Specific Problems On Fair (And Farms If You Want)

[Calm]

To avoid further derailing of other threads, I am creating this thread to fill the purpose of helping FAIR improve by pointing out problematic comments. We've had a few posters who have stated that their faith was damaged or that they know of others whose faith was damaged by negative comments and inappropriate attacks.

FAIR is always looking to improve its content, so I am now inviting those who posted generic criticisms to get down to business and point out the actual problems they have come across. Specifics with links are desired.

Thank you for taking the time. Please no comments about anything else...at least to begin with.

[Deborah]

I will be interested in what others say because I have a hard time seeing how reading what's on FAIR could be damaging to one's faith.

[Peppermint Patty]

Great post Cal. I'm not very familiar with FAIR or their tactics. I do know that people (of all walks of life) tend to be easily offended, even where no offense was intended. I have seen many LDS take offense or feel attacked where no offense was originally intended.

I guess my thoughts are that we as LDS need to go the extra mile in being charitable, kind, supportive and not offend or take any action which could be perceived as offensive. I would hope that FAIR would strive to be Christlike in their interactions with everyone and all their publications.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I will be interested in what others say because I have a hard time seeing how reading what's on FAIR could be damaging to one's faith.

My experience Deborah has been that the vast majority of those who claim FAIR was damaging either had the well heavily poisoned ahead of time, or (more often around here) the non-member or former/less active member is equating the interpersonal interactions on this non-FAIR/FARMS affiliated message board by some such as Dan Peterson, Scott Gordon, etc with the FAIR and FARMS organizations themselves. It's an uncalled for comparison, but it seems to happen regularly.

This isn't to say the websites don't have possible problems. They are rather vast and have many contributors. It would be good to have some feedback so it can be corrected.

[Calm]

Shhh.....

Let those who have issues get their chance to speak up please.

[wenglund]

Chirp....chirp....

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Pahoran]

Ze crickettes -- 'ow loud zey chirp!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Wiki Wonka]

To avoid further derailing of other threads, I am creating this thread to fill the purpose of helping FAIR improve by pointing out problematic comments. We've had a few posters who have stated that their faith was damaged or that they know of others whose faith was damaged by negative comments and inappropriate attacks.

FAIR is always looking to improve its content, so I am now inviting those who posted generic criticisms to get down to business and point out the actual problems they have come across. Specifics with links are desired.

Thank you for taking the time. Please no comments about anything else...at least to begin with.

I'll make a further commitment. If anyone can point to a specific example of a personal attack made against a critic's person rather than against his or her argument on the FAIR Wiki, then I will correct or remove it.

(BTW, simply quoting someone does not constitute a personal attack...or "ad hominem" if you wish... I didn't suddenly pick up a Latin vocabulary just because I became an apologist).

WW

[tapirrider]

This video misleads and should be taken down. I was banned last time I brought it up on this board.

[Bond...James Bond]

All the critics got banned long ago. Luckily a companion piece has been started in Bedlam.

[juliann]

This video misleads and should be taken down. I was banned last time I brought it up on this board.

I find it very hard to believe you were banned for a FAIR video...not to mention that you wouldn't be here if you were banned. Is there any reason you aren't providing a link to FAIR on this? I don't keep up with everything but if there are errors there are disclaimers. I know that we put an update on a video jacket but I don't remember which one.

The OP is asking for specifics not videos and links with no commentary whatsoever.

[mercyngrace]

All the critics got banned long ago. Luckily a companion piece has been started in Bedlam.

I had a simliar thought. If the request is genuine (and knowing Cal, I believe completely that it is), wouldn't it be more productive to pose this question where it is likely to get a response from the target audience?

Both reelmormon and Rufus1 talked in another thread about how they were not taken at face value on this board when they expressed doubt. Even when they try and provide some sort of credibility that they suspect other faithful LDS will see as evidence of their sincerity, they are called into question. Just today, when Rufus1 said he was a member of the bishopric, his concerns about the tone of apologia were ignored in favor of questioning whether he was a legitimate bishopric member rather than just a clerk or secretary. If new members are saying that there doesn't seem to be a way to express doubt on this board without immediately being treated like a troll or an anti-Mormon, why would we expect those who may be able to pinpoint seemingly offensive apologetic material to continue posting here? And consequently to respond to this thread?

I certainly don't know what the answer to all this contention is (other than a healthy dose of compassion, mercy, and empathy flowing in all directions) but I'm doubtful (yet ever hopeful) that this thread will provide any useful insight into why some members feel that these LDS apologetic groups are faith destroying.

Edited May 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[tapirrider]

I find it very hard to believe you were banned for a FAIR video...not to mention that you wouldn't be here if you were banned. Is there any reason you aren't providing a link to FAIR on this? I don't keep up with everything but if there are errors there are disclaimers. I know that we put an update on a video jacket but I don't remember which one.

The OP is asking for specifics not videos and links with no commentary whatsoever.

Nice, call me a liar. The video has Dr. Peterson making an outrageous claim that horses dating to the time of Christ were found in the upper Midwest. It can be seen at about 0:50. I discussed this on this board and was banned from the thread.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56553-non-lds-scholars-speak-out-against-meldrum/

[Wiki Wonka]

This video misleads and should be taken down. I was banned last time I brought it up on this board.

Well, I just watched the entire thing and it basically consisted of Dan Peterson, John Tvedtnes and Brant Gardner saying that the could be evidence for horses and elephants, but no evidence of chariots yet. That was it. I thought that there might be some mention of the Spencer Lake horse hoax, but the Spencer Lake skull wasn't mentioned either. The video doesn't even mention tapirs (always a popular subject for critics). So I'm not sure what you are objecting to other than the video's existence.

WW

Edited to add: I just saw your previous post about the midwest after I posted. I assume that this is a reference to the Spencer Lake skull hoax? I just looked at the FAIR Wiki where this video is located and I see a note right above it that says:

"Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account."

Edited May 11, 2012 by Wiki Wonka

[Pahoran]

I had a simliar thought. If the request is genuine (and knowing Cal, I believe completely that it is), wouldn't it be more productive to pose this question where it is likely to get a response from the target audience?

Both reelmormon and Rufus1 talked in another thread about how they were not taken at face value on this board when they expressed doubt. Even when they try and provide some sort of credibility that they suspect other faithful LDS will see as evidence of their sincerity, they are called into question. Just today, when Rufus1 said he was a member of the bishopric, his concerns about the tone of apologia were ignored in favor of questioning whether he was a legitimate bishopric member rather than just a clerk or secretary. If new members are saying that there doesn't seem to be a way to express doubt on this board without immediately being treated like a troll or an anti-Mormon, why would we expect those who may be able to pinpoint seemingly offensive apologetic material to continue posting here? And consequently to respond to this thread?

I certainly don't know what the answer to all this contention is (other than a healthy dose of compassion, mercy, and empathy flowing in all directions) but I'm doubtful (yet ever hopeful) that this thread will provide any useful insight into why some members feel that these LDS apologetic groups are faith destroying.

People get credibility in online fora by patiently building a posting history, not by announcing themselves and demanding that we believe everything they say about themselves and validate their feelings of victimhood.

Rufus in particular insisted -- several times -- that the vicious, unChristlike material he found in MI/FARMS and FAIR publications effectively destroyed his testimony. When asked for particulars, he beat his breast and cried out in anguish that he was being victimised. And yet, if he has particulars he can produce, then why not produce them?

How can supporting his assertions by producing what is asked for possibly be less productive than bleating?

Regards,

Pahoran

[tapirrider]

Well, I just watched the entire thing and it basically consisted of Dan Peterson, John Tvedtnes and Brant Gardner saying that the could be evidence for horses and elephants, but no evidence of chariots yet. That was it. I thought that there might be some mention of the Spencer Lake horse hoax, but the Spencer Lake skull wasn't mentioned either. The video doesn't even mention tapirs (always a popular subject for critics). So I'm not sure what you are objecting to other than the video's existence.

WW

There were no horses found in the upper Midwest dating to the time of christ. I am objecting to a misleading claim made by a BYU professor who has admitted he made a mistake and the video still remains for Mormons looking for evidence. Already I have been called a liar and now my very valid point is being minimized.

[Wiki Wonka]

There were no horses found in the upper Midwest dating to the time of christ. I am objecting to a misleading claim made by a BYU professor who has admitted he made a mistake and the video still remains for Mormons looking for evidence. Already I have been called a liar and now my very valid point is being minimized.

I added a comment to my post above after I saw your response. I just looked at the FAIR Wiki where this video is located and I see a note right above it that says:

"Please note that reference is made to a potential pre-Columbian horse, the so-called "Spencer Lake," horse skull. This has now been determined to have been a fraud or hoax, and should not be considered evidence for the Book of Mormon account."

The disclaimer was already there. http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_anachronisms/Animals#Horses

[Wiki Wonka]

All the critics got banned long ago. Luckily a companion piece has been started in Bedlam.

Well, I don't visit there very often any more, but I took a quick glance at the thread, and I see that some of the stuff mentioned went away some time ago.

One that was mentioned is from a Hamblin paper that is still posted on the FAIR Web site. Hamblin was illustrating a point by replaced one insulting word with another insulting word, much in the same way that we claim that certain things said in the media about Mormons would not be politically correct you replaced the word "Mormon" with "Jew." http://www.fairlds.org/authors/hamblin-william/their-little-corner-of-cyberspace

I'm interested in things that are on the FAIR Wiki primarily, because I can change those.

WW

[Calm]

All the critics got banned long ago. Luckily a companion piece has been started in Bedlam.

Would you be kind enough to copy those that you think are worthwhile and have specific details so they can be tracked down (and hopefully a link)?

[Calm]

This video misleads and should be taken down. I was banned last time I brought it up on this board.

This thread is specifically talking about personal attacks and negative comments by FARMS or FAIR, not about errors. Someone else can start that one if they want. Hopefully now that you have been informed of the correction, that will address your issue. If it does not, please use another thread for the discussion.

Thank you.

[Calm]

A poster mentioned the Greg Smith article about Rod Meldrum. I am hoping he will add details when (if?) he posts on this thread.

[why me]

Great post Cal. I'm not very familiar with FAIR or their tactics. I do know that people (of all walks of life) tend to be easily offended, even where no offense was intended. I have seen many LDS take offense or feel attacked where no offense was originally intended.

I guess my thoughts are that we as LDS need to go the extra mile in being charitable, kind, supportive and not offend or take any action which could be perceived as offensive. I would hope that FAIR would strive to be Christlike in their interactions with everyone and all their publications.

The problem is Patty that when one is defending the lds against unkind comments, and that is what they mainly are, to respond in a charitable way is not always possible. For example: if FAIR responds to the critic who has just published a terrible video about the church, bashing it, how should FAIR respond. Like this: According to the honorable gentleman who made the video, the church........................well, we at FAIR are aghast at such accusations. We firmly believe that the gentleman in question should rethink his video and put more accurate information in the said video piece. We at FAIR are kind and charitable to our critics and we expect the same behavior in return. Here are our points of rebuttal of the video that the honorable gentleman made..........

Would that be okay?

Edited May 11, 2012 by why me

[why me]

Both reelmormon and Rufus1 talked in another thread about how they were not taken at face value on this board when they expressed doubt.

Reelmormon was taking to task for not listening. People responded to him or her but he or she came back with the same question later in the thread. I think this is what happend and gave annoyance to the people trying to answer his or her questions.

[why me]

My experience Deborah has been that the vast majority of those who claim FAIR was damaging either had the well heavily poisoned ahead of time, or (more often around here) the non-member or former/less active member is equating the interpersonal interactions on this non-FAIR/FARMS affiliated message board by some such as Dan Peterson, Scott Gordon, etc with the FAIR and FARMS organizations themselves. It's an uncalled for comparison, but it seems to happen regularly.

You have a good point. I think that members have surfed the critic sites long before they find FAIR. And their minds have a certain bias against FAIR when they approach FAIR because of what is said about FAIR on critic boards. Also, when members come to FAIR they are looking for concrete evidence that the church is true. They want proof since critics are constantly chirping about proof and lack of evidence. FAIR of course, cannot provide concrete proof that the lds church is true. They can only make a case for plausibility. But the critics make concrete claims that the church is not true because of x, y, z.

For the doubting member, the case for x, y, z is stronger because it is claimed by critics to be evidence that the church is not true.

Edited May 11, 2012 by why me

[why me]

To avoid further derailing of other threads, I am creating this thread to fill the purpose of helping FAIR improve by pointing out problematic comments. We've had a few posters who have stated that their faith was damaged or that they know of others whose faith was damaged by negative comments and inappropriate attacks.

FAIR is always looking to improve its content, so I am now inviting those who posted generic criticisms to get down to business and point out the actual problems they have come across. Specifics with links are desired.

Thank you for taking the time. Please no comments about anything else...at least to begin with.

This is what I think about it. I said that FAIR needs to update its board and become more likeable in the process. I gave the catholic apologetic as an example in color and easy to access information. There needs to be easier ways to access FAIR videos, interviews with FAIR members about certain aspects of church history etc. In other words, the site needs upgrading so people can access information in a colorful and easy way. Sadly, people need color and easy access these days and more entertainment in the process to keep the mind occupied.

Compare FAIR to this site:

http://www.catholic.com/

It is user friendly and presents information in a lively way. All this helps to keep the catholic faithful faithful when they search the site for their own answers.