FairMormon board chairman on its purpose, mission

[Scott Lloyd]

I've just become aware of this interesting podcast interview with John Lynch, board chairman of FairMormon, discussing the foundation's purpose and mission. 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2015/12/10/purposemission/

He specifically addresses the question of whether FairMormon members or volunteers lack empathy for those in faith crises. 

For the record, I am not a FairMormon member or volunteer, just a longtime admirer and very occasional monetary contributor. 

[consiglieri]

Do you know what the FAIRMormon leadership thinks of the numerous ex-Mormons who have said that FAIRMormon contributed to their disaffection?

I have heard this happen in several ways:

1. A person with a question goes to FAIR and finds there are hundreds of issues they never knew existed.

2. A person with a question goes to FAIR, thinking that there can be no truth whatsoever in the allegation they have heard, only to have FAIR confirm that what they have heard is true.

[Avatar4321]

So because fair addresses issues they are creating faith crises by showing people hundreds more issues exist and by verifying some are true.

No way to win here. Those who choose not to believe will find a way to blame others no matter what fair chooses to do.

[consiglieri]

25 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

So because fair addresses issues they are creating faith crises by showing people hundreds more issues exist and by verifying some are true.

No way to win here. Those who choose not to believe will find a way to blame others no matter what fair chooses to do.

I am just reporting what I have heard from numerous individuals who have left the church.

I have also heard people who felt helped by the information at FAIR to stay in the church.

It isn't about blaming anybody.

I was just asking what the FAIR leadership thinks about this problem with the way they are pursuing their goal, which is to keep people in the church, not provide information that leads them out of the church.

 

Edited December 26, 2015 by consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/26/2015 at 9:22 AM, consiglieri said:

I am just reporting what I have heard from numerous individuals who have left the church.

I have also heard people who felt helped by the information at FAIR to stay in the church.

It isn't about blaming anybody.

I was just asking what the FAIR leadership thinks about this problem with the way they are pursuing their goal, which is to keep people in the church, not provide information that leads them out of the church.

 

Have you listened to the podcast? 

I doubt it, given the haste with which you replied. 

Give it a listen. It is very short, compared to Dehlin's podcasts which seem to take half a day to get through. 

One insightful observation Lynch made is that the problem some people have is that once they begin to study the issues, they don't study enough. They reach their hardened conclusions too soon. 

Or as Daniel Peterson observed about the guy that wrote the letter to a CES director, he seems to have jumped ship too soon. 

What would you have FairMormon do? Hide information because some freak out without following through on their study? Isn't that their complaint in the first place? That the Church hid stuff from them?

Edited December 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[consiglieri]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Have you listened to the podcast? 

I doubt it, given the haste with which you replied. 

Give it a listen. It is very short, compared to Dehlin's podcasts which seem to take half a day to get through. 

One insightful observation Lynch made is that the problem some people have is that once they begin to study the issues, they don't study enough. They reach their hardened conclusions too soon. 

Or as Daniel Peterson observed about the guy that wrote the letters to a CES director, he seems to have jumped ship too soon. 

What would you have FairMormon do? Hide information because some freak out without following through on their study? Isn't that their complaint in the first place? That the Church hid stuff from them?

First off, FAIR is not the Church.  The Church continues to "hide stuff" from the members, but I give credit to FAIR to being more open about information than the Church.

Second, I hear what you are saying about John Dehlin's podcasts.  It is often good practice to jump ahead 30-40 minutes to find out the point of the interview.

Third, I am not criticizing FAIR for the problems its existence raises to some members who end up leaving the Church because of the information they find there.  I am just wondering if they have given any thought to those problems, and how they might resolve them so they are more true to their goal of keeping members in the Church.

And fourth, it is always the member's fault for leaving the Church.  Either they studied too much, or they didn't study enough.

It is always the member's fault.

That much must be insisted on.

Always.

[Avatar4321]

And why should you expect someone else to be responsible for your choices? Who is else should be?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

........................................................................................

I was just asking what the FAIR leadership thinks about this problem with the way they are pursuing their goal, which is to keep people in the church, not provide information that leads them out of the church.

I don't believe that it is their goal to keep people in the Church.  That is best done by other organizations.  Instead, simply to judge by what they in fact do, their goal is to provide accurate information.  What people choose to do with that correct data is their own responsibility.  I would like to know whether the leadership of FairMormon agrees with that point of view.

[Calm]

Our mission is clearly stated:

"FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice"

http://www.fairmormon.org/about-fairmormon

Edited December 26, 2015 by Calm

[why me]

On 26.12.2015 at 5:42 PM, consiglieri said:

Do you know what the FAIRMormon leadership thinks of the numerous ex-Mormons who have said that FAIRMormon contributed to their disaffection?

I have heard this happen in several ways:

1. A person with a question goes to FAIR and finds there are hundreds of issues they never knew existed.

2. A person with a question goes to FAIR, thinking that there can be no truth whatsoever in the allegation they have heard, only to have FAIR confirm that what they have heard is true.

What can FAIR do about such happenings. I think however this will happen less and less as the church is giving their own interpretations to lds history. FAIR will be acting as another source of information. We can see a change in strategy by the critics. They seem to be no longer stressing church history and the accusation that the church hides it. Now the stress is more on social policies: women and the priesthood, blacks and the priesthood, SSM, etc. More and more critics are stressing postmodern thinking by stressing identities and lds culture.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/26/2015 at 10:14 AM, consiglieri said:

First off, FAIR is not the Church.  The Church continues to "hide stuff" from the members, but I give credit to FAIR to being more open about information than the Church.

I agree that FairMormon is not the Church. It doesn't claim to be, and it frequently makes a candid disclaimer to that effect. (Parenthentically, I'll restate that I am not affiliated with FairMormon and will emphasize that in responding here, I don't speak for FairMormon or any of its leaders or members.)

As for your allegation that "the Church continues to 'hide stuff' from the members," that is, of course, bunkum. There is a difference between not focusing on something and hiding it.

I used to have a statement in my sig line to the effect that nobody gives you all the facts at once, it is not even possible to do so, and if selective focus amounts to hiding information, then the Church's adversaries and critics are the worst of offenders, because they do that very thing.

I'll cite you, yourself, as an example. A couple of days ago you mocked leaders of the Church for having cited the scripture in Daniel about the stone being cut out of the mountain without hands and then rolling forth until it consumed all the kingdoms of the earth. You implied that they must be embarrassed now, because the Church's membership growth rate has slowed. I replied with what I have stated repeatedly in the past, perhaps even in discussions in which you were a party: that the prophecy in Daniel will probably not have its complete fulfillment until after the Second Coming of Christ, and that it should be considered in light of other prophecies, such as that beheld in vision by Nephi that the church of the lamb in the last days would be upon all the face of the earth, but that its numbers would be few by reason of the influence of Satan in the world.

Do I now accuse you of "hiding stuff" because you failed to mention or take cognizance of the prophecy in Nephi's vision?

Quote

Second, I hear what you are saying about John Dehlin's podcasts.  It is often good practice to jump ahead 30-40 minutes to find out the point of the interview.

You can always skip ahead in a podcast, but in so doing, you run the risk of missing nuggets, if there be any, that are buried in all the dross. I generally don't care for podcasts. They are too unwieldy and time consuming. I much prefer blogs and essays.

 

Quote

Third, I am not criticizing FAIR for the problems its existence raises to some members who end up leaving the Church because of the information they find there.  I am just wondering if they have given any thought to those problems, and how they might resolve them so they are more true to their goal of keeping members in the Church.

I think Robert F. Smith and Calm have adequately addressed your assumption about what the goal of FairMormon is.
 

Quote

 

And fourth, it is always the member's fault for leaving the Church.  Either they studied too much, or they didn't study enough.

It is always the member's fault.

That much must be insisted on.

Always.

 

I'm not assigning fault or fixing blame.

It is not fixing blame to make the self-evident point that personal choices always carry consequences.

When encountering troubling information, it is a personal choice to rush to form a hardened conclusion without making the effort to seek clarification or to contextualize the information.

Once the hardened conclusion has been made, it is a personal choice to close one's mind to clarification or context one might later encounter.

It is a personal choice to make repeated public attacks against the Church of Jesus Christ without taking cognizance of rebuttals that have already been made.

And finally, it is a personal choice to conclude in advance that it is not possible to resolve troubling questions. Greg Smith phrased it well when he posted on here a couple of weeks ago, citing the scripture about people who are "ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" and applied it analogously to those who are ever in turmoil and never coming to a resolution.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2015 at 8:42 AM, consiglieri said:

Do you know what the FAIRMormon leadership thinks of the numerous ex-Mormons who have said that FAIRMormon contributed to their disaffection?

I have heard this happen in several ways:

1. A person with a question goes to FAIR and finds there are hundreds of issues they never knew existed.

Not sure FAIRMormon can do anything about that though.  Issues run into the thousands and unless you look into it you may not know they are even there, whether FM or not. 

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2015 at 8:42 AM, consiglieri said:

2. A person with a question goes to FAIR, thinking that there can be no truth whatsoever in the allegation they have heard, only to have FAIR confirm that what they have heard is true.

How is that FAIR's responsibility?  What expectations people place on issues is personal, individual. 

[stemelbow]

On ‎12‎/‎26‎/‎2015 at 4:41 PM, Calm said:

Our mission is clearly stated:

"FairMormon is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice"

http://www.fairmormon.org/about-fairmormon

But they may not be answers to the criticisms so much as acknowledgements.  Which ought to be reflected in the mission, I'd think. It seems responses or addresses would be a better term than answers in this case.  You simply can't answer every criticism...some have legitimacy. 

[Buckeye]

On 12/26/2015 at 11:27 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Have you listened to the podcast? 

I doubt it, given the haste with which you replied. 

Give it a listen. It is very short, compared to Dehlin's podcasts which seem to take half a day to get through. 

One insightful observation Lynch made is that the problem some people have is that once they begin to study the issues, they don't study enough. They reach their hardened conclusions too soon. 

Or as Daniel Peterson observed about the guy that wrote the letters to a CES director, he seems to have jumped ship too soon. 

What would you have FairMormon do? Hide information because some freak out without following through on their study? Isn't that their complaint in the first place? That the Church hid stuff from them?

Full disclosure, I haven't (yet) listened to the podcast. I will, though. Thanks for the link.

Scott, serious question here. I've heard it said by many people (and now you) that struggling members reached their conclusions "too soon."  How exactly do you draw that line? I'm not looking for an exact time limit (e.g., "6 months"). Or even a set of hurdles one must take (e.g., "read at least these 5 books"). Rather, I'm looking to see if you actually have a line at which you would say, "yep, struggling member, I think you have done enough. While I may not share your views, I agree that your decision to leave the church is reasonable." So please, let me know if there is such a line for you - specifically, a line where you would support a member leaving the church. And, if not, if you don't have such a line, then please be more honest and instead of counseling people to "study a little longer" tell them what you really expect, that they should "study as long as it takes until you agree with me." (I apologize for putting words in your mouth; hopefully I'm wrong and you actually do have a line).

FWIW, I think the underlying beef with FAIR isn't so much because they're jerks (my experience, on average, they're just like the kids of Lake Wobegone - above average). No, the problem is that members in the middle of faith crises tend to be looking for objective information and they fail to realize that FAIR's purpose is expressly not to be objective. FAIR's purpose is to address tough issues, but always give the faithful answer. Basically, it's the same thing as the church essays, just done by an informal group of well-intentioned amateurs. That's not a critique of FAIR. But it is a critical point that leads to a lot of frustration. Struggling members are looking for validation of their conclusions, not just facts, and if those conclusions do not match with current church teachings, then they're just setting themselves up to be disappointed by FAIR.

In my view, there's basically two camps of apologists (there's probably more, but bare with me). The first camp places primary importance on ensuring that the church remains "true." The second camp places primary importance on helping people find the "truth" regardless of where it is found. These two camps can talk, and even agree, about the basic facts just fine, but because their primary purpose differs, quite often they will come to different places. I'm not arguing which camp is better (full disclosure - I tend more towards camp two), but I do think it is critically important to at least acknowledge this fundamental divergence. 

In short, the problem many members have with FAIR is that they're looking for helping finding the "truth" but FAIR's primary purpose is to help people reach the conclusion that the "church is true."

 

 

 

 

[Buckeye]

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

But they may not be answers to the criticisms so much as acknowledgements.  Which ought to be reflected in the mission, I'd think. It seems responses or addresses would be a better term than answers in this case.  You simply can't answer every criticism...some have legitimacy. 

Good comment - and much more succinct than my diatribe above. As Bill Reel is apt to say, struggling members want to hear "yes, that's a real problem and you're normal to be disturbed by that."

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Full disclosure, I haven't (yet) listened to the podcast. I will, though. Thanks for the link.

Scott, serious question here. I've heard it said by many people (and now you) that struggling members reached their conclusions "too soon."  How exactly do you draw that line? I'm not looking for an exact time limit (e.g., "6 months"). Or even a set of hurdles one must take (e.g., "read at least these 5 books"). Rather, I'm looking to see if you actually have a line at which you would say, "yep, struggling member, I think you have done enough. While I may not share your views, I agree that your decision to leave the church is reasonable."

 

 

 

 

I think my most recent past post in this thread (which you might not have seen yet when you posted the above) addresses this.

I think it would be folly to draw such a line (and I'm guessing you already realize that), but the condition (giving in too soon) can be discernible when the person continually makes statements or charges that have already been rebutted or addressed, but about which they seem to be oblivious. Either they have not yet encountered the rebuttals or they are purposely ignoring them.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think my most recent past post in this thread (which you might not have seen yet when you posted the above) addresses this.

I think it would be folly to draw such a line (and I'm guessing you already realize that), but it can be discernible when the person continually makes statements or charges that have already been rebutted or addressed, but about which they seem to be oblivious. Either they have not yet encountered the rebuttals or they are purposely ignoring them.

 

Right. So that's where your statement (or Dan's or FAIR's) is disingenuous. You're not really saying that members "jump ship too soon" or "leave before they've studied enough." You're really saying that members "should never jump ship"; "should keep studying until they stay." And that's a fine position to take. But it's dishonest to tell a struggling member "study a little more" when you don't mean it. That statement implies that, if they do study some more and still come to the same conclusion about leaving the church, that you'll then support them in that decision. To be fully honest, from the beginning you should admit to them, "I'm never going to support your leaving, but I will always try to be kind in presenting additional information for why you should stay."

Consider a similar example. Suppose your daughter is engaged to marry an RM she met a month ago. You just learned about the engagement and the wedding is set for a month from now. You counsel your daughter, "I think you should give it more time and consideration before taking this big step." So she does, and they push the wedding back 4 months. Then, a week before the wedding, you tell her "actually, I've never liked your fiance. I never would approve of the marriage." You can see how your daughter would feel mislead in this situation. She thought that you were only asking her to give it more time so that she could make the best decision, when actually you were just hoping to delay a decision that you never were going to approve.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Good comment - and much more succinct than my diatribe above. As Bill Reel is apt to say, struggling members want to hear "yes, that's a real problem and you're normal to be disturbed by that."

Reel is a good example of somebody who is always in turmoil and ever resistant to resolution.

It would be foolish to say, "Yes, that's a real problem," and drop it at that, when there is a reasonable answer at the ready. Yet that seems to be what many of the complainers are expecting FairMormon and others to do.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Right. So that's where your statement (or Dan's or FAIR's) is disingenuous. You're not really saying that members "jump ship too soon" or "leave before they've studied enough." You're really saying that members "should never jump ship"; "should keep studying until they stay."

 

You're putting words in my mouth.

And I don't accept your accusation of dishonesty -- be it on my part, on Dan Peterson's or that of FairMormon.

[Buckeye]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You're putting words in my mouth.

And I don't accept your accusation of dishonesty -- be it on my part, on Dan Peterson's or that of FairMormon.

I've given a lengthy (probably too lengthy) explanation for why you (and Dan and FAIR) are being dishonest when you say "study it out longer." If you disagree, great, but you'd better give a better explanation that just "I don't accept your accusation."

 

ETA: And I'm not putting words in your mouth. In your second comment on this thread, you used the phrases (or cited to Dan) "they reach their hardened conclusions too soon" and "he seems to have jumped ship too soon." 

 

Edited December 28, 2015 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

12 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I've given a lengthy (probably too lengthy) explanation for why you (and Dan and FAIR) are being dishonest when you say "study it out longer." If you disagree, great, but you'd better give a better explanation that just "I don't accept your accusation."

I gave you the explanation: You're putting words in my mouth and then calling me dishonest.

It's a classic straw man fallacy compounded with a bad rap.

Responding to the addendum:

Quote

ETA: And I'm not putting words in your mouth. In your second comment on this thread, you used the phrases (or cited to Dan) "they reach their hardened conclusions too soon" and "he seems to have jumped ship too soon." 

I never said everyone did this. I only said that when it happens, it is often quite apparent and that when it happens, it amounts to a personal choice to do so.

(Dan's comment, by the way, about jumping ship too soon had specific reference to the guy who wrote the letter to the CES director. The comment came during Dan's FairMormon conference address a couple of years ago in which he rebutted the letter and which, I assume, is on the FairMormon website by now, so readers are free to determine for themselves whether the rubuttal is solid.)

Edited to add:

Here is what Dan said as recently as yesterday on his blog about the letter:

Quote

I personally found reading the Letter unspeakably exasperating, and could scarcely muster the patience to stick with the thing.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Another point about the OP, I do find it interesting that FAIR members list their membership credentials (e.g., "Lynch ... has served as EQP, WML, etc.") I'm fine with that practice as it helps establish the bona fides of the person's experiences and basis to discuss various church topics. For example, if  woman has been a RS President, I'm more apt to consider her thoughts on whether young women should serve as visiting teachers. But it is a little ironic that, quite often, when members list such bona fides and then critique a church policy or historical church event, such members are criticized by apologists for listing their church experience.

[Calm]

As a FairMormon member I can categorically deny that FM in general equates "too soon" with "never".

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is a difference between not focusing on something and hiding it.

I believe there is no substantive difference between the church "not focusing" on something and hiding it.

Why does the church "not focus" on something?

Because they don't want the members to find out.

Why would the church hide something?

Because they don't want the members to find out.

To me, they are similar means to achieve the same end.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think my most recent past post in this thread (which you might not have seen yet when you posted the above) addresses this.

I think it would be folly to draw such a line (and I'm guessing you already realize that), but condition (giving in too soon) can be discernible when the person continually makes statements or charges that have already been rebutted or addressed, but about which they seem to be oblivious. Either they have not yet encountered the rebuttals or they are purposely ignoring them.

 

Or maybe they don't find the answers satisfactory.