FairMormon board chairman on its purpose, mission

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If it's something on which reasonable minds can disagree, then taking a position one way or the other is a personal, uncompelled choice. Right?

I repeat: Choices carry consequences.

Should our choices ever be something other than what we believe to be right?

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Don't misinterpret the man's statement and proclaim your misinterpretation as fact. That is at least as bad as what you accuse the Church leaders of doing.

I misrepresented nothing.  Nor did I claim it as fact.

When you go off the handle like this, you fall into all sorts of errors.

[salgare]

Juliann,

Thanks for that insight

 

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

Scott,

From Brother Barney: http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/11/24/were-i-ever-to-leave-the-church/

 

wow, I think Brother Barney just became one of my hero's as well!  Thanks for that link Buckeye ... a very good read for me and a thumbs up to FAIR for this kind of diversity at its board level.

 

...

They could hold callings and move families and bring pumpkin bread to the linger longer and babysit your kids and do everything that any other happily married family does in church. And that’s what hurts about this policy, as it now seems clear that that kind of normalization of gay families was exactly what the Church was scared of and wanted to avoid at all costs.

...

For now I can make that observation disinterestedly, academically, dryly. But for the first time in my entire Church life I can envision a time when my different social world view will so conflict with the positioning of the Church that I feel the need to disaffiliate. I hope and pray that that day never comes.

 

[CMZ]

18 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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?

 

EVERYONE does this. Every single organization and person on planet Earth does this. No person or organization tells every single thing they can about themselves all the time ad infinitum ad nauseum in perpetuity. For one example, the Church has very sufficiently addressed the Mountain Meadows massacre, apologized for it, etc., yet people STILL act like it needs to be brought up at every conference and brought up more in other ways so that they can feel the Church is being "intellectually honest" or whatever. It's this thing where they want to always be able to hang something over the Church's head, always raising the bar higher, always acting like the Church is hiding something. It is the Church's commission to teach the saving principles and administer the saving ordinances of the gospel. People can read about the Mountain Meadows massacre if they want but it is not a gospel principle. When you go to an Apple Store you don't walk in and immediately have an employee tell you, "In an effort to be intellectually honest we must tell you that Steve Jobs fathered an illegitimate child and for a while acted like it wasn't his own."

[salgare]

As to Consig's note on the often stated cause of member disaffection after exposure to FAIR,  What I heard John say when addressing this very issue in the interview (one question's answer pops up three more questions), was that out of the 6500 (?) articles, the need to not stop too soon meant to keep following the tree of question following from that first question to all of the leafs contained in the 6500.  I did not hear him saying and endless study beyond those bounds was required.

I heard Juliann to say that the whole Purpose of FAIR evolved from pure apologetic needs ... i.e. little or no focus on retention other than an honest attempt at help on personal levels via the Q/A emails.

Of course with limited resources I can see they have chosen to weight the apologetic side of the fence more heavily than the retention side.  I'm sure they are sincere on those initial personal contacts, hopefully helping some, but the other side demands laying the cards on the table and letting the chips fall where they may.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by salgare

[Calm]

Defending the Church is of course for FairMormon also being intent on strengthening the members as well as reaching out to investigators and others who are interested in the Church for positive reasons.  We who believe the Church is what it claims to be would love for everyone in the world to feel the same way while recognizing that many won't for a variety of reasons.  If we know someone is troubled, we will do what we can to help keep them faithful or trying to be faithful, but in the end it will be their choice, not ours where their path goes.  We as a group also take our individual responsibilities to be member missionaries seriously.  I personally don't see that there is a need to choose between retention and apologetics.  By participating in the latter, we can help with the former.  Drawing a line between them is unnecessary and artificial in my view.

[Calm]

Quote

I heard Juliann to say that the whole Purpose of FAIR evolved from pure apologetic needs ... i.e. little or no focus on retention other than an honest attempt at help on personal levels via the Q/A emails.

The conversations on AOL that started FAIR were with critics (from what I understand, I didn't participate...there were others who were nonLDS that were supportive, sometimes because they were under attack as well, but the conversations were primarily debates).  Given the moderators there, any sign of reaching out in pastoral care (hope this conveys what I mean) or missionary work would have been shut down and deleted immediately.  That all had to come through just dealing with the criticisms, but it is, imo, a natural part of any defense of faith no matter what is being defended.

The Q/A emails was something that came later on and was a natural outgrowth of people becoming aware that FAIR had information and experts and were willing to help.  The 'personality' of FairMormon is different than what it was originally (for a short time...as soon as the first question arrived and the desire to hold a conference appeared, the primary aspect of the  'personality' of FM today was front and center from what I've learned ---perhaps Juliann can give more information as she was there, I didn't come on the scene until 2003 and the first conference was held in 1999 in California and my intent has always been more educator than debator in both individual and FM involvement...I am not particularly interested in proving my 'position' whatever it might be is better than another's, I want my positions to be clearly understood...and then their natural merit will convince the world I am right ).  As a group, not too interested in closely debating back and forth these days as in the original interactions (many members participate in debates individually because of personal interests, but not generally as FM reps), that immediate need has faded leaving the original purpose of getting faithful, accurate information out there (and yes, we believe information can be both...it is the attitude sharing information that determines faithfulness imo) still strong in the areas that quickly arose out of the need to share information...the conferences, the q/a emails, the articles and then whatever technology comes up with...wiki, blogs, podcasts, etc. and more to come undoubtedly....still often in response to criticisms but also just because a lot of members and nonmembers are curious and want to educate themselves.

Again drawing a line between apologetics/defending faith and retention/strengthening faith, including faltering faith seems artificial to me.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Calm

[salgare]

Calm,

I never understood the bitter denial of the old labels of Internet verses Chapel Mormon.  It was always so clear to me that the original need Juliann mentioned for scholarly and intellectual expertise in the debate arena was critical for that arena (which arena for many years now has been the internet).  And yet even pre-internet BKP realized this conflict between scholarly/intellectual discussion and the correlated Sunday experience, declaring it one of three enemies to the Church.  Here in Heber City Utah, I find little exposure, ward percentage wise even all these years later of the Chapel Mormons (Orthodox Mormons) to us Internet Mormons.

Its almost like water and oil.

[Avatar4321]

24 minutes ago, salgare said:

Calm,

I never understood the bitter denial of the old labels of Internet verses Chapel Mormon.  It was always so clear to me that the original need Juliann mentioned for scholarly and intellectual expertise in the debate arena was critical for that arena (which arena for many years now has been the internet).  And yet even pre-internet BKP realized this conflict between scholarly/intellectual discussion and the correlated Sunday experience, declaring it one of three enemies to the Church.  Here in Heber City Utah, I find little exposure, ward percentage wise even all these years later of the Chapel Mormons (Orthodox Mormons) to us Internet Mormons.

Its almost like water and oil.

Maybe because it has no basis in reality.

[salgare]

23 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Maybe because it has no basis in reality.

I tried to give one example of this reality, what in your quote of me which contains that example is not real?

Edited December 29, 2015 by salgare

[Scott Lloyd]

Quote

 

 

 

Quote

 

Scott,

 

I've listed to the podcast. Here are some thoughts (in no particular order):

 

I wasn't as impressed as you were with Ms. Hatten as an interviewer. Her bio lists some impressive credentials. But in this podcast she seemed to just be reading questions off of cards, not asking probing follow-up, and certainly not trying to challenge the interviewee.

 

This may be a function of listener attitude. What you perceive as "reading questions off of cards" might just be professional polish that you're not expecting.

The situation is what it is, and it is unrealistic, under the circumstances, to expect an adversarial or attack-dog attitude from the interviewer. Even so, I found the questions well-phrased and astute and the answers responsive and enlightening.

Quote

I agree that Bill Reel was certainly a strong undertone for this interview. While he wasn't mentioned by name, much of the discussion related to where FM draws lines and edits out content from its authors, which to me seems mostly about Bill.

That was my impression as well.

I'm guessing the podcast is a measured response to Reel's aggressive criticisms of FairMormon on the Dehlin podcast.

 

Quote

I was a little troubled to learn that FM is sometimes asked by the church to provide information regarding certain individuals. It sounded sort of like an extension of the SCMC.

If you have the resentful attitude about the committee that you apparently do, it is not suprising that you would be "troubled."

For my part, I say that when one makes public statements, especially critical statements, in either conventional or social media, accountability is the price one pays for doing so.

 

Quote

 

I was very glad to learn that Kevin Barney is a FM board member. I've been a fan of his for a long time.

 

The most interesting thing I took away is this. Apparently FM draws a line between Bill Reel's comments about the new church policy and those of the Kevin Barney. Bill's comments got him excluded from the group and his contributions expunged. Kevin remains a FM board member (one of four). The best I can understand from this is that FM doesn't have a problem with members who publicly disagree with the policy, even calling it "a terrible idea." But they do have a problem when members actively encourage opposition to the policy.

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps.

As I've indicated, I'm not affiliated with FairMormon, and I don't speak for them.

I have long known that there is diversity of thought among the FairMormon leadership team, so this comes as no surprise to me.

I will also note that John Lynch in the podcast reiterated what I have heard him say before: that FairMormon takes no formal position on public issues except for formal positions that the Church itself takes. Therefore, if a FairMormon member makes a public statement that is not consistent with formal Church positions, it must logically be inferred that said member is speaking in his/her own behalf and not as a FairMormon spokesman.

By the way, when you use bullets in your posts, as you did here, it makes it devilishly hard to quote you in a response post. It really screws up the formatting, and it's then difficult-to-impossible to fix. Must have something to do with the software used for the latest board upgrade.
 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Correction: changed the word "listener" to "interviewer" in my second paragraph.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Should our choices ever be something other than what we believe to be right?

Whether you believe something to be right is often a result of a choice -- or more accurately, a series of choices -- you have made about what sources of information you consume, how much credibility you assign to them, what you give attention to and what you don't. There could be a myriad of factors involved in your final determination about what you "believe to be right," all a function of choices you have made leading up to it.

Edited to add:

Looking over Brian Hales's new response to "Letter to a CES Director," I ran across a quotable statement that I think has bearing here:

Quote

Negative speculations will produce negative conclusions.

And negative speculations are very much a matter of choice.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I misrepresented nothing.  Nor did I claim it as fact.

 

An insinuation is as good (or bad) as a claim.

Deny it if you want. I think I've made a fairly decent case that you have misunderstood and misrepresented President Hinckley's meaning in that interview, an act that comes straight out of the stock anti-Mormon playbook. And I've bolstered it by linking to an analysis on the FairMormon website that bears out what I said (a demonstration, by the way, of how useful the service FairMormon provides can be).

Quote

When you go off the handle like this, you fall into all sorts of errors.

I don't cop to any errors in this. And you haven't demonstrated any errors on my part.

 

Edited December 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Chronic fault finders are typically those certain of the truth.  They chronically find fault in those who disagree with them.

Truth seekers, on the other hand, typically find fault with those who think they already know what the truth is.

So you reflexively dismiss someone who purports to have sought and found truth?

That doesn't sound like truth seeking to me. That sounds like jaded cynicism.

 

[salgare]

As noted earlier Ms. Hatten is associated with FAIR, thus it was not only a biased interview, but the questions obviously formulated by committee and for a purpose.  It seems to me that the committee formatted questions were based on what a critic would have asked.  They were sharp and to the point.  Of course the interview lacked any devils advocate or more objective leading and/or rebuttal type questions.

All players at this point are well aware of the dangers of SCMC or simply trickle up from concerned (nosy?) ward members to local leaders.

The writing on the wall for Bill Reel is obvious ... I tried to warn him of it a long time back on NOM.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, salgare said:

As noted earlier Ms. Hatten is associated with FAIR, thus it was not only a biased interview, but the questions obviously formulated by committee and for a purpose.  It seems to me that the committee formatted questions were based on what a critic would have asked.  They were sharp and to the point.  Of course the interview lacked any devils advocate or more objective leading and/or rebuttal type questions.

 

 

Again, it is what it is: A Q-and-A with a FairMormon staff member or volunteer posing questions to the FairMormon board chairman. That's obvious.

I guess I'm not seeing a problem here. I focus on the content rather than the setting.

As for objectivity, I'm of the school of thought that such a thing exists in theory only, not in real life.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, it is what it is: A Q-and-A with a FairMormon staff member or volunteer posing questions to the FairMormon board of directors. That's obvious.

I guess I'm not seeing a problem here. I focus on the content rather than the setting.

As for objectivity, I'm of the school of thought that such a thing exists in theory only, not in real life.

I very much agree ... that is what I was trying to say as well ... it is what it is ... and they presented it and themselves very professionally.

[Wiki Wonka]

10 hours ago, salgare said:

btw, could someone tell me who wikiwonka is, maybe via pm?  I have not seen him on the web for a few years now it seems.  He always maintained a good reputation among the critics.

Wiki Wonka is the only male member of this panel discussion: Panel Discussion: Family Members Who Left (2014 FairMormon Conference) 

WW

Edited December 29, 2015 by Wiki Wonka

[juliann]

5 hours ago, Buckeye said:

 

• I wasn't as impressed as you were with Ms. Hatten as an interviewer. Her bio lists some impressive credentials. But in this podcast she seemed to just be reading questions off of cards, not asking probing follow-up, and certainly not trying to challenge the interviewee. FWIW, I'm also often disappointed with John Dehlin for similar reasons. He seems to have his set views and is most interested in finding confirming information rather than exploring what the interviewee brings to the table. At least this is true recently. His early stuff was better.

   

•  

•  

The most interesting thing I took away is this. Apparently FM draws a line between Bill Reel's comments about the new church policy and those of the Kevin Barney. Bill's comments got him excluded from the group and his contributions expunged. Kevin remains a FM board member (one of four). The best I can understand from this is that FM doesn't have a problem with members who publicly disagree with the policy, even calling it "a terrible idea." But they do have a problem when members actively encourage opposition to the policy.

As to the first paragraph, Hatten is not only a journalist she is a professional broadcaster, something that I'm betting few if any Mormon podcasters can say. She has probably had more listeners in her career than all those podcasters combined. This criticism goes back to the fallacy about "objectivity." These are FM podcasts and Hatten uses her skills to address the needs of FM and our listeners. The expectation that podcasts must "challenge" is strange. BTW,  I did not give credit to the professionals who are responsible for keeping FM online and relevant. This can't be said enough....we exist to defend the Church. We do it because we love our religion and find the unfair attacks on it hurtful and inaccurate. Speaking for myself, that doesn't mean that I don't welcome change or see the need for it in some areas. Perhaps the difference for me is that I have confidence that what needs to happen will. 

As to the second paragraph, there is a thread about the problems in Bill's narrative. Although he originally claimed that this had to do with his views on the policy, it happened months before. I hope this doesn't turn into a an off topic redux of that thread. So there is no connection between the events you are tying together.

[salgare]

Oh my, An old friend just pm'ed me (thanks Bluebell), and now a welcome avatar from another I grew to respect.  Silly I know, but this has brought a tear to my eyes.  Thank you Wiki Wonka! Its very good to see you are still around as well.

eta

And that avatar is such a crack up, with scratch in the back ground ... yes, love it ... thanks again

Edited December 29, 2015 by salgare

[consiglieri]

3 hours ago, CMZ said:

 For one example, the Church has very sufficiently addressed the Mountain Meadows massacre, apologized for it, etc.,

The Church has never apologized for the Mountain Meadows massacre.

If memory serves, when a newspaper headline reported they had, the LDS Church immediately contacted the newspaper to correct the record.

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

An insinuation is as good (or bad) as a claim.

Where do you get off with this kind of thing, Scott?

You maligned my spiritual journey on a public board.

I corrected you.

And all you can say is, "An insinuation is as good (or bad) as a claim"?

 

[consiglieri]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you reflexively dismiss someone who purports to have sought and found truth?

That doesn't sound like truth seeking to me. That sounds like jaded cynicism.

 

Boot.  Meet ant.

[juliann]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

 

I heard Juliann to say that the whole Purpose of FAIR evolved from pure apologetic needs ... i.e. little or no focus on retention other than an honest attempt at help on personal levels via the Q/A emails.

Of course with limited resources I can see they have chosen to weight the apologetic side of the fence more heavily than the retention side.  I'm sure they are sincere on those initial personal contacts, hopefully helping some, but the other side demands laying the cards on the table and letting the chips fall where they may.

 

Like Calm, I don't see a meaningful division between the two. We certainly wouldn't do apologetics if it didn't result in retention. I do occasionally see critics going on about the "testimonials" of FM driving people out of the church with no apparent awareness that FM receives enough thank yous to keep us going. 

When I speak of the beginning, it isn't what it is today. We had a lot to learn (and still do.) The first need was a fight to secure our right to even be there. This was a time when AOL had a religion forum that was run by a division of Christianity Today. One had to subscribe to their creed to be considered Christian. Those who didn't weren't welcome even though we were charged the same subscription price for AOL.  This was at a time when AOL was trying to acquire content.....and also a time when they were one of the few gateways to the Internet. In those days, AOL was the Internet for those just entering. Being kicked off meant you lost access to all your forums where all your friends were. They also had the only instant messaging in town for awhile. So the stakes were high. The "Christians" were allowed to hand out TOS violations. Three and you were banned from AOL. Today it would be a really good lawsuit. One of my fonder memories was seeing folder after folder about Mormons....that Mormons were run out of...or the folders were closed. I think we closed down about 7 folders talking about us quite quickly. Then we were told that if they even saw our screennames in their forum, they would give us TOS violations. FAIR was created as a reaction to that sort of thing.