FairMormon board chairman on its purpose, mission

[Buckeye]

21 minutes ago, juliann said:

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.

I'm not doubting Ms. Hatten's qualifications as a journalist, broadcaster, or podcaster. My point was that she was not acting in any of those capacities for this "interview." She was simply reading pre-planned questions for which Brother Lynch has prepared responses. That's fine. There's a place for that. It sounds like that was what was expected here. But, frankly, I wouldn't go out of my way to compliment Ms. Hatten for simply reading off a list of questions. That's something most high school students can due just as well. So, yes, she hit the ball well. But it was a 5 mph softball. 

As for how much Bill's experience was wrapped up in the podcast, perhaps you can shed some light. I heard Lynch speak at length - at least 1/3 of the time - about FAIR's policies and needs to draw lines when one of its authors goes out of bounds. Considering the timing of this podcast, I can't see how those remarks are not directed, at least in large part, to Bill's experience. But if you have better insight into what Lynch was actually talking about, I'm all ears.

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

Thanks for this history. I wasn't aware of FAIRs beginnings until this thread. I do appreciate yours (and others) efforts to make an early beachhead for those who belong to the LDS faith. Thank you.

[salgare]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

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. 

I also started out in the AOL chats, but hung out in the Jewish rooms as I was all into Kabbalah at the time.  Wow, you guys have been diligent at this for a very long time.  We have all been at this for a very long time ...  I envision a day job, were we come here to bash and come 5pm, we head to the bar, arms around each others shoulder murmuring ...    another day, another dollar ...

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

A member of the Quorum of the Twelve (Elder  Henry B. Eyring, now of the First Presidency) expressed regret at a gathering of descendants of victims and perpetrators at the site of the massacre on Sept. 11, 2007.

It was inaccurately reported in the news media as an apology. (You can't apologize for something unless you personally are accountable for it. That's why the Illinois state government's action when they came to Salt Lake City was termed an expression of regret -- not an apology -- for the wrongs inflicted on the Mormons. Nobody now alive can apologize either for Mountain Meadows or the anti-Mormon atrocities in Illinois.)

But I'm fairly certain nobody from the Church contacted any newspaper to correct the record. If you can document that they did, I will stand corrected.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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"?

 

No, that's not all I can say. And that's not all I did say, as you well know. I also said this:
 

Quote

 

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).

 

 

 

 

When somebody's "faith journey" (give me a break!) disparages the president of the Church and misrepresents him -- or repeats a misrepresentation of him -- it gets my back up.

I suppose that's why I have been labeled an "Internet tyrant," a phrase I drew upon for my name line, "Benevolent Internet Tyrant."

Edited December 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A member of the Quorum of the Twelve (Elder  Henry B. Eyring, now of the First Presidency) expressed regret at a gathering of descendants of victims at the site of the massacre on Sept. 11, 2007.

It was inaccurately reported in the news media as an apology. (You can't apologize for something unless you personally are accountable for it. That's why the Illinois state government's action when they came to Salt Lake City was termed an expression of regret -- not an apology -- for the wrongs inflicted on the Mormons. Nobody now alive can apologize either for Mountain Meadows or the anti-Mormon atrocities in Illinois.)

But I'm fairly certain nobody from the Church contacted any newspaper to correct the record. If you can document that they did, I will stand corrected.

But organizations - through their current leadership - can apologize for wrongs committed by the organization even if those wrongs took place before any of the current leadership were born. As an example, the US Senate has apologized for supporting slavery even though none of the Senators who participated in that apology were alive when slavery took place.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Buckeye said:

But organizations - through their current leadership - can apologize for wrongs committed by the organization even if those wrongs took place before any of the current leadership were born. As an example, the US Senate has apologized for supporting slavery even though none of the Senators who participated in that apology were alive when slavery took place.

Well, that's just it. The Church of Jesus Christ as an institution is not to blame for wrongs it did not commit, crimes that were perpetrated by errant members who were acting contrary to the values and teachings of the Church and contrary, as it turns out, to the explicit written instruction from Brigham Young that tragically arrived at the settlement in Cedar City after the mass murders had already been committed.

The Church can express regret, as it did. And as the Illinois State Assembly did in passing legislation expressing regret (that was the language that was used in the resolution, deliberately changed to remove the word "apology") for the atrocities inflicted upon the Mormons by mobs in the 1840s.

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When somebody's faith journey (give me a break!)

I don't know about Consig, but that sure slapped me in the face.

Perhaps you could propose a different term, which you do not find ridiculous,  that could be used to express our experiences in and out of the Church? 

Edited December 30, 2015 by salgare

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

I don't know about Consig, but that sure slapped me in the face.

Perhaps you could propose a different term, which you do not find ridiculous,  that could be used to express our experiences in and out of the Church? 

It's not the term itself I find ridiculous, it's consig's use of it in misrepresenting President Gordon B. Hinckley's meaning, using using the misinterpretation to cast aspersions on his character, then shielding himself from blame for his offenses by claiming they are part of his "faith journey." I repeat: Give me a break!

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Guest]

I am always empathetic toward any who find themselves having a crisis of faith..."there before the grace of God, am I". An argument can evil be made that those who set out to defend any faith that while playing the devil's advocate, they indeed raise questions that others may not have considered. In doing so they expose others to a world of questions they had never considered and raise doubts that may have remained dormant. Be it the President of FairMormon, not sure he should pass judgement on all by stating that none in the "org" are empathetic. 

[Avatar4321]

11 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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

if we believe man is meant to fly should we jump off a skyscraper? If we believe smoking will make us healthy should we smoke?

just asking

[Calm]

9 hours ago, salgare said:

Calm,

I never understood the bitter denial of the old labels of Internet verses Chapel Mormon. 

I just don't see or experience such a separation in my own life.  Nor do most faithful apologists that I know, not how the original theory was presented. The claim of the schism, which is what I believe most found unlikely in the theory, is not based in reality in my view either.  The "Internet Mormon" as identified is seated next to the "Chapel Mormon" in the Chapel every Sunday, there are not in effect two churches existing side by side...it is simply a variety of members with a variety of different interests all coming to worship together because they are all seeking God in as sincere and faithful way as they know how.

The labels were misleading/confusing as well.  There were apologists long before the Internet and the LDS who most use the internet in my experience are those identified as Chapel Mormons (they use it for their callings and for genealogy as well as just family blogging; apologetics is a very small percentage of Mormon Internet presence).

And the survey he produced was useless, didn't demonstrate anything he claimed it would and in fact demonstrated the opposite which he just ignored and he wasn't willing to put any effort into do it right (I know because I attempted to point out to him back when he did it how he could turn it into something of value).  Somewhere on zlmb is at least one thread and probably several documenting this.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

I just don't see or experience such a separation in my own life.  Nor do most faithful apologists that I know, not how the original theory was presented. The claim of the schism, which is what I believe most found unlikely in the theory, is not based in reality in my view either.  The "Internet Mormon" as identified is seated next to the "Chapel Mormon" in the Chapel every Sunday, there are not in effect two churches existing side by side...it is simply a variety of members with a variety of different interests all coming to worship together because they are all seeking God in as sincere and faithful way as they know how.

The labels were misleading/confusing as well.  There were apologists long before the Internet and the LDS who most use the internet in my experience are those identified as Chapel Mormons (they use it for their callings and for genealogy as well as just family blogging; apologetics is a very small percentage of Mormon Internet presence).

And the survey he produced was useless, didn't demonstrate anything he claimed it would and in fact demonstrated the opposite which he just ignored and he wasn't willing to put any effort into do it right (I know because I attempted to point out to him back when he did it how he could turn it into something of value).  Somewhere on zlmb is at least one thread and probably several documenting this.

That's consistent with my recollection. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Wiki Wonka said:

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

WW

I see what you did there

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I just don't see or experience such a separation in my own life.  Nor do most faithful apologists that I know, not how the original theory was presented. The claim of the schism, which is what I believe most found unlikely in the theory, is not based in reality in my view either.  The "Internet Mormon" as identified is seated next to the "Chapel Mormon" in the Chapel every Sunday, there are not in effect two churches existing side by side...it is simply a variety of members with a variety of different interests all coming to worship together because they are all seeking God in as sincere and faithful way as they know how.

The labels were misleading/confusing as well.  There were apologists long before the Internet and the LDS who most use the internet in my experience are those identified as Chapel Mormons (they use it for their callings and for genealogy as well as just family blogging; apologetics is a very small percentage of Mormon Internet presence).

And the survey he produced was useless, didn't demonstrate anything he claimed it would and in fact demonstrated the opposite which he just ignored and he wasn't willing to put any effort into do it right (I know because I attempted to point out to him back when he did it how he could turn it into something of value).  Somewhere on zlmb is at least one thread and probably several documenting this.

I did not mean to stir this all up ... The difference I was trying to highlight in this case, the one is already aware of the issues and has dealt with them, the other has not.  I started into a long story earlier and threw it out ... it applies here as well. In brief ... I have a new HT ... somewhat sent as the best chance to relate with/to me, after I turned to giving the lessons to the last set.  Because I sense this is a very good man, I emailed him a few questions asking about his exposure to some 10k foot issues.  He has zero exposure to any of them (Chapel Mormon).  He wondered about the questions in his response and I was excited to start Internetizing him.  But my conscience stopped me wondering about my place in doing so.  I've spent a fair amount of time this last year trying to educate/expose my own children.  The latest policy deal really hit me hard and for some strange reason this combination brought me to my knees.  It's pretty clear, I have no place in helping this good brother into his own "spiritual journey" by exposing him to the question tree.

Good heavens ... how painful this all can be.

 

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see what you did there

If only we could get good Brother Scott to do some of what he did there

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

 

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

A member of the Quorum of the Twelve (Elder  Henry B. Eyring, now of the First Presidency) expressed regret at a gathering of descendants of victims and perpetrators at the site of the massacre on Sept. 11, 2007.

It was inaccurately reported in the news media as an apology. (You can't apologize for something unless you personally are accountable for it. That's why the Illinois state government's action when they came to Salt Lake City was termed an expression of regret -- not an apology -- for the wrongs inflicted on the Mormons. Nobody now alive can apologize either for Mountain Meadows or the anti-Mormon atrocities in Illinois.)

But I'm fairly certain nobody from the Church contacted any newspaper to correct the record. If you can document that they did, I will stand corrected.

Bumping this to see if consig can document what he asserted here or if my rendition of events is closer to what he now recalls.

 

[salgare]

14 hours ago, salgare said:

If only we could get good Brother Scott to do some of what he did there

guess not

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, salgare said:

If only we could get good Brother Scott to do some of what he did there

 

2 minutes ago, salgare said:

guess not

I'm going to have to confess that most of what you post is unintelligable to me.

 

Edited December 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[salgare]

Scott,

I assumed an understanding based on a long history of known individuals attributes and posting histories.  I suppose its one of those "you had to be there" type of deals.  Maybe this is part of what I see as your problem, you have limited your exposure and so just have not been there.  Because you have missed it, I'll try and explain.

Years back, Wiki Wonka obviously monitored MDB.  On occasion he would post there.  His posts were typically to obtain clarification and ask for input on some controversial hot topic of the day that might effect his role in association with the FAIR wiki.  He was always respectful to everyone and it was obvious he was genuine in his desire to obtain and modify as needed any inaccurate information.  He is/was respected by the critics there.

Now rather he intended it or not;  by me, a critic simply feeling after him (a show of respect), he quickly responded in kind.  It was a personal connection.  Of course "what he did there" was cleaver in one sense, and what he did there was Christ like in another.

Kind of a good example of having eyes to see and ears to hear eh?

 

Was this explanation still unintelligible?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Scott,

I assumed an understanding based on a long history of known individuals attributes and posting histories.  I suppose its one of those "you had to be there" type of deals.  Maybe this is part of what I see as your problem, you have limited your exposure and so just have not been there.  Because you have missed it, I'll try and explain.

Years back, Wiki Wonka obviously monitored MDB.  On occasion he would post there.  His posts were typically to obtain clarification and ask for input on some controversial hot topic of the day that might effect his role in association with the FAIR wiki.  He was always respectful to everyone and it was obvious he was genuine in his desire to obtain and modify as needed any inaccurate information.  He is/was respected by the critics there.

Now rather he intended it or not;  by me, a critic simply feeling after him (a show of respect), he quickly responded in kind.  It was a personal connection.  Of course "what he did there" was cleaver in one sense, and what he did there was Christ like in another.

Kind of a good example of having eyes to see and ears to hear eh?

 

Was this explanation still unintelligible?

So your comment was at once a compliment in one direction and a put-down in the other. Got it.

I agree that Wiki Wonka is admirable -- but not because the MDB inhabitants respect him. In some ways, their disrespect could be viewed as a badge of honor. At least it's not something I lie awake at night worrying about.

My comment ("I see what you did there") was a recognition of his wry remark identifying himself as the only male participant on the FairMormon Conference panel he referenced. It was a slyly oblique allusion to what has transpired recently.

 

[salgare]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree that Wiki Wonka is admirable -- but not because the MDB inhabitants respect him. In some ways, their disrespect could be viewed as a badge of honor. At least it's not something I lie awake at night worrying about.

Yep, exactly ... we have all seen some good men come through here, eaten by their own because they cared more of being Christlike than wearing the (hopefully obsoleting)  old school apologetic badge of honor.

It seems even the likes of Blair Hodges being one of them.  And yet the dynamics of this all is edge of the seat for an old fart like myself.

1. Interpreter - Badge of Honor presenter

2. New Maxwell (hinting towards, at least accused of non-historic stance)

3. Given's traveling the Fireside tour's pushing a nuanced gospel.

4. FAIR and it's history of involvement with this board - where to turn?

Critic rumor mill suggests that FAIR will tend to a gentler apologetic approach (go Kevin go, Dan/Kevin discussions must be interesting)

I assume that my still hitting submit here and they keep posting says something, but mighty gun-shy of the ax falling anytime.  Still a bit skeptical of the remaining badge of honor holders and their positions in administration here.

Speaking of which, fear based posting reminds me too much of the church. It would be nice to hear from management on my self reported post.

[Avatar4321]

1 hour ago, salgare said:

Yep, exactly ... we have all seen some good men come through here, eaten by their own because they cared more of being Christlike than wearing the (hopefully obsoleting)  old school apologetic badge of honor.

It seems even the likes of Blair Hodges being one of them.  And yet the dynamics of this all is edge of the seat for an old fart like myself.

1. Interpreter - Badge of Honor presenter

2. New Maxwell (hinting towards, at least accused of non-historic stance)

3. Given's traveling the Fireside tour's pushing a nuanced gospel.

4. FAIR and it's history of involvement with this board - where to turn?

Critic rumor mill suggests that FAIR will tend to a gentler apologetic approach (go Kevin go, Dan/Kevin discussions must be interesting)

I assume that my still hitting submit here and they keep posting says something, but mighty gun-shy of the ax falling anytime.  Still a bit skeptical of the remaining badge of honor holders and their positions in administration here.

Speaking of which, fear based posting reminds me too much of the church. It would be nice to hear from management on my self reported post.

what on earth are you talking about?

[salgare]

 

4 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

what on earth are you talking about?

Someone understood ... thank you very much for that ... very strange things going on so I'll stick with this for now.  It was the message more than anything that was important to me.

Avatar, ignoring everything below the number list ... does the rest of the post not make sense to you?

[juliann]

7 hours ago, salgare said:

 

4. FAIR and it's history of involvement with this board - where to turn?

Critic rumor mill suggests that FAIR will tend to a gentler apologetic approach (go Kevin go, Dan/Kevin discussions must be interesting)

 

So many assumptions, so little fact. You really need to stop that.

FM has no involvement with this board and hasn't had a message board for at least a decade. (The original FAIR was a message board.) This critic rumor mill apparently is unable to even follow along with the name change. It is FairMormon not FAIR. These uninformed rumor mills have been predicting the demise of FM since its beginnings.

What is a gentler apologetic approach? Who defines that? Will these critics lead the way on gentle approaches? And what do you know of Kevin or Dan or FM conversations? Why in the world do you feel qualified to make such a comment? Perhaps you should come to a real live FM conference and observe the discussions there.  

One thing FM does is ask for actual examples. If there is anything that is in error or has a snarky tone we want to know and it will be changed. We do have a lot of stuff of from a variety of people. To date, not one of the loudest judges has complied with that request. So the snide accusations do get old.