Specific Problems On Fair (And Farms If You Want)

[Calm]

Individuals uninvolved in Apologetics 7 years ago don't need to apologize for those who were affected 7 years ago. But they should still consider that these experiences were real, and seek to make sure that such an accusation would be impossible to be made today. I think FAIR especially has come a LONG way, and I have a lot of respect for how FAIR generally approaches things today.

I only ask that this is taken into consideration when stories come of individuals being negatively affected by apologetics in the past. They may in their current arguments unfairly assume that nothing has changed in the way things have been presented, but we shouldn't discount the experience they may really have had in the past when online apologetics were still finding their 'groove'.

Thank you for the post, in many ways it states what I feel about things. Especially where FAIR is concerned, I think there has been a learning curve of how to best present information fairly (no pun intended) while recognizing we are not neutral in what we are trying to accomplish. We have learned, among other things, that a personal style of humour may not be appreciated by all and is often read as harsher than is meant. Also it is way too easy to misinterpret someone's intent if one is unfamiliar with that individual. And since many of our readers come to our articles without knowledge of either the history of discussion or acquaintance with the people involved, we have tended to try and remove some of the aspects that we thought were making the articles have personality but others were seeing in a negative way. I don't see us as changing the info content of what we put up as a result of this discussion (unless there are ones that veer into personal areas not relevant to the subject), but hopefully where concerns are expressed about the tone we (meaning mostly Wiki Wonka ) will be able to do something about that (if it is not our article, but a conference talk for example, it is the author's right to edit it, not ours so not everything on the website can or should be altered even if there is a problem with it in some people's view).

There has also been a problem from what I've seen with some critics lumping all those who defend the Church in the same bag (I recognize it happens with some LDS viewing critics as a one size fits all as well), it is hard to take seriously complaints directed at FAIR (and I assume FARMers have the same problem) when the complaint is based on the behaviours of anonymous posters in a newspaper article, even those who use our material but put their own less than civil spin on it. We cannot be responsible for all the jerks on the internet, we claim only responsibility for just our own jerks. When I hear complaints about FARMS or FAIR from individuals who admit they've read little by either, do I really need to take such criticisms seriously?

Which is why I find critics who are willing to make the effort and put up specific complaints much more useful and serious, not only for the aid in creating a better FAIR website source, but also for help in identifying those who have had actual issues and are not just repeating what they have heard or assumptions they have made based on those unrelated to FAIR and/or FARMS (not saying everyone who avoids listing specifics is in this group, but by listing specifics one can guarantee---at least in my eyes---one is not considered to be a potential member of this group).

add-on disclaimer: there are no claims being made here about any changes being made to FARMS, FARMS is a completely different organization from FAIR even if a few members of FAIR work with FARMS and others have been published by it. If a FARMer wants to do something with this stuff, that is up to them. Posting perceived problems of FARMs is for reference purposes only (to demonstrate the quality of the claims of nastiness, etc. that are often directed at FARMS) as far as I am concerned.

Edited May 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I don't regret for a moment posing the straightforward question seeking clarification on what he meant by saying he was in a bishopric. The reason being that there is a measure of confusion on this matter, even among faithful Latter-day Saints, and some people are apt to take advantage of that when giving evidence of their bona fides, as it were. A straight-up response would have dispatched the question handily; as it was, the question was ignored, while somebody else asked what difference it makes. I then felt obliged to respond.

I earnestly believe that good-faith discussion requires clarity and candor from all parties, and I will seek clarification when I deem it necessary.

That's all the comment I have on this matter. If you have a rejoinder, I suggest you make it on a separate thread so as to avoid further derailment of cal's.

[Log]

If you still can't figure out, here's a clue: pay special attention to the end-notes in the FAIR Wiki article. Is anything missing?

I know! I know! Your blog's comment section is missing in the wiki article.

Otherwise, I can't figure out your point. Care to make it as explicit as you can?

[CASteinman]

There's more but I'm out of time at the moment, perhaps Jason or someone else so inclined can pick this up. Also, I haven't read most of the posts just because I'm rushing this morning but I think the consensus is that the scholarship is biased in a way that actually undermines the intent of apologia.

Wow. That was a lot of work.

But the scholarship SHOULD be biased. It is apologetic.

What's the problem there? I mean, most of the things you brought up are kinda trivial compared with the concerns I see from most people struggling with their testimony and I frankly have never heard of anyone being offended out of the Church because of things like "John Gee's footnote is suspect".

I cannot even begin to wrap my head around where someone is if that is the sort of thing that drives them out of the Church. Its not just an area of ordinary misunderstanding or miscommunication, but I would feel like I was dealing with someone from another planet and an incomprehensible alien culture if that was a big deal to their testimony.

But maybe I misunderstood. Maybe you are making lists of things where anti-Mormons get their noses bent out of shape. In which case, I'm not very sympathetic.

[Calm]

CA, while I appreciate your point of view and have been greatly enjoying your posts, I do not want to use this thread to discuss the effect of items on someone's testimony, but rather the personal, negative attacks they found inappropriate. I recognize that some people think that this is not a valid reason to lose faith while others see members' behaviors as reasons to consider the Church's truth claims false. Let's accept that as given and use this thread to discuss specifics, please.

Thank you.

[CASteinman]

If you still can't figure out, here's a clue: pay special attention to the end-notes in the FAIR Wiki article. Is anything missing?

Looks to me like the only thing missing in the second link vs the first is a faithless, anti-Mormon point of view. Indeed, the second link has a more diverse and broad range of source and viewpoints. The first source is rather narrow -- though extremely long -- in its perspective. So, really, its the first link that has things missing.

I do not see how this adds anything to the discussion at all.

[CASteinman]

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.

That is a really excellent site.

I do not know, but I suspect it costs quite a bit more to run than FAIR. Probably our solutions would need to be financially practical as well.

[cinepro]

Looks to me like the only thing missing in the second link vs the first is a faithless, anti-Mormon point of view. Indeed, the second link has a more diverse and broad range of source and viewpoints. The first source is rather narrow -- though extremely long -- in its perspective. So, really, its the first link that has things missing.

I do not see how this adds anything to the discussion at all.

So, if someone asked you what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches about Noah's flood, which link would you send them to?

[mercyngrace]

But maybe I misunderstood.

I think you failed to read my initial post to Calmoriah. See the last line directed to Cal here.

If you want to address the points in question and feel that would be helpful for Cal or anyone at FAIR, have at it. Cal invited Jason to list the complaints being raised on another board and I had a few minutes this morning and did a quick cut and paste job in response to her request.

Edited May 11, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Log]

So, if someone asked you what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches about Noah's flood, which link would you send them to?

scriptures.lds.org

[mercyngrace]

No thank you, not at this time. Disagreements about what is and isn't doctrine in the Church isn't what I am looking for, but rather uncivil behaviour. While seeing what they think are contradictions between what the Church teaches and what FAIR presents (obviously FAIR in general does not present what we think contradicts Church teaching, but this is a matter of interpretation, not manners) may cause someone to lose faith, this is not what the accusations that I am focusing were saying. They were talking about how FAIR and FARMs treated others inappropriate, I am not so much concern with claims of how they treated arguments but people.

Clear guidance, M'am.

I'm sorry I didn't have time to really read the posts through, I was rushing this morning (of course, then I got sucked into the thread from which yours spun off...).

[Calm]

No problem. Just grateful you are willing to do anything to help as I've got a couple of different projects and family stuff flying at me all at once.

Strange how life is really slow for me and then when one thing gets going that I'd like to pay attention to, other things I have to pay attention to spring on me as if they've been waiting in the shadows for just such a moment.

[cinepro]

scriptures.lds.org

So, they go and read the Scriptures, and while it sounds to them like Genesis 8 is describing a global flood, they want to know what the LDS Church (especially the prophets and apostles) have taught.

They find two articles the LDS Church and Noah's flood.

One references the following sources:

Duane E. Jeffery, "Noah’s Flood: Modern Scholarship and Mormon Traditions," Sunstone no. (Issue #134) (October 2004)

"By Common Consent" blog

"Journal of Discourses" (1880)

"Evening and Morning Star" (1832)

"Answers to Gospel Questions", Joseph Fielding Smith (1966)

"The Ensign" (Hebrew Scholar Donald Parry in 1998)

"Principles of Oceanography"

The other uses these sources (all linked to LDS.org):

Elder Mark Petersen, “Follow the Prophets”. October 1981 General Conference

Elder Hartman Rector, Jr., “Turning the Hearts”. April 1981 General Conference.

President Gordon B. Hinckley, “If Ye Are Prepared, Ye Shall Not Fear”. October 2005 General Conference.

Elder William Bennett, “Covenants and Blessings”. October 1975 General Conference.

Jeffry R. Holland, “A Promised Land”. Ensign, June 1976.

LDS Institute Old Testament Manual

"The Ensign" (Hebrew Scholar Donald Parry in 1998)

Joseph B. Romney, “Noah, The Great Preacher of Righteousness”. Ensign, February 1998

F. Kent Nielsen, “The Gospel and the Scientific View: How the Earth Came to Be”. Ensign, September 1980

“Noah and the Ark”. Liahona, September 1984

Kent P. Jackson, “An Age of Contrasts: From Adam to Abraham”. Ensign, February 1986.

Rex C. Reeve Jr., “A Latter-day Testament of Biblical Truth”. Ensign, January 2001.

Lane Johnson, “Who and Where are the Lamanites?”. Ensign, December 1975.

Elder David E. Sorensen, “Preisthood, Agency and Black Power”. Ensign, September 2007.

Elder Howard W. Hunter, “Commitment to God”. October 1981 Conference.

Now, based on those sources, what can you tell about the articles and their approach to the subject? To a casual reader, which should they assume better describes the teachings of LDS Church leaders?

[Log]

The church is not coextensive with the brethren.

[cinepro]

The church is not coextensive with the brethren.

I have never in my life heard a member, apologist, critic or anti-Mormon argue that the Church is "coextensive with the brethren."

So thank you for bringing a small ray of light to the discussion by saying something can agree with.

[mercyngrace]

No problem. Just grateful you are willing to do anything to help as I've got a couple of different projects and family stuff flying at me all at once.

Strange how life is really slow for me and then when one thing gets going that I'd like to pay attention to, other things I have to pay attention to spring on me as if they've been waiting in the shadows for just such a moment.

Amen. Between home school, work, and making sure the men in my house didn't just pack beef jerky and potato chips for their priesthood campout tonight, I've about had it. And yet... there is a treadmill at the gym calling me... and a sink full of dishes.... and a daughter who wants "girls night" to compensate for not being on the campout. I need a nap.

I did check over there (Shades board) a minute ago and one of the posters (can't remember who off the top of my head) said he posted some examples on the FAIR blog but I suppose A.Wyatt will address those issues there.

Edited May 18, 2012 by mercyngrace

[CASteinman]

So, if someone asked you what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches about Noah's flood, which link would you send them to?

I would probably tell them. What I would tell them would be that the Church's official doctrine indicates that it was a world-wide flood -- and maybe it was -- but that there is no requirement to believe that to be an effective or good Latter-day Saint, and so, if you meet a Mormon who does not believe that, do not consider them to be in error. Rather -- consider that we do not know and it is not all that important to us today.

I would not send them to a link unless forced.

If forced, I would choose www.lds.org.

If forced between the two you provided, I would go to FAIR, because the other site smacks of apostate faithlessness.

Hope that helps you in your understanding of me.

[CASteinman]

So, they go and read the Scriptures, and while it sounds to them like Genesis 8 is describing a global flood, they want to know what the LDS Church (especially the prophets and apostles) have taught.

They find two articles the LDS Church and Noah's flood.

One references the following sources:

The other uses these sources (all linked to LDS.org):

Now, based on those sources, what can you tell about the articles and their approach to the subject? To a casual reader, which should they assume better describes the teachings of LDS Church leaders?

I would not base the decision on footnotes, but rather on the content of the sites.

One -- the first -- appears to be the work of a Wolf in Sheeps clothing. The second appears to be a more comprehensive and broad look at the subject from the perspective of faith.

I would say this choice is a no-brainer.

[Log]

I have never in my life heard a member, apologist, critic or anti-Mormon argue that the Church is "coextensive with the brethren."

So thank you for bringing a small ray of light to the discussion by saying something can agree with.

It was the least I could do to counter this: your little gift of shadiness.

So, if someone asked you what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches about Noah's flood, which link would you send them to?

So, they go and read the Scriptures, and while it sounds to them like Genesis 8 is describing a global flood, they want to know what the LDS Church (especially the prophets and apostles) have taught.

Now, based on those sources, what can you tell about the articles and their approach to the subject? To a casual reader, which should they assume better describes the teachings of LDS Church leaders?

Now, if you weren't meaning to imply that the teachings of the Church were coextensive with the teachings of the Brethren, what, pray tell, did you mean to imply?

Edited May 11, 2012 by Log

[boogdar]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I noticed this thread and it reminded me of a video that I had recently watched about how to help those who leave, and why they do.

In my own personal experience, I haven't heard anyone talk about the specifics of FARMS/FAIR that they don't like. Mostly they state that their significant concerns seem to be flippantly half explained or downplayed, or they are doing "bad" apologetics.

This is largely subjective. We as members of the church cannot change someone's subjective view obviously. But it is important to try and understand and love people.

So, anyway, back to the video....it was posted by a current Elders Quorum Instructor and it is entitled: Why people leave the LDS church and what family/friends/community can do about it.

I thought it was absolutely fantastic in that it focuses on understanding where people are coming from, trying to put yourself in their shoes a bit, and therefore being able to be empathetic.

I do need to warn however, the video does briefly discuss some very controversal issues, so if you don't want to see that, maybe don't watch it.

[boogdar]

Hi, I'm new to this forum. I noticed this thread and it reminded me of a video that I had recently watched about how to help those who leave, and why they do.

In my own personal experience, I haven't heard anyone talk about the specifics of FARMS/FAIR that they don't like. Mostly they state that their significant concerns seem to be flippantly half explained or downplayed, or they are doing "bad" apologetics.

This is largely subjective. We as members of the church cannot change someone's subjective view obviously. But it is important to try and understand and love people.

So, anyway, back to the video....it was posted by a current Elders Quorum Instructor and it is entitled: Why people leave the LDS church and what family/friends/community can do about it.

I thought it was absolutely fantastic in that it focuses on understanding where people are coming from, trying to put yourself in their shoes a bit, and therefore being able to be empathetic.

I do need to warn however, the video does briefly discuss some very controversal issues, so if you don't want to see that, maybe don't watch it.

I also wanted to add that the man who made the video prefaces it with a statement saying to the effect, that none of this stuff proves the church isn't true.

[cinepro]

If forced, I would choose www.lds.org.

The first link (the one being accused of "shadiness" and being a "wolf in sheep's clothing") is nothing more than a listing of quotes from LDS.org (and the Church-published Institute manuals) in which Church leaders and publications have taught about the flood. If someone went to LDS.org, that is exactly what they would find

The fact that the FAIR Wiki could have an article about LDS teachings about the flood and not include those quotes (but instead focus entirely on marginalizing Church leader teachings and Church published statements on the subject) is the problem.

[juliann]

Similarly, FAIR has decent people like Wiki Wonka and Kevin Barney. But it also has Will Schryver, Allen Wyatt, and Mike Parker. So you have to weigh everything out. If we are able to list example after example of "nastiness," then after a certain point you have to conclude that the organization itself can be blamed--especially if the Powers that Be do nothing to rein in the offenders. FAIR ultimately divested itself of the messageboard for precisely this reason, I think. But, then again, if FAIR continues to keep people like Schryver, Greg Smith, etc. on board, then you have to conclude that the organization itself is tolerant of this crappy behavior.

Anyhow, we still have work to do. I'm barely through the first issue of the Review.

--------------

Kevin Barney is a good example of why certain apologetic bodies should not be condemned wholesale (he's on the FAIR board of directors and has contributed to that "awful" FRB). He's also featured on MST, as well as Joanna Brooks, and for that I applaud DCP.

Whoa....what was that about spreading gossip? Mike Parker isn't even a part of all this. He is a great guy who occasionally responds on the Bloggernacle. What is the point of printing up every ugly comment that can be found from any source without verification? How is dividing people up into decent and nasty going to give anyone the moral high ground?

[juliann]

At the time Matt Brown wrote this review, that was less the case. Yet one wonders why it was still necessary to cloud the issue of the historical merits of Buerger's argument by making an effort to associate Buerger with anti-Mormonism at the opening of the review. What does one call the misleading characterization of a person's argument as anti-Mormon at the outset of a review smack of?

It hasn't been that long since Matt unexpectedly died....he was quite young. Maybe his entire life should be taken into consideration for now.

http://www.heavenlyascents.com/2011/10/07/in-memoriam-matthew-b-brown-popular-lds-author/

Prolific and popular LDS author,

Matthew B. Brown

, was laid to rest today at the Orem City Cemetery at 1pm. He passed peacefully through to the other side of the veil on October 5, 2011 after a brief and unexpected illness.

I only met Matthew personally fairly recently, when I participated in the Expound Conference that he organized in May, 2011. However, I have long been a fan of his work, having been familiar with a number of his books for years, especially his first three,

Symbols in Stone, The Gate of Heaven

, and

All Things Restored

. These books were highly inspiring to me and helped encourage me to pursue what I am doing today. Matthew had an incredible talent for research and brought to light a wonderful wealth of information in a manner that made it accessible and exciting to a wide LDS audience.

The following is a list of some of his major publications:

Symbols in Stone: Symbolism on the Early Temples of the Restoration (1997 – Covenant Communications)

The Gate of Heaven: Insights on the Doctrines and Symbols of the Temple (1999 – Covenant Communications)

All Things Restored: Evidences and Witnesses of the Restoration (2000 – Covenant Communications)

The Plan of Salvation: Doctrinal Notes and Commentary (2002 – Covenant Communications)

Plates of Gold: The Book of Mormon Comes Forth (2003 – Covenant Communications)

Joseph Smith: The Man, The Mission, The Message (2004 – Covenant Communications)

Receiving Gifts of the Spirit (2005 – Covenant Communications)

Prophecies: Signs of the Times, Second Coming, Millennium (2006 – Covenant Communications)

A Pillar of Light: The History and Message of the First Vision (2009 – Covenant Communications)

Exploring the Connection Between Mormons and Masons (2009 – Covenant Communications)

You can also see many great papers and discourses by Matthew on the FAIR LDS website

here

.

Matthew’s buoyant personality, boundless energy, brilliant mind, and zeal for the Gospel will be sorely missed. He had so much that he was working on that he was eager to share with the world. I hope that at least some of that can still come to light so that we may further benefit from his talents.

Matthew is survived by his sweet wife, Jamie. FAIR has set up a

donations page

for anyone who would like to make a contribution to help out the family.

There will be a memorial service Saturday Oct. 15 at 1:00 PM at the Carterville Chapel in Orem.

For those who knew Matthew and would like to share your fond memories of him, Jamie Brown, along with Tyler Livingston, has set up the

Matthew B. Brown Memorial Page

on Facebook.

Some of his most recent efforts can be viewed on the webpage he recently set up,

www.ExpoundLDS.com

. It contains an incredible wealth of information on LDS beliefs, temples, Scripture, and many other topics.

Farewell, Matthew, dear friend! You will be greatly missed, but we know that you are received into the arms of your loved ones and into the rest of your Friend and Master, Jesus Christ and our loving Father. Well done, thou good and faithful servant.

[volgadon]

It hasn't been that long since Matt unexpectedly died....he was quite young. Maybe his entire life should be taken into consideration for now.

I agree with the principle of de mortuis, so for the moment I won't pursue it further, but I do have some issues with his scholarship.