Apologetic Websites Vs Anti-Mormon Websites

[Thinking]

There are no less than two threads on this website that are currently discussing an anti-mormon website. Some posters have criticized these websites as being unbalanced, not presenting both sides of the story.

If MT could first show they had made a full and balanced for and against the issue they might merit some support.

This reminded me of a statement that I have seen on FAIR Wiki.

Defending Mormonism by providing well-researched answers to challenging questions within a faithful context

What I find interesting about this mission statement is the absence of the word truth or any of its derivatives. Since its mission is to defend Mormonism, can it be full and balanced for and against [an] issue? Is a site like FAIR Wiki as unbalanced in its defense of Mormonism as anti-Mormonism sites apparently are in their attacks on Mormonism?

[Kenngo1969]

"Balance," sometimes, is overrated. Often the people who argue for it have their thumb on the other side of the scale.

[Calm]

Is a site like FAIR Wiki as unbalanced in its defense of Mormonism as anti-Mormonism sites apparently are in their attacks on Mormonism?

We do not pretend to be unbiased in our presentation...that makes a huge difference, imo.

[tagriffy]

We do not pretend to be unbiased in our presentation...that makes a huge difference, imo.

I tend to agree. However, choosing an acronym like FAIR may itself give readers an expectation of ... well, fairness. This isn't so much a problem on the FAIR homepage, where the acronym is brightly and clearly spelled out. The FAIR Wiki main page, however, relegates the acronym's meaning to a sidebar where it is more easily missed.

[Kevin Christensen]

There are no less than two threads on this website that are currently discussing an anti-mormon website. Some posters have criticized these websites as being unbalanced, not presenting both sides of the story.

This reminded me of a statement that I have seen on FAIR Wiki.

What I find interesting about this mission statement is the absence of the word truth or any of its derivatives. Since its mission is to defend Mormonism, can it be full and balanced for and against [an] issue? Is a site like FAIR Wiki as unbalanced in its defense of Mormonism as anti-Mormonism sites apparently are in their attacks on Mormonism?

Over the past 35 years I have found that I consistently learn far more about the best critical arguments from the defenders than I learn of the best defenders arguments from the critics.

Those who posture as "balanced" and "objective" are only kidding themselves. Peter Novick pointed this out to a shocked group of LDS historians at a Sunstone many years ago, who subsequently ignored everything he said, and didn't bother to publish his address.

Though radically compressed, this is a fair statement of the mainstream position on historical objectivity. Now I have not the time, and you have not the patience, to go through the ups and downs of this program over the past hundred years. I will only report that to an ever-increasing number of historians in recent decades it has not just seemed unapproachable, but an incoherent ideal; not impossible, in the sense of unachievable (that would not make it a less worthy goal than many other goals that we reasonably pursue), but meaningless. This is not because of human frailty on the part of the historian (that, after all, we can struggle against), not because of irresistible outside pressures (these too we can resist with some success, if not complete success). No, the principal problem is different, and it is laughably simple. It is the problem of selecting from among the zillions and zillions of bits of historical data out there the handful that we can fit in even the largest book, and the associated problem of how we arrange those bits that we choose. The criterion of selection and the way we arrange the bits we choose are not given out there in the historical record. Neutrality, value-freedom, and absence of preconceptions on the part of the historian would not result in a neutral account, it would result in no account at all, because any historian, precisely to the extent that she was neutral, without values, free of preconceptions, would be paralyzed, would not have the foggiest notion of how to go about choosing from the vast, unbelievably messy chaos of stuff out there.

From

Peter Novick, “Why the Old Mormon Historians Are More Objective Than the New.” A talk delivered at the 1989 Sunstone Symposium held at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.

The 2008 Sunstone essay on Mapping Book of Mormon historicity debates by John Charles Duffy is actually a very good example of how this works, how ideology runs things even when he has actually read through most of the relevant literature (which few critics bother to do). It turns out that most of the intellectual work is done by the metaphors he adopts, not by the books and articles he has read. The metaphors he selects in turn serve the preconceptions that he brings to his survey. His editors missed the crucial import of the ideology because they share it. A few years earlier he had admitted that “As someone who does not believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, I dismiss a priori much of the work FARMS scholars have done around the book.”[1]

[1] “Defending the Kingdom: Rethinking the Faith: How Apologetics is Reshaping Mormon Orthodoxy” Sunstone 132. (May 2004) p 43. And while his editors congratulate themselves for being uniquely positioned to be objective, neither pro nor con, they seem to accept a readers comment that "If this is correct, what meaning does my life have?" as evidence that they have done their job objectively, without prejudice. Who better to select as a cartographer of Book of Mormon issues than one who rejects everything a priori? Why shouldn't we trust our case to the objectivity of the prosecution, especially when they use their claim of objectivity and detachment as part of their case? Why not uncritically dismiss the efforts of apologists?

I have an article coming out on that someday.

It is much more honest to openly expose the implications of your own ideology while engaging the best arguments from the other sides. FAIR and FARMS, I think, do that very well. Indeed, I think the admission that one has has an ideology with implications encourages the best apologists to engage the opposition. As Kuhn says, "It makes a great deal of sense to argue which paradigm is better."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited June 14, 2013 by Kevin Christensen

[teddyaware]

I tend to agree. However, choosing an acronym like FAIR may itself give readers an expectation of ... well, fairness. This isn't so much a problem on the FAIR homepage, where the acronym is brightly and clearly spelled out. The FAIR Wiki main page, however, relegates the acronym's meaning to a sidebar where it is more easily missed.

Perhaps the fairness of FAIR is found in the fact that FAIR's existence partially helps balance a scale so heavily weighted on one side by the plethora of anti-Mormon organizations and websites who have for so many years been so unfair to the Mormons. So FAIR might justifiably stand for a fair hearing rather than a so called balanced approach. Somebody's got to defend the theology and doctrines of the LDS Church, and FAIR has done just that, helping the Latter-day Saints get a fair hearing against the roaring, heaving tide of anti-Mormon negativity.

[Calm]

Perhaps the fairness of FAIR is found in the fact that FAIR's existence partially helps balance a scale so heavily weighted on one side by the plethora of anti-Mormon organizations and websites who have for so many years been so unfair to the Mormons. So FAIR might justifiably stand for a fair hearing rather than a so called balanced approach. Somebody's got to defend the theology and doctrines of the LDS Church, and FAIR has done just that, helping the Latter-day Saints get a fair hearing against the roaring, heaving tide of anti-Mormon negativity.

I would agree it is more about giving belief a "fair" shot at existing than presenting a completely balanced position....though we do try to include the criticisms themselves and references for where one can find them so people can go read them for themselves if they care to...something that many sites and sources claiming to be balanced do not do but rather simply provide their own paraphrases (that are often more like caricatures then accurate representations).

[Wiki Wonka]

We do not pretend to be unbiased in our presentation...that makes a huge difference, imo.

We (FAIR) are precisely who we claim to be. Our names are not kept secret from the Church or anyone else. The Church knows who we are. Those who contact "Ask the Apologist" know our names and who we are.

However, whenever I see a web site label itself as "pro-truth," it is invariably a site critical of the Church whose authors hide their identities. Two sites that label themselves "pro-truth" are FutureMissionary and MormonThink. The implication is that anyone who opposes them is "anti-truth". (It's like the "pro-life" and "pro-choice" labels - nobody is going to call themselves "anti-choice" or "anti-life.") The application of the term "truth" to yourself implies that the guy that opposes you is "anti-truth."

I wrote the FAIR Wiki statement. The reason I didn't write "Defending Mormonism by providing truthful well-researched answers to challenging questions within a faithful context" is because I shouldn't even have to explicitly say it. I don't preface every conversation I have with someone by saying that I am honest.

• If you don't trust FAIR, then it doesn't matter if I put the word "truth" in the statement - you won't believe it anyway because you think that we are lying, the same way that some of us view "pro-truth" sites.
  
• If you do trust FAIR, then you already know that our answers are truthful - we don't have to remind you of it.
  

WW

Edited June 13, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Calm]

our answers are truthful

To the best of our abilities....

[Wiki Wonka]

To the best of our abilities....

Right, and if someone points out an error, we correct it. The errors, however, are never intentional.

Some of the best feedback comes from critical sites.

WW

[williamsmith]

I find FAIR "fair" as well as other similar materials/sites because it actually presents all the known facts of an issue, as well as presenting both sides.

We state the other sides primary arguments against us, and then we debunk them. Nothings perfect and certainly most FAIR articles aren't thesis papers, but there is reasonable debunking occurring.

[tagriffy]

I wrote the FAIR Wiki statement. The reason I didn't write "Defending Mormonism by providing truthful well-researched answers to challenging questions within a faithful context" is because I shouldn't even have to explicitly say it. I don't preface every conversation I have with someone by saying that I am honest.

• If you don't trust FAIR, then it doesn't matter if I put the word "truth" in the statement - you won't believe it anyway because you think that we are lying, the same way that some of us view "pro-truth" sites.
  
• If you do trust FAIR, then you already know that our answers are truthful - we don't have to remind you of it.
  

WW

What would you say to the ones trying to assess FAIR's trustworthiness?

ETA: This is a question of curiosity, not a challenge.

Edited June 13, 2013 by tagriffy

[awyatt]

What would you say to the ones trying to assess FAIR's trustworthiness?

ETA: This is a question of curiosity, not a challenge.

FAIR generally lets people know that it is composed of faithful members of the Church from around the world. Its members also include serving and past bishopric and stake presidency members and at least one past GA. Several faithful scholars are members of FAIR. Further, FAIR has been linked to from the Church's website and featured in past issues of the Church News. Finally, if you call the Church's Public Affairs department with some (but not all) doctrinal and/or historical questions, they will refer you to one or more of FAIR's websites.

-Allen

[thesometimesaint]

FAIR = Without guile.

[Calm]

FAIR generally lets people know that it is composed of faithful members of the Church from around the world. Its members also include serving and past bishopric and stake presidency members and at least one past GA. Several faithful scholars are members of FAIR. Further, FAIR has been linked to from the Church's website and featured in past issues of the Church News. Finally, if you call the Church's Public Affairs department with some (but not all) doctrinal and/or historical questions, they will refer you to one or more of FAIR's websites.

-Allen

Yes, but will we lie for the Lord as we are accused of doing?

Don't see the reason myself, I am quite comfortable to stick with what I believe is the truth as I know it, life gets too uncomfortable and anxiety full when you start playing manipulation games and trying to dance around what you really mean.

And my experience with other members of FAIR is that there is a real devotion to trying to communicate as clearly and as effectively and as openly as possible and to follow through on that communication....which is how I define trustworthiness and fidelity.

Edited June 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Ahab]

Is a site like FAIR Wiki as unbalanced in its defense of Mormonism as anti-Mormonism sites apparently are in their attacks on Mormonism?

No. While we disagree with our critic's perspective we at least present them fairly rather than all mucked up like they do ours. That's one of the things that stands out glaringly when I look at anti-Mormon material. They don't present the facts correctly, as if they just don't get it, while we show that we do understand what they're saying and then go to great pains to explain why we do not agree with them. It's not just the fact that there is opposition. It's the tactics involved and one side shows a lot more intelligence than the other.

[Wiki Wonka]

What would you say to the ones trying to assess FAIR's trustworthiness?

ETA: This is a question of curiosity, not a challenge.

I would say that trust has to be earned, not proven. No amount of writing that we do will produce trust. Ongoing conversation, however, can help earn trust.

WW

[tagriffy]

I would say that trust has to be earned, not proven. No amount of writing that we do will produce trust. Ongoing conversation, however, can help earn trust.

WW

Ongoing conversation is good, if it is possible. Let's assume for the moment that such isn't possible, say a person is just browsing the 'Net and for some reason lands on your site. This may be your only chance to earn their trust. How would you try to earn that person's trust?

[Hamba Tuhan]

There are no less than two threads on this website that are currently discussing an anti-mormon website. Some posters have criticized these websites as being unbalanced, not presenting both sides of the story.

The issue is not one of balance. An anti site like Mormon Think or Future Missionary has no obligation to be balanced or to present both sides. Nor does a site like FAIR. The problem comes from the intentional deception that the first two sites resort to: hiding their polemics behind a faux innocent facade of balance -- 'we just present information truthfully and let people decide' -- when clearly the information chosen to be shared and the way in which it is shared have both been consciously and carefully chosen /crafted in order to achieve a particular outcome.

I find it fascinating that the first resort of so many attacking a church that they accuse of dishonesty tends to be blatant and intentional deception. So often the images we think we see are really just our own reflections.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Hamba Tuhan

[Wiki Wonka]

Ongoing conversation is good, if it is possible. Let's assume for the moment that such isn't possible, say a person is just browsing the 'Net and for some reason lands on your site. This may be your only chance to earn their trust. How would you try to earn that person's trust?

By clearly stating our position, our perspective (a.k.a. our bias) and sharing our real names with those who ask us questions.

By trying to identify every critical argument, and attribute every critical source for an argument, and then doing our best to respond to it.

By providing links from our sources back to the original documents, and not simply copying them from someone else's site and assuming that they are correct.

By writing respectful prose, and removing "snark" whenever it sneaks into our writings.

By seeking out feedback and correcting our mistakes, even if it is a critic that pointed our mistakes out.

By assuming that everyone we deal with, whether they be a believer, a critic or an agnostic deserves a respectful hearing of their point-of-view.

[tagriffy]

By clearly stating our position, our perspective (a.k.a. our bias) and sharing our real names with those who ask us questions.

By trying to identify every critical argument, and attribute every critical source for an argument, and then doing our best to respond to it.

By providing links from our sources back to the original documents, and not simply copying them from someone else's site and assuming that they are correct.

By writing respectful prose, and removing "snark" whenever it sneaks into our writings.

By seeking out feedback and correcting our mistakes, even if it is a critic that pointed our mistakes out.

By assuming that everyone we deal with, whether they be a believer, a critic or an agnostic deserves a respectful hearing of their point-of-view.

I like this. For myself, I would add incorporating good ideas wherever you find them, the way I incorporated Keven Christensen's framing of the historicity issue as a paradigm debate.

Avoiding snark can sometimes be very difficult. I'll give an example in the book review thread I started.

[Brian 2.0]

I don't expect "balance" from either side. I always think of it like a courtroom, and I'm the jury trying to find the "truth.". And in that search I'm probably always listening to a witness for the defense or the prosecution. But while their biases are naturally there and some witnesses may even seem deceptive I try to distill it down to what the argument is and what evidences there are for the argument. Just because someone has an agenda, doesn't mean anything they say should be dismissed outright. And that goes both ways.

[Wiki Wonka]

I like this. For myself, I would add incorporating good ideas wherever you find them, the way I incorporated Keven Christensen's framing of the historicity issue as a paradigm debate.

Avoiding snark can sometimes be very difficult. I'll give an example in the book review thread I started.

I totally agree. When I write something, "snark" sometimes sneaks in. That is why it is always good to get others to review one's work.

[Anakin7]

There are no less than two threads on this website that are currently discussing an anti-mormon website. Some posters have criticized these websites as being unbalanced, not presenting both sides of the story.

This reminded me of a statement that I have seen on FAIR Wiki.

What I find interesting about this mission statement is the absence of the word truth or any of its derivatives. Since its mission is to defend Mormonism, can it be full and balanced for and against [an] issue? Is a site like FAIR Wiki as unbalanced in its defense of Mormonism as anti-Mormonism sites apparently are in their attacks on Mormonism?

How about one web site of which shows Love and compassion to LDS ?. www.evangelicalsandmormonsforjesus.com

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited June 14, 2013 by Anakin7

[tagriffy]

I totally agree. When I write something, "snark" sometimes sneaks in. That is why it is always good to get others to review one's work.

That is what I did with my preliminary draft of the "Environmental Theory" essay. I handed it to a historicist with the specific questions of whether I was being fair and whether I was creating any strawmen. I considered that at least as important as presenting the best case I possibly could.