn't find any news on this Peterson-Dehlin feud in any of Utah's print media.  Not even BYU's The Universe.

Perhaps I'm just missing the significance of this feud.  Had a good grasp of Hatfield and McCoy though!

[mercyngrace]

Wow.

Kind of gets right to the heart of the thread, doesn't it?

The issue incarnate.

[Log]

Demonstrating that the public pronouncements of certain persons are heterodox within the context of the faith is a service.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If John doesn't accept I'll take you up on the offer.

You know, I would even listen to this podcast if it ever got done.

[David T]

Demonstrating that the public pronouncements of certain persons are heterodox within the context of the faith is a service.

Joanna Brooks is always the first person to acknowledge her beliefs are unorthodox. Regularly. Clearly. She's known for it. If someone thinks Joanna or John claim to be expressing Orthodoxy, they don't read or listen to them. Period. The desired effect, at least as Will characterizes it, is to do character assasination beyond simply pointing out, "Hey, these guys aren't orthodox!", as illustrated with the suggestion he 'set his sights' on her.

Edited May 11, 2012 by David T

[mercyngrace]

Demonstrating that the public pronouncements of certain persons are heterodox within the context of the faith is a service.

What's heterodoxy? We can't even agree on what's doctrine! (Enter bcspace )

[Teancum]

LDS Tools (which I have on my iPod Touch) does not define what constitutes a bishopric; the Church Handbook does. (If you'll recall, we had a discussion on this point last September.)

And I agree with you about the appeal-to-authority fallacy (see my last post).

I do not think people tell what their service is as an appeal to authority. Rather they are providing some background info to let people know they were full participating members. I think it is more necessary here because people who post about their disaffection on this board are typically black balled and their character is impugned and brought into question. Often they are accused of being lazy, not doing their leg work or studying earlier in life. Their devotion is questioned, they are accused of being weak. Rather than reaching out a helping hand they are derided and their reasons for sliding away are questiones as honest....just like you, Mr. Llloyd and others are doing here to Rufus. And then you all act astounded when people say the apologists helped them out of the church.

Now I think anyone who totally places the blame on apologists is over stating the case. There are good and bad apologists. But if one samples much of the written defenses for the LDS Church one certainly will find much that is ad hominem as well as rather mean spirited attacks. If you all don't like that change the way you approach good members that do have honest questions. Start on this board. And put some of the more mean spirited ones on a leash. I am sure it won't be tough for you to figure out who they are.

[Log]

Joanna Brooks is the first person to acknowledge her beliefs are unorthodox. Regularly. Celarly. If you think Joanna or John claim to be expressing Orthodoxy, you don't read or listen to them. Period. The desired effect, at least as Will characterizes it, is to do character assasination beyond simply pointing out, "Hey, these guys aren't orthodox!", as illustrated with the suggestion he 'set his sights' on her.

You are imputing something to Will he did not say - and putting ideas and words into someone else's mouth with an intent to discredit resembles more Zeezrom's confrontation with Amulek than someone with a sincere desire for dialogue.

[David T]

You are imputing something to Will he did not say - and putting ideas and words into someone else's mouth with an intent to discredit resembles more Zeezrom's confrontation with Amulek than someone with a sincere desire for dialogue.

What part? That he takes pleasure and is excited to see Greg "set his sights" on Joanna? The implication that he takes glee in seeing them 'taken down'? Which?

Will, is this an incorrect characterization? Are you not pleased with such 'exposes' which 'shed light on' aspects of their character that you feel should be exposed to ridicule and discredit,especially if through a Church-owned Publication? Do you not want to see their influence taken down? Do you not see this as the goal of setting Greg's 'sights' on them?

Whether this is noble or righteous or not aside - I feel I've characterized how you have expressed your thoughts on the matter here accurately. Am I wrong?

Edited May 11, 2012 by David T

[Cushan Rishathaim]

An ad hominem is a personal attack rather than a recounting of the evidence pro or con for some view or position at issue. An ad hominem is a counterfeit of real argument. It is a substitute for logical process, and it attempts to use emotion as a mode of agitation and propaganda (as frequently in political campaigns).

Since neither you nor I have seen this Greg Smith piece (he's no relation to me and I have never met him), it is highly inappropriate to suggest that it contains ad hominems. In fact, nothing we have heard from those who have seen the article is suggestive of ad hominems in the piece. When we each read that piece for ourselves, we will then be able to evaluate whether it contains any personal, emotional attacks, instead of a deliberative consideration of what John Dehlin has in fact done and said on record. Until then, restraint is called for. Not censorship and a priori assertions unsupported by evidence.

I'm not sure why you're addressing these comments to me. If you'll review my comments, I have always said that I'm unwilling to judge the piece before reading it. My criticisms were based upon Schryver's assessment, that "the objective of Smith's paper... had nothing whatsoever to do with mormonstories' stated objectives," but instead constitutes a personal attack on John himself, showing that John is "an apostate evangelist seeking to destroy the faith of the Saints."

If this is true, I'm pleased that the GA's intervened, since a personal attack on someone's character in the name of defending the faith and bringing people to Christ would of course be out of line, though unfortunately, very much reflective of the type of zeal often manifested by LDS apologists.

[William Schryver]

Dehlin and his supporters have been claiming that the GAs have vindicated him and are attempting to stop apologetics. ... Nothing gets a GA's attention like someone falsely claiming to speak for GAs.

Indeed.

Dehlin's triumphalism is not only premature, it's delusional.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

very much reflective of the type of zeal often manifested by LDS apologists.

I doubt very much that you could substantiate this. And I am not talking about a board or some one's post on this or other boards. I am talking about articles or papers written. Define often.

[Wiki Wonka]

Hi Uther,

I am a member of FAIR since 2008 and I am currently one of the administrators of the FAIR Wiki. If you don't mind, I'd like to respond to a few items in your post.

(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).

My background is that I was baptized at age 8 and have been active in the Church my entire life. Several of my adult children, however, have left the Church. They left for reasons related to a perception that science and religion were incompatible. It was my interaction with them on these subjects and my desire to maintain a continuing relationship with them that led me to investigate criticisms of the Church more in-depth. This is what ultimately led me to FAIR. I looked at the FAIR Wiki and saw a great potential for expansion and improvement. I also saw some evidence of what we at FAIR call "snark." I have spent the past four years attempting to reconstruct the Wiki so that it is more navigable and so that it takes a more objective tone. The Wiki in 2012 does not resemble the wiki of 2008.

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 agree that there is a rather naive perception within certain groups of Church members that all arguments against the Church's truth claims are simply "anti-Mormon lies." This is unfortunate.

I now see that what I believed and what is the real story, are two completely different things.

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.

If I might offer a mild correction: FAIR is not attempting to use facts to convince people that the Church is true. The only way one will believe, particularly in the face of many facts, is based upon a spiritual witness. You won't find anyone at FAIR that believes otherwise. What FAIR does attempt to do is to provide additional historical data that may not be addressed by critics. Our purpose it to support faith, but not to attempt to replace faith with anything else.

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 agree completely. The nature of certain fact means that we do, absolutely, need to leave the ultimate decision of whether or not we believe in the realm of faith. We have many testimonials, however, from members who found FAIR's information to be very helpful to them. We do not publish these things, but we treasure them because they are essentially the only type of "payment" we receive for our efforts.

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.

I'm happy that you found something that helped you.

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 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.

There is never a good reason to demean or attack people. Unfortunately, some folks are so used to critics posing as questioning members, that they sometimes have difficulty in not assuming the worst.

A number of years ago this board was known as the "FAIR board" I believe. However, FAIR came to realize that the contentious nature of discussions generated on message boards was not really aligned with FAIR's mission. We disassociated ourselves from the message board. A few members of FAIR still post here occasionally, but most members of FAIR actually don't read the message boards. We focus instead on two areas 1) building up our responses to critical claims in the FAIR Wiki and 2) personal one-on-one responses through FAIR's "Ask the Apologist" feature. When someone sends an inquiry to FAIR's "Ask the Apologist," they will receive one or more very respectul responses. We always use our real names when responding to AtA (I use a pseudonym on message boards simply because my real name already brings up enough Google results as it is, but I always use my real name in private messages).

The only hearts you help are those that come to FAIR and shallowly browse to get comfort, without looking in depth.

Just like putting on gym clothing can make you feel more sporty. But still you dont exercise.

My experience with those who have really looked at FAIR's information is that they do not make a shallow investigation at all. We are continuously trying to improve our information. If we get something wrong and it comes to our attention, we update the information. Some of the most useful information used to update the FAIR Wiki comes from critics, which is one of the very few reasons I ever visit message boards these days.

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".

Actually, it is the critics that make a big deal out of tapirs. The entire subject of tapirs came up years ago when John Sorenson presented an argument about "loan-shifting" which suggested that different names may have been assigned to existing animals. Most of the apologists that I know think that "horse" simply means "horse," and that some evidence has been found and that more may yet be found. The "tapir" thing is usually used by critics for the purposes of mockery - hence when you see someone post with the name "tapir rider" of "talks with tapirs" you know that they are a critic.

With regard to JS and teenagers, we simply present the fact that none of the existing historical evidence supports JS having physical relations with his younger plural wives. Those particular sealings appear to have done for purposes other than having physical relations.

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.

Well, I know that I always try not to engage in personal attacks (sorry, but I've never been comfortable using the term ad hominem simply because it was never part of my vocabulary before I joined FAIR) Whenever I slip up and drift into sarcasm (a tendency that I need to continually control), I'm always quick to apologize.I don't know Mr. Dehlin so I can't comment on him specifically.

You removed quite a lot of them from FAIR a while ago, but I still remember.

I'm probably the one that removed them. We have been making great efforts over the past four years to "de-snarkify" the Wiki. That means that the Wiki is supposed to address arguments rather than people. It does not mean that we cannot challenge an author's interpretation of sources - it means that we cannot challenge the author's personal characterisics and use that as a reason to dismiss their arguments. We are not perfect, and there are over 4000 Wiki articles, so we still find things that need to be changed.

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.

This is very true. The genesis of FAIR was the formation of an organized online response to critics. As such, it was very easy to respond to harsh criticism with harsh responses. We have evolved away from that approach over the years, but it certainly started out that way.

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..

I totally agree that we need to approach questioning members in a way other than to assume that they simply "want to sin" and leave the Church. In fact, FAIR's approach is to assume that the questioning member has sincerely come across troubling information. We attempt to provide information which allows them to examine these issues while retaining their faith. That is our open and clearly stated mission.

I sincerely hope that I have provided adequate answers to some of your concerns about FAIR. If you have additional questions, please ask.

Best,

WW

Edited May 11, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Mark Beesley]

What's heterodoxy? We can't even agree on what's doctrine! (Enter bcspace )

It's always nice to start the morning with a chuckle.