Specific Problems On Fair (And Farms If You Want)

[Libs]

Depending on how you define "all mankind", it could create problems for the "limited covenant" view of Genesis.

Ah, yes....didn't see that.

[Log]

What are people's opinions of the tone from this bit from the FAIR Wiki?

Mormonism 101 contributes absolutely nothing new to the body of anti-Mormonism-there is nothing in the book that hasn't been written about elsewhere. It is simply another example of modern-day professional anti-Mormonism—attacking the Restored Gospel for money. The authors insist on basing their arguments on their own preconceived assumptions, rather than trying to show how the Restored Gospel (which they refer to as "Mormonism") supposedly has inconsistencies or failures based on its assumptions. One may well ask, since the book's authors are not LDS, why they should be expected to accept our assumptions?

Please do visit the link above.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Log

[cinepro]

Ah, I see...thanks for the explanation. So, that is what is meant by "covenant lineage"...the lineage of God's covenant people.

They weren't just the ancestors of "Israel", of course. This is how the Church presents it,. Notice the little blue line at ~2300 BC, and its scope.

Edited May 16, 2012 by cinepro

[KevinG]

Good point Cinepro - East Asia seems to have escaped the flood.

[Pahoran]

I had promised a further response to Kishkumen's hit piece on Greg Smith, intended to poison the well, in advance, against Smith's forthcoming review of the Mormonstories website. However, further reading shows it to be largely empty of meaningful content.

There is precious little of scholarly analysis therein. The entire post consists of cherry-picked quotes from Smith's article, sandwiched between laboured misrepresentations of what those quotes mean; spiced with occasional back-handed digs at various individuals Kishkumen doesn't like.

Some may be surprised to learn that every single one of those people is a Latter-day Saint who defends the Church. I, however, am not.

Now to the attack on Compton for violations of the policy of not allowing criticism of the LDS Church or its leaders. First of all, I have to say, in a discussion like that on homosexuality and Mormonism, this rule was ill-advised and wildly unrealistic. In a sense, I think this was a gift handed to people like Greg Smith to use to their best advantage. If you run a discussion about gays and Mormonism, there simply will be criticism of the LDS Church and its leaders. Without it, you're not really having an honest conversation.

So the only way to honestly discuss the Church's position on homosexuality/same sex attraction/the Law of Chastity is to permit spiteful personal attacks against the Church's revered leaders.

Really?

Perhaps that's the case for those whose starting point is that the Church's position is wrong, but for those who might want to give both sides a fair hearing and discuss the question on its merits, it might be possible to dispense with such things.

If I were not confident that on some level Greg Smith is genuinely outraged at a lack of respect shown to the LDS apostles, I would think he was having us on here. It is the primary function of any moderator on a board to facilitate discussion and keep it at least minimally functional. By mixing up the pragmatics of netiquette with religious scruples about the apostles, Greg Smith seems to me to be deliberately striving to make it look like Laura Compton is "one of those progressives" whose ethic is wildly out of kilter, straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel. In MDB speak, this is the work of Droopy, if Droopy really knew what the word subtle meant.

In case anyone is wondering, Droopy is someone Kishkumen despises, i.e. a believing Latter-day Saint. This kind of supercilious sneer represents some of the less offensive attention that LDS posters in the echo chamber are subjected to. But Kishkumen is overlooking a significant fact: as Greg Smith already noted, M4M included (at least at the time) a rule that "no criticism of the church or its leadership will be tolerated." Furthermore, Kishkumen knows about this, because he comments on it several times in his hit piece. Thus, in allowing the quoted attacks on President Packer, M4M has in fact tolerated more than just "criticism."

Now it is possible that, when making a futher rule against personal attacks, Ms Compton had in mind personal attacks against board participants. But she did not say so, and has not subsequently clarified her intent, if that is indeed the case. Perhaps Ms Compton might benefit from Kishkumen's lecture about clear communication.

I am not going to drag this on much further. I think you get the idea. Is it a hit piece? I say, most definitely. Why? Because Greg reads into Laura Compton the worst possible motives and implies for his readers that those are the motives she in fact has. She is, quite simply, implicitly called a tool of Satan and a wolf in sheep's clothing without the author having been direct about saying so. This gives Greg plausible deniability. You don't have to take my word for it. Indeed, I think the best witness to the reality of what is going on here is not I, but rather Will Schryver, who is licking his sadistic chops in anticipation of the next take-downs, in which Greg Smith will "expose" (rather, depict) John Dehlin and Joanna Brooks in the very same way. And we know from plentiful, unpleasant experience, that this is exactly what Will Schryver aims at: painting his opponents as wolves in sheep's clothing and tools of the devil. What more needs to be said?

Once again, Will Schryver is a believing Latter-day Saint, and therefore despised by Kishkumen. Insulting remarks like "licking his sadistic chops" are supposed to show us what a hit piece doesn't look like, I suppose. But note well the legerdemain Kish practices here. When he says that Smith "reads into Laura Compton the worst possible motives and implies for his readers that those are the motives she in fact has," he is in fact reluctantly admitting that Smith doesn't actually say what Kishkumen wants him to say. But note how he turns even that against Smith: "This gives Greg plausible deniability." Smith is being dishonest by not saying what he ought to say if Kishkumen's verdict is correct. It is as if Kish is saying, "Not only did the defendant commit the crime, but he successfully destroyed all evidence that would enable the court to convict him. That proves how guilty he is!"

Kishkumen then tries a shell game: he appeals to Will Schryver's (ugh!) opinion of something else Smith wrote, to prove something about the article Kish is trying to shred. The Dehlin article will be a "hit piece." How do we know? Because the Compton article is a "hit piece." How do we know? Because Schryver's read the Dehlin article and likes it!

Kishkumen didn't need to get a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania to produce this kind of Dreck. It is well within the competence of any graduate of Melodyland Bible College.

Lastly, I invite readers to click this link and read Smith's article for themselves. Then make up your own minds whether Kishkumen has fairly represented its contents.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 17, 2012 by Pahoran

[Wiki Wonka]

Good point Cinepro - East Asia seems to have escaped the flood.

And, apparently, Australia.

[Daniel Peterson]

The entire post consists of cherry-picked quotes from Smith's article,

Just to be perfectly clear: These are quotes from a prior article by Dr. Smith.

They are not from The Horrific Hit Piece and Smear that Neither Kishkumen nor John Dehlin nor Xander/Kevin nor Any of the Other Enraged Critics Have Seen. Because, just to make sure that the point is understood, the outraged critics haven't seen it.

Please observe the language -- far, far milder than such language often is on the Stalker board, from which this material comes -- in the quotations:

"Greg Smith seems to me to be deliberately striving to make it look like . . . " Note the suggestion of deliberate deception.

"if Droopy really knew what the word subtle meant." Note the personal insult.

(Please don't forget that the reason Kishkumen and his associates are perpetually indignant and morally outraged by the Maxwell Institute and FAIR is because those organizations allegedly attack people, and suffer from poor "tone.")

"Greg reads into Laura Compton the worst possible motives and implies for his readers that those are the motives she in fact has." But this is absolutely routine behavior -- it occurs every single day -- on the board where this was originally posted. I know this to be true, because, most commonly, it's aimed directly at me. And there's rarely a peep of protest against such behavior, neither from Kishkumen (who is complaining here about Dr. Smith) nor from anybody else on the site.

"She is, quite simply, implicitly called a tool of Satan and a wolf in sheep's clothing without the author having been direct about saying so." Really? "Quite simply"? Being interpreted, however, Kishkumen's comment here plainly acknowledges that, in fact, Dr. Smith didn't call Laura Compton "a tool of Satan and a wolf in sheep's clothing." Kishkumen has, as he himself might put it if he disliked himself as much as his dislikes his usual targets, read this into Dr. Smith's writing. And he doesn't just imply that it's what Dr. Smith really intended to say, he comes right out and announces it.

"This gives Greg plausible deniability." Note the suggestion of disingenuousness, even lack of integrity, here against Dr. Smith.

(Please keep in mind that the problem with the people at FAIR and the Maxwell Institute is that they continually attack and criticize others.)

"You don't have to take my word for it. Indeed, I think the best witness to the reality of what is going on here is not I, but rather Will Schryver." So, according to Kishkumen, the best evidence for what Kishkumen has alleged about Dr. Smith's article isn't the text of Dr. Smith's actual article, which, as Kishkumen himself grudgingly acknowledges, doesn't actually say what he claims Dr. Smith was saying. Instead, the best evidence for what Dr. Smith's article secretly, invisibly, and silently says is something that Kishkumen claims to be able to infer about the paper from the reaction of a third party to yet another paper. Rather odd reasoning, I think.

"Wlll Schryver, who is licking his sadistic chops." Note the extraordinarily harsh personal characterization of a third party, not the author of the piece in question, in order to justify Kishkumen's prediction about the character of an essay that Kishkumen hasn't actually seen, but which, he's convinced, will be a personal attack on somebody (and, hence, deserving of condemnation because personal attacks are, well, just wrong).

"this is exactly what Will Schryver aims at: painting his opponents as wolves in sheep's clothing and tools of the devil. What more needs to be said?" Indeed. QED. Because Person A allegedly has undesirable quality Y and likes Paper Z, Kishkumen is certain that Author B's Paper X covertly has Undesirable Quality Y, as well, and knows for a fact, though neither he nor anybody he knows has actually seen it, that Author B's Paper Z will have Undesirable Quality Y, too. What more need be said? The reasoning is impeccable, and airtight.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Pahoran]

Just to be perfectly clear: These are quotes from a prior article by Dr. Smith.

They are not from The Horrific Hit Piece and Smear that Neither Kishkumen nor John Dehlin nor Xander/Kevin nor Any of the Other Enraged Critics Have Seen. Because, just to make sure that the point is understood, the outraged critics haven't seen it.

Exactly. Not having seen the forthcoming review of Mormonstories, Kishkumen attempts to justify the a priori dismissal thereof as a "hit piece," as chanted in unison by his tribe of independent thinkers, by performing some blunt-force surgery of his own on something else Dr Smith wrote.

But you can't argue with this kind of brilliant scholarship, because he got his PhD from Penn U!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

At this point...actually more like around 2 AM last night, life has interfered with my desire to spend time on the board. Mods will be making all decisions probably for the next couple of days without my input, sorry for dropping out midstream, but family needs come first. I would appreciate everyone staying on topic no matter what temptation to make it easier on the mods. When in doubt if it is on topic for this thread, don't post here, start a new thread if you feel the need.

Thanks again....

[cinepro]

And, apparently, Australia.

But the aborigines already knew that.

[stemelbow]

Kishkumen then tries a shell game: he appeals to Will Schryver's (ugh!) opinion of something else Smith wrote, to prove something about the article Kish is trying to shred. The Dehlin article will be a "hit piece." How do we know? Because the Compton article is a "hit piece." How do we know? Because Schryver's read the Dehlin article and likes it!

Interesting isn't it?

[Scott Lloyd]

Lastly, I invite readers to click this link and read Smith's article for themselves. Then make up your own minds whether Kishkumen has fairly represented its contents.

Just want to say, because of this post, I have been exposed to Greg Smith's article, which I downloaded and read on the train coming to work this morning. A brilliant piece, deftly executed with solid logic and persuasive reasoning.

My appreciation to Pahoran and kudos to Greg.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Just want to say, because of this post, I have been exposed to Greg Smith's article, which I downloaded and read on the train coming to work this morning. A brilliant piece, deftly executed with solid logic and persuasive reasoning.

My appreciation to Pahoran and kudos to Greg.

You're most welcome.

I wonder if Xander will be back to defend his buddy Kishkumen? Or is he too busy pursuing his ancient vendetta?

I guess for some people, sticking it to their enemies is more important than sticking up for their friends.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Avatar4321]

Another (this one isn't specifically about personal attacks so I'm not sure it fits your request):

Scratch, this may not be the type of thing you are after, but FAIR's list of benefits of polygamy was devastating to my wife when she was looking for answers. She could not believe that such a thing could be written by well intentioned members. After I posted it on this board FAIR seriously revised the list.

ORIGINAL LIST

Quote:

Any such list as this is tentative. But, it reminds us plural marriage may have accomplished more than we sometimes appreciate. Some benefits which have been suggested include:

1. It was to try (prove) His people. Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.

2. It was to "raise up" righteous seed. Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.

3. It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world. This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

4. Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things," and a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.

5. Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.

6. Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. [2]

7. Polygamy created a system where a higher percentage of women and men got married compared to the national average at the time. [3]

8. Plural marriages increased competition in the marriage market, so the "spiritual slackers" and lower quality men had to work to improve their standing to compete. They had to clean up, try to get good jobs and treat the women with respect. It gave the women more options as to whom to marry.

9.Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. [4]

10. Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. [5]

11. Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. [6]

12. Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

CURRENT/REVISED LIST

Quote:

Possible benefits of plural marriage

Main articles: Polygamy because of lustful motives?, Reasons for plural marriage that have scant evidence, and Possible benefits of plural marriage

To try (prove) His people

Polygamy stood as an Abrahamic test for the saints. The willingness to obey a commandment that was inherently distasteful to the vast majority of the members of the Church allowed members to draw close to the Lord.

To "raise up" righteous seed

Specifically it allowed a relatively few righteous men to become very prolific in a time when the West was very wild and there were many unrighteous men. Children were raised in more households with a strong gospel commitment.

It served to "set apart" his people as a peculiar people to the world

This social isolation that gave the church space to solidify itself into an identity independent of the many denominations from which the membership was derived. Sociologists have discovered that in order for a religion to successfully grow it has to be demanding and it has to experience a moderate amount of tension with its host society. The RLDS Church rejected plural marriage, and perhaps not coincidentally are now small in number and virtually indistinguishable from Protestants.

Polygamy was part of the "restoration of all things"

This was a way for Mormons to feel connected with prophets like Abraham and Jacob. 19th century Mormons gained a greater appreciation for covenants that these forefathers made with God.

Family ties

Numerous family ties that were created, building a network of associations that strengthened the Church.

Higher growth rates

Arguably polygamy affected higher natural growth rates. Ironically plural wives had fewer children than their monogamous Mormon counterparts. [1]

Temple recommend holders

Professor Kathryn M. Daynes makes the point that in nineteenth century Utah, more women arranged to hold temple recommends and receive their endowments. That is, female rates of temple-worthiness (or, at least, being willing to take the time and effort to get a recommend and actually go to the temple) were higher than male rates. And, these rates didn't really change much, regardless of how common plural marriage was (and, so, these higher rates cannot have been caused by plural marriage). Thus, women in Utah were in a difficult situation--more of them were willing and able to have temple sealings/eternal marriage than there were men willing and able to do so. Plural marriage changed this dynamic enormously. One temple-worthy man being married would not take that man out of the "potential married partners pool." This allowed more members to have temple marriages, sealings, and the blessings that came with these ordinances.

Widows and orphans

Out on the frontier in 19th century life expectancy was low and women were not as economically independent as they are today. Therefore there were many widows (and orphans coming of age) that needed to be taken care of. Some women who joined the Church abroad immigrated without their husbands, leaving them without male financial support. Furthermore, Brigham Young instituted the most liberal divorce policy in the country so women (but not men!) could get out of unhappy marriages. Kathryn Daynes estimated that 30% of plural marriages came from married-before women. [2]

Education for women

Church Historian Elder Jensen observed how Mormon polygamy enabled women more freedom to earn college degrees and join national women's rights organizations at the time. [3]

Immigrants

Polygamy helped integrate foreign immigrants into Mormon society. With the marriage market operating so efficiently, women were highly sought after, and so Utah men had to sometimes marry outside their preferred cultural boundaries. This provided a great way to redistribute the wealth to the immigrants families coming. [4]

Social support

Plural marriages provided a social support network while the husbands were off on missions.

http://en.fairmormon...ssible_benefits

Am I the only one that doesnt really see anything offensive in the first list or a significant change with the second supposedly revised list?

[Wiki Wonka]

Am I the only one that doesnt really see anything offensive in the first list or a significant change with the second supposedly revised list?

Well, I can give you the background story on that one.

I didn't really see much of a problem with the original list, however, I'm always looking for criticism of FAIR Wiki articles from a critic's perspective. A critic will view the information differently than a believer. I happened to run across this criticism over on MDB. This particular person objected to some of the content of the original, so I edited it into the version that you see now.

WW

[Hayds]

I wouldn't say apologetics had anything to do with destroying my testimony, but they didn't do anything to slow down the train wreck that caused my testimony to be destroyed. The thing that disappoints me about apologetics dealing with any faith and not just Mormonism, is that most of the time they start with the conclusion and then try and make the evidence fit the conclusion. It's backwards and comes off more like spin doctoring to me. I applaud the apologist's zeal and commitment to their faith, but that zeal can sometimes cause some bias and shoddy logic in the desire to be right. A good example of this is the FARMS debacle of writing a document in defense of the infamous Salamander letter that turned out to be a fraud. Good intent can sometimes cause unintended damage. Here is a wikipedia link with an excerpt for those who don't want to look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamander_letter

FARMS(a research group composed of LDS scholars, but which at the time had no formal connection to the LDS church) published several articles which examined the Salamander Letter, such as "Why Might a Person in 1830 Connect an Angel With a Salamander?"

It can be easily argued that FARMS, FAIR, and etc are not formally connected to the LDS church and therefore these types of documents have no effect on the church and were never sanctioned or endorsed by church leadership. If so, why should any LDS member with questions about the church seek out apologistic writings from FAIR, FARMS, and other apologistic websites? If these are not formally connected with the church, shouldn't members just stick to lds.org, Ensign, conference talks, and church sanctioned lesson manuals/CES material?

Below is the full body of the FARMS paper on the Salamander letter.

F.A.R.M.S. UPDATE

© June 1985

Moses, Moroni, and the Salamander

Martin Harris' letter of 23 October 1830 to Wm. W. Phelps (published in Church News, 28 April 1985) has dismayed some people. Harris talks of a "white salamander" which was "transfigured" into "the spirit" otherwise known to us as the Angel Moroni. We may never know whether this description was an embellishment on the part of Harris, or an allegory employed by Joseph Smith, or whether Moroni somehow chose to appear to Joseph out of, or in the form of, a salamander. But since Phelps joined the Church after reading Harris' letter, he must not have found the allusion to a salamander very disconcerting. In fact, as new research is showing, the salamander has been thought for millennia to have supernatural and extraordinary powers. Consider the following:

1. Well into the 19th century, it was commonly believed that salamanders "lived in or were able to endure, fire." Numerous references to this wide-spread belief are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary under "salamander." Long before, even Aristotle -- of all people -- reported: "The salamander shows that certain animals are naturally proof against fire, for it is said to extinguish a flame by passing through it." Historia Animalium V.19, 552b.

2. Indeed, salamanders were thought to be "generated in fire." The great Rabbi Akiba held to this view, in Hullin 127a. Other rabbis, including the noted Rashi, debated whether the fire had to be heated for seven days, seven years or seventy years to produce a salamander that would appear walking and flying in the midst of the fire. (Should we compare Dan. 3:19ff.?)

3. Accordingly, salamanders were often associated with spirits. In Germany, salamanders were thought to be "Wetter-propheten" (weather-prophets), and "Hausgeister" (house-protector spirits). German churchdoor locks and bolts, as well as ovens and fireplaces, had salamander insignia on them. Handwoerterbuch des deutschen Aberglaubens (Berlin, 1934), 6:458. In the Middle Ages, the salamander denoted "a being possessing the shape of a man whose element was the fire, or who at least could live in that element." Chambers's Encycl. (1875), 8:436. Earth, air, fire and water, each had a spirit -- for fire, it was the salamander.

4. Moreover, salamanders were associated with the voice of God and with the Holy Ghost! From Midrash Ex. Rabbah XV.28 on Exodus 12, we find that the rabbis of the 9th Century A.D. and before believed that "God had to show Moses on Mt. Sinai was the salamander: "He stirred up the fire and showed him the salamander, for it [Ps. 29:7] says: The voice of the Lord heweth outflames of fire." In 1841, the baptistry of Winchester Cathedral in England bore the figure of a salamander, alluding to the words, "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." G. A. Poole, Churches: Their Struct. Arrang. & Decor. 9,2.

5. Since the salamander was said to endure fire, it was thought to protect others against burning, including hell-fire. The rabbis remarked that hell would not harm scribes, since they were "all fire, like the Torah; and if flames cannot hurt one who is anointed with salamander blood, still less can they injure the scribes." Jewish Encycl. (1905) 10:646, citing the Talmud Hagiga 27a. A similar popular belief seems to stand behind Austrian lore relating the salamander to the atoning suffering of Christ. The Zohar (ii. 211b) mentions protective garments of salamander skin.

6. Not far removed from these ideas about salamanders are ideas depicted by the biblical phrase "fiery flying serpents" Were these "salamanders"? A brass model of this reptile symbolized Jesus himself, who commanded Moses to put it up on a pole, so the people who had been bitten could look to it and live (Num. 21:6-9; 1 Ne. 17:41; cf. Is. 14:29; 30:6; 2 Ne. 25:20). The Hebrew word here for "fiery" is saraf. This strongly suggests a further connection with the six-winged seraphim (Is. 6:2-6) and the nearly identical cherubin (Ezek. 1 & 10; Rev. 4:6-. Cf. Egyptian srf("griffon"). Were their six wings and abstraction from the six, red, wing-like, external gills of salamanders?

7. Eternal life and resurrection were also symbolized by the salamander. The Arabic word for both the salamander and the phoenix, which could die and rise again out of its own ashes, wassamandal. Se Al-Jahiz, Kitab al-Hayawan (9th c.) 5:309-10 (Harun edition); S. Nasser, Intro. to Islamic Cosmology, 2d ed., 273 n. 29.

8. People too were sometimes called salamanders. Shakespeare calls a fiery-red face a "salamander." Henry IV, III, iii, 58. Likewise called were soldiers who courageously exposed themselves to fire in battle. Salamanders appear in medieval and renaissance coats of arms, including that of Francis I, King of France. Thomas Brooks in 1670 wrote, "God's people are true salamanders, the live best in the fire of afflictions." Works 6:441.

9. Not all salamanders were good, however. The poisonous ones are "spectacularly colored" with bright spots on a dark background. Encycl. Brit. (15th ed.), Macrop. 18:1087. They were linked with evil spirits. But the non-poisonous good ones were white or grey-brown.

Obviously, much has changed culturally since 1830. Some of us may wince at the suggestion that an angel of God should be associated with, or described as, a salamander. But to people then, no image or description would better fit the appearance of a brillant white spiritual being, once a valiant soldier, now dwelling in a blazing pillar of light, shockingly pure and glorious, speaking with the voice of God while flying though the midst of Heaven, then the salamander! Moroni should be flattered. (JS-H 1:30-32; History of the Church 4:536).

Still, it was predictable that people would not understand this. The Lord apparently knew this would happen. In 1829, God commanded Harris not to try to describe things which he had not personally witnessed: "And I the Lord command him, my servant Martin Harris, that he shall say no more unto them concerning these things, except he shall say: I have seen them, and they have been shown unto me by the power of God; and these are the words which he shall say." D&C 5:26. Harris seems to have overstepped his commission here when he wrote to Phelps in 1830.

Further research is still underway. Glenn Clark's recent "Pillars of My Faith" presentation at the Sunstone Theological Symposium (May 18, 1985) covers several of these points and will soon appear in Sunstone. In the end, this research may lead to a less "modern" view of many symbolically meaningful religious events: a burning bush; a talking ***; a flaming sword; a tempting snake; the Lord with seven horns and seven eyes; a descending dove; and a salamander angel.

(FAIR USE COPYING NOTICE: These pages may be reproduced and used, without alteration, addition or deletion, for any nonpecuniary or non-publishing purpose, without permission.)

[why me]

I wouldn't say apologetics had anything to do with destroying my testimony, but they didn't do anything to slow down the train wreck that caused my testimony to be destroyed. The thing that disappoints me about apologetics dealing with any faith and not just Mormonism, is that most of the time they start with the conclusion and then try and make the evidence fit the conclusion. It's backwards and comes off more like spin doctoring to me.

Apologists spend their time on the defense. This can be difficult. Critics make claims and apologists respond. Also, apologists attempt to give a different interpretation to a historical event to counter a particular interpretation. I don't see much spinning with apologists because it wouldn't fit their purposes. However, I have seen critics spin interpretations and come to illogical conclusions and they do use many hypothetical illustrations of woulda, coulda and shoulda.

This is what I have found on FAIR: people attempting to explain problematic historical interpretations for the faithful that they may come across on critic sites. And I think that they do a good job in doing this. However, I do think that the catholics do a better job on their site because it is colorful and user friendly and they use many different ways of explaining their faith: radio, videos, short and long answers etc. All easily accessible. But they also have the same problem. They are also playing defense.

[Kevin Christensen]

I wouldn't say apologetics had anything to do with destroying my testimony, but they didn't do anything to slow down the train wreck that caused my testimony to be destroyed. The thing that disappoints me about apologetics dealing with any faith and not just Mormonism, is that most of the time they start with the conclusion and then try and make the evidence fit the conclusion. It's backwards and comes off more like spin doctoring to me.

Everyone has to start inquiries somewhere.. Personally, I'm far more interested in how perceptive a person is, given their perspective, than in any dubious claim to objectivity.

And I've long been interested in the examples that individuals put forward to illustrate their paradigm, their general model of how things work. I've been reading FARMS materials almost since the beginning, and I was very interested in how the whole Hofmann drama unfolded as it unfolded. On the flip side of the legitimate question and answer regarding why a person in 1830 might associate an angel with a salamander, we also have Michael Quinn and Grant Palmer, who also used the assumed authenticity of the Salamander letter as a starting point. At a different point in the network of questions that could be explored, it was George Throckmorton that asked the most important ones, the decisive ones that had to do with the tell-tale appearance of cracked ink on every document that passed through Hofmann.

Long term, and overall, I've been impressed with Hugh Nibley's citation of Blass on the best approach to dealing with long historical documents. Assume that it is what it says it is, and see whether it fits the context that it claims for itself. John Clark demonstrated that the long term overall trend is towards reconcilliation, as more is learned about those contexts over time over time.

http://en.fairmormon...on/Anachronisms

On the flip side of the trend, the critics who assume that the Book of Mormon is false, I was quite amazed to listen to John Dehlin and Coe discussing the significance that the lack of evidence for brass helmets and iron or steel arrowheads (never mentioned in the text), the lack of evidence for Hebrew language (without any mention of the only serious study done on the topic.

http://maxwellinstit...=5&num=1&id=112

) and the DNA issue (without any mention of the Matt Roper's detailed study of the text for evidence of Nephi's Neighbors

http://maxwellinstit...15&num=2&id=505

)

It is one thing to claim to be objective, as Dehlin does. But how perceptive were they really, compared to what we get from FARMS and FAIR?

I applaud the apologist's zeal and commitment to their faith, but that zeal can sometimes cause some bias and shoddy logic in the desire to be right. A good example of this is the FARMS debacle of writing a document in defense of the infamous Salamander letter that turned out to be a fraud. Good intent can sometimes cause unintended damage. Here is a wikipedia link with an excerpt for those who don't want to look it up:

http://en.wikipedia....lamander_letter

FARMS(a research group composed of LDS scholars, but which at the time had no formal connection to the LDS church) published several articles which examined the Salamander Letter, such as "Why Might a Person in 1830 Connect an Angel With a Salamander?"

It can be easily argued that FARMS, FAIR, and etc are not formally connected to the LDS church and therefore these types of documents have no effect on the church and were never sanctioned or endorsed by church leadership. If so, why should any LDS member with questions about the church seek out apologistic writings from FAIR, FARMS, and other apologistic websites? If these are not formally connected with the church, shouldn't members just stick to lds.org, Ensign, conference talks, and church sanctioned lesson manuals/CES material?

Why should any LDS member with questions about the church seek out apologetic writings? Because we are encouraged to seek out of the best books words of wisdom, to seek even by study and by faith. If the essay on the cultural background in 1830 does not make anyone's list of the "best books" that does not convey taint and guilt by association that removes things like Sorenson's An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, Nibley's works, Welch's work on Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon, Givens on By the Hand of Mormon, Anderson on the Witnesses, Morris on Cowdery, Bushman on Joseph Smith, or any of the hundreds of authors who have contributed thousands of relevant insights.

There are no scriptures that say "seek ye only out of the approved manuals, approved and final thoughts." If something really good appears in the official publications, fine. Many of Nibley's books did appear in the Improvement Era and Ensign. Many FARMS and FAIR writers have been published in, referenced by, or linked to by official sources. If something really good is published there, all the better. But some of us don't feel the need to wait for the approval of committees.

It's fair to talk about this paper, but is it fair to generalize about it, to make it paradigmatic, as if it by itself defines the methods, problem field, and standards of solutions. If good intent sometimes causes damage, that means sometimes, that means in particular exceptional cases, not as a general rule. It should be easy to see that Meadow Mountains does not represent a typical Mormon response to passing wagon trains. It should be just as easy to see that one tentative 1985 paper does not define the relevance of a huge body of important work. It was President Hinkley who formally invited FARMS to become part of BYU. That strikes me as something other than a smack down and silencing.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 18, 2012 by Kevin Christensen

[KevinG]

I wouldn't say apologetics had anything to do with destroying my testimony, but they didn't do anything to slow down the train wreck that caused my testimony to be destroyed.

Perhaps that is why I have heard Bishops prescribe prayer and obedience to God's laws frequently for faith crisis but I have yet to hear one recommend visiting FAIR or Mormondialogue.org.

[Libs]

The problem with apologetics is not inherently in the writing (IMHO). When a person starts losing faith in the church, all information coming from the church, whether it's the official site, the scriptures or apologetic writings, simply becomes suspect and more difficult to accept, because there is a loss of basic trust in the whole system. The further down that road one goes, the more critical they become (not meaning critical in a negative sense, really, but just more "cautious", I would say, and less trusting). A loss of faith is very traumatic for some (probably for most), and the result can be protectiveness from further injury by becoming hypercritical.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Libs

[Tarski]

Perhaps that is why I have heard Bishops prescribe prayer and obedience to God's laws frequently for faith crisis but I have yet to hear one recommend visiting FAIR or Mormondialogue.org.

and conversely, what we do not see prescribed is intense digging, research, and rational open-minded attention to evidence.

It kinda make it seem like prayer and fasting function to divert attention and undercut the quest for factual information. From where I stand it looks embarrasing and like a thought policing technique.

[KevinG]

and conversely, what we do not see prescribed is intense digging, research, and rational open-minded attention to evidence.

It kinda make it seem like prayer and fasting function to divert attention and undercut the quest for factual information. From where I stand it looks embarrasing and like a thought policing technique.

You need to get out more. When I was in college in Illinois my Institute instructor and member of the Stake Presidency was very much into digging into church history. That's where I cut my teeth on the deeper stuff within a two years of being baptized.

I just never did it as a substitute from learning at the foot of God through the Holy Spirit.

[Tarski]

You need to get out more. When I was in college in Illinois my Institute instructor and member of the Stake Presidency was very much into digging into church history. That's where I cut my teeth on the deeper stuff within a two years of being baptized.

I just never did it as a substitute from learning at the foot of God through the Holy Spirit.

there are always exceptions but you are the one that phrased it in that way.

Just for the record, I think the part about "learning at the foot of God through the Holy Spirit" is a fantasy. That warm feeling of confirmation is the pleasure of having one's prejudices affirmed. Listening to religious people tell what God told them and hearing only what is predictable on the basis of that person's limited perspective, biases, fears and prejudices is at times quite comical. Example; Religious conservative geriatric white ex-business man from Salt Lake thinks people shouldn't have tatoos or wear too many earrings. Is that God talking?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Tarski

[Robert F. Smith]

I wouldn't say apologetics had anything to do with destroying my testimony, but they didn't do anything to slow down the train wreck that caused my testimony to be destroyed. The thing that disappoints me about apologetics dealing with any faith and not just Mormonism, is that most of the time they start with the conclusion and then try and make the evidence fit the conclusion. It's backwards and comes off more like spin doctoring to me. I applaud the apologist's zeal and commitment to their faith, but that zeal can sometimes cause some bias and shoddy logic in the desire to be right. A good example of this is the FARMS debacle of writing a document in defense of the infamous Salamander letter that turned out to be a fraud. Good intent can sometimes cause unintended damage.

Both the June 1985 FARMS Update and the longer research paper you list below were well-researched and entirely factual. Sources were listed and accurately quoted. No "bias" or "shoddy logic" were applied in either case. There was no "FARMS debacle." Indeed, when it became clear that anti-Mormon Mark W. Hoffman had forged the Salamander Letter, we had plenty of authentic source material available from which we suspect that he may have crafted his forgery.

As his interviews at the Utah State Prison in early 1987 showed, the murderer said that he deliberately set out to dupe and embarrass the Church. He said that it amused him to do so by using the folk magic which he had been studying, and that he used associates such as Lyn Jacobs, who pretended to discover the Salamander Letter.

Here is a wikipedia link with an excerpt for those who don't want to look it up:

http://en.wikipedia....lamander_letter

FARMS(a research group composed of LDS scholars, but which at the time had no formal connection to the LDS church) published several articles which examined the Salamander Letter, such as "Why Might a Person in 1830 Connect an Angel With a Salamander?"

It can be easily argued that FARMS, FAIR, and etc are not formally connected to the LDS church and therefore these types of documents have no effect on the church and were never sanctioned or endorsed by church leadership. If so, why should any LDS member with questions about the church seek out apologistic writings from FAIR, FARMS, and other apologistic websites? If these are not formally connected with the church, shouldn't members just stick to lds.org, Ensign, conference talks, and church sanctioned lesson manuals/CES material?

Below is the full body of the FARMS paper on the Salamander letter.

Actually, what you try to quote (in such small script that it is nearly impossible to read) is a 2-page FARMS Update for June 1985, leaving out five salamander illustrations. It is not the "full body of the FARMS paper" you mention above: "Why Might a Person in 1830 Connect an Angel With a Salamander?" which is much longer and more detailed.

The actual short Update is as follows in pdf so that it can be read clearly:

SALAMANDER UPDATE 1985.pdf

Both reports are entirely accurate. If you don't think so, then CFR please.

Edited May 18, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[sethpayne]

Well, I can give you the background story on that one.

I didn't really see much of a problem with the original list, however, I'm always looking for criticism of FAIR Wiki articles from a critic's perspective. A critic will view the information differently than a believer. I happened to run across this criticism over on MDB. This particular person objected to some of the content of the original, so I edited it into the version that you see now.

WW

WW,

I've had a crazy week and haven't had a chance to thank you for the thoughtful reply you gave regarding the flood content on the Fair Wiki. I appreciate the work you do -- especially when it comes to issues where no matter what you do, someone will be put off.

Seth