Questions on FairMormon's approach

[DBMormon]

Having been with FairMormon for a short time I am well aware that FairMormon has taken the approach that the organization will always operate from the perspective of staying side by side or behind the Church, never to appear out in front of it suggesting it consider making a change or validating that the church is doing something wrong and that wrong is hurting someone.  

Often my personal struggle has been that when that priority is first, you will by the very nature of your approach be unable to validate any real pain and hurt that goes on if the Church has not publicly acknowledged any wrong doing.  Your Ministering will have a line that can not be crossed.  I personally take the approach on the other side of that where I am willing to criticize the church in order to validate real pain and hurt and to publicly say this is not ok what is happening in terms of any unhealthy behaviors I see the Church doing in which great harm is, in my view, being done.

People have been asking (including myself) whether FairMormon is or is not going in the direction of Patrick Mason's talk and this question seems to be understood as "Will you going forward allows talks like this at FairMormon?".  Members of Fair have rightly answered "We have always had talks like these".  I agree.  FairMormon has always allowed a spectrum of presentations (with  lines drawn as it certainly is not "anything goes"... nor would I expect a faithful presentation to be permitted by one FairMormon sees as adversarial)

Patrick Mason and Grant Hardy each proposed ideas and gave thoughts that were outside the Brethren.  Telling the Church it should apologize when the Church has officially said it will not give apologies is one example.  Another would be that a non-historical belief in the Book of Mormon can still be a saving faith, when LDS leadership has made it clear that a non historical view will be tolerated as a place to start but not end.  Another would be suggesting that the Church be more equitable with gender and treatment of LGBT members.

My questions

1.) Can an organization be both validating to real hurt the Church may be causing through unhealthy behaviors and policies while still standing with the Church?

2.) What room is there for individuals to dissent and publicly speak out against unhealthy behaviors perceived that still allows one to be fully seen as in and faithful?  In other words as soft and subtle as they try to be, does such talks put Mason and Hardy in a position to lose trust with the Church locally or generally?

3.) If FairMormon members care to jump in and address this directly, Is FairMormon's approach welcoming and supportive of a out front of the Church perspective?  And Could we ever expect FairMormon to ever officially validate that any of said out front ideas are good and positive?  Again I am not speaking about allowing or permitting such talks at their conference, but rather whether there would ever be room in FairMormon officially to endorse and/or validate and/or agree and/or empathize and/or promote such pushes for improvement?   Would FairMormon ever take such a public stance itself on such specific issues?   

 

 

Edited August 19, 2016 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I hope by the way it can be seen that I am not being critical.  At least not unfairly.  While I struggle with Fair's loyalty, Fair likely struggles with my Criticism.  I am not saying one way is right or wrong only that I feel there has to be room for someone to do both and wonder how we capture that.  I think Patrick and Grant did a great job showing us with feet on the ground what that can look like.

[Buckeye]

This is more of a general answer to all your questions.

1. Individuals and organizations (including FAIR) decide for themselves where to best use their time and resources. No one course is ideal; indeed, having a variety of approaches add to an overall healthy dynamic, IMO. I am grateful that there are some organizations whose primary thrust is defense of the church (e.g., FAIR) others whose primary thrust is defense of individual members (e.g., Affirmation) and other organizations who are highly motivated to push for change (e.g., Ordain Women). Tensions are a necessary part of growth. Yes, tensions can reach a breaking point that is destructive, but lack of tension can likewise lead to apathy and atrophy. Individuals and organizations die from both too little tension and too much. For more on this idea, read Mauss' Angel and the Beehive.
2. For me, FAIR plays several important roles for which I'm grateful. It addresses many issues beyond those in the church essays. And it is a trusted source for the conservative members I interact with. Because these members have developed a trust in FAIR, I can point them to difficult issues that FAIR addresses and they will take it much more seriously than if I were pointing them to an "anti" site. As one example, the church essay on race and the priesthood does not mention the 1949/1951 FP letter. When I mentioned the letter to some friends and family, some of them didn't believe that it was authentic. But when I gave them a link to FAIR's treatment of the letter, they began to take it seriously.
3. Individuals and organizations naturally vary in their own approaches over time and circumstances. Since we're talking about FAIR, it can be said that FAIR used to directly sponsor a message board, but decided to drop it in order to avoid the hostility that is part-and-parcel of such boards. FAIR also has (IMO) made a change in tone in the past few years to be more conciliatory and empathetic to those hurt by church doctrines. As one example, just look at the comments criticizing the church that are tolerated on the FAIR blog post about the recent Mason presentation. In my experience, such comments would not be permitted on M* or other staunchly defensive sources. 
4. The room available for dissent is proportional to the existing trust and relationship built up between the critiquer and the critiquee. In this regard, Mason and Hardy (and McBaine and others) have more "capital" for criticism because of their extensive work providing tools to keep members in the fold and their long-standing relationship within the church. In short, they've earned the ability to criticize (to some degree) because they are very knowledgeable and are trusted to have the church's best interest at heart. This is where I think we can see differences from people such as Dehlin. In the beginning Dehlin was much more balanced and wanting to investigate the issues. But over time his tone changed to being mostly confrontational and negative. He lost some goodwill and trust and therefore his criticism was viewed in completely different light. Granted, for some church members, any criticism will push you over that limit, but for the middle ground, Mason and Hardy are still very much safe.
5. In the end, the individuals and organizations that do the most good are those that listen more than they speak, and when they do speak, they do so carefully and with as much knowledge as possible. Kevin Christensen is a good example on this board. Others - such as that Buckeye guy - tend to pop off too much.

Bottom line advice - whether in marriage, family relations, church relations, professional relations, etc. - if you want your criticism to be taken seriously, it should be balanced with much more compliments and support than criticism. I'd aim for no more than 5-10% of one's speech being critical. For a good marriage, something around 1% is most healthy.

[Jeanne]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

This is more of a general answer to all your questions.

1. Individuals and organizations (including FAIR) decide for themselves where to best use their time and resources. No one course is ideal; indeed, having a variety of approaches add to an overall healthy dynamic, IMO. I am grateful that there are some organizations whose primary thrust is defense of the church (e.g., FAIR) others whose primary thrust is defense of individual members (e.g., Affirmation) and other organizations who are highly motivated to push for change (e.g., Ordain Women). Tensions are a necessary part of growth. Yes, tensions can reach a breaking point that is destructive, but lack of tension can likewise lead to apathy and atrophy. Individuals and organizations die from both too little tension and too much. For more on this idea, read Mauss' Angel and the Beehive.
2. For me, FAIR plays several important roles for which I'm grateful. It addresses many issues beyond those in the church essays. And it is a trusted source for the conservative members I interact with. Because these members have developed a trust in FAIR, I can point them to difficult issues that FAIR addresses and they will take it much more seriously than if I were pointing them to an "anti" site. As one example, the church essay on race and the priesthood does not mention the 1949/1951 FP letter. When I mentioned the letter to some friends and family, some of them didn't believe that it was authentic. But when I gave them a link to FAIR's treatment of the letter, they began to take it seriously.
3. Individuals and organizations naturally vary in their own approaches over time and circumstances. Since we're talking about FAIR, it can be said that FAIR used to directly sponsor a message board, but decided to drop it in order to avoid the hostility that is part-and-parcel of such boards. FAIR also has (IMO) made a change in tone in the past few years to be more conciliatory and empathetic to those hurt by church doctrines. As one example, just look at the comments criticizing the church that are tolerated on the FAIR blog post about the recent Mason presentation. In my experience, such comments would not be permitted on M* or other staunchly defensive sources. 
4. The room available for dissent is proportional to the existing trust and relationship built up between the critiquer and the critiquee. In this regard, Mason and Hardy (and McBaine and others) have more "capital" for criticism because of their extensive work providing tools to keep members in the fold and their long-standing relationship within the church. In short, they've earned the ability to criticize (to some degree) because they are very knowledgeable and are trusted to have the church's best interest at heart. This is where I think we can see differences from people such as Dehlin. In the beginning Dehlin was much more balanced and wanting to investigate the issues. But over time his tone changed to being mostly confrontational and negative. He lost some goodwill and trust and therefore his criticism was viewed in completely different light. Granted, for some church members, any criticism will push you over that limit, but for the middle ground, Mason and Hardy are still very much safe.
5. In the end, the individuals and organizations that do the most good are those that listen more than they speak, and when they do speak, they do so carefully and with as much knowledge as possible. Kevin Christensen is a good example on this board. Others - such as that Buckeye guy - tend to pop off too much.

Bottom line advice - whether in marriage, family relations, church relations, professional relations, etc. - if you want your criticism to be taken seriously, it should be balanced with much more compliments and support than criticism. I'd aim for no more than 5-10% of one's speech being critical. For a good marriage, something around 1% is most healthy.

I agree..and to open those doors wider..there should be room for apologies from the church..per influence from FAIR..(I hope).

[Buckeye]

One other thought. The "winner" of any argument is the one changes his/her mind. If you don't change, you didn't gain anything. If you did change, it means you listened, contemplated, challenged yourself, and decided to adopt a better view. This is a really tough principle (especially for me), but it's true. 

[cdowis]

If FairMormon can give us documented facts, unaffected by bias, that is all I can ask of it.  That should be its mission.

Don't need them to take a position -- "Just the facts, M'am"  This means that if I strongly disagree with a viewpoint at a  FM lecture, that's fine as long as that heretical point of view does not affect their ability to provide the facts.

And that is precisely why the Tanners, Vogel, et al have been very helpful to anyone who is willing to follow their research. 

[cdowis]

If anyone is paying attention, why not invite Sandra Tanner to give a lecture at FairMormon.  In this case, the topic could be something like, "What I learned about Mormon history in my X years of research" or, even better, "What effect has my research had on the LDS church.
 

That would really be an in interesting lecture, and lots of tickets sold!  That would send the message, "We are not afraid of Sandra Tanner and her research."

Edited August 19, 2016 by cdowis

[rpn]

When I read Patrick Mason's talk, I didn't see anything "outside the brethern", unless you think that one apostle saying no apologies are necessary, is that.  

From reading your description of his talk, and the talk itself, I'm thinking that it is really easy to hear something with our own biases and turn them into something they are not.   The whole point of Mason's talk was that we ought to avoid backing ourselves into corners by defining things so there is only one way to approach them, when there are relatively few such actual doctrines.

[DBMormon]

1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

This is more of a general answer to all your questions.

1. Individuals and organizations (including FAIR) decide for themselves where to best use their time and resources. No one course is ideal; indeed, having a variety of approaches add to an overall healthy dynamic, IMO. I am grateful that there are some organizations whose primary thrust is defense of the church (e.g., FAIR) others whose primary thrust is defense of individual members (e.g., Affirmation) and other organizations who are highly motivated to push for change (e.g., Ordain Women). Tensions are a necessary part of growth. Yes, tensions can reach a breaking point that is destructive, but lack of tension can likewise lead to apathy and atrophy. Individuals and organizations die from both too little tension and too much. For more on this idea, read Mauss' Angel and the Beehive.

agreed - with the caveat to that if I percieve real harm I feel all humans are responsible to work to stop it in some way.  Again if that person or group perceives real harm.

1. For me, FAIR plays several important roles for which I'm grateful. It addresses many issues beyond those in the church essays. And it is a trusted source for the conservative members I interact with. Because these members have developed a trust in FAIR, I can point them to difficult issues that FAIR addresses and they will take it much more seriously than if I were pointing them to an "anti" site. As one example, the church essay on race and the priesthood does not mention the 1949/1951 FP letter. When I mentioned the letter to some friends and family, some of them didn't believe that it was authentic. But when I gave them a link to FAIR's treatment of the letter, they began to take it seriously.

I agree again.  I am grateful for instance for the availability of info in one place.

1. Individuals and organizations naturally vary in their own approaches over time and circumstances. Since we're talking about FAIR, it can be said that FAIR used to directly sponsor a message board, but decided to drop it in order to avoid the hostility that is part-and-parcel of such boards. FAIR also has (IMO) made a change in tone in the past few years to be more conciliatory and empathetic to those hurt by church doctrines. As one example, just look at the comments criticizing the church that are tolerated on the FAIR blog post about the recent Mason presentation. In my experience, such comments would not be permitted on M* or other staunchly defensive sources. 

Agreed.  I too perceive a shift though we may disagree in the magnitude

 

1. The room available for dissent is proportional to the existing trust and relationship built up between the critiquer and the critiquee. In this regard, Mason and Hardy (and McBaine and others) have more "capital" for criticism because of their extensive work providing tools to keep members in the fold and their long-standing relationship within the church. In short, they've earned the ability to criticize (to some degree) because they are very knowledgeable and are trusted to have the church's best interest at heart. This is where I think we can see differences from people such as Dehlin. In the beginning Dehlin was much more balanced and wanting to investigate the issues. But over time his tone changed to being mostly confrontational and negative. He lost some goodwill and trust and therefore his criticism was viewed in completely different light. Granted, for some church members, any criticism will push you over that limit, but for the middle ground, Mason and Hardy are still very much safe.

Again I agree.  The person energy and effort to help people reconcile and stay should and does seem to give some folks some capital.

1. In the end, the individuals and organizations that do the most good are those that listen more than they speak, and when they do speak, they do so carefully and with as much knowledge as possible. Kevin Christensen is a good example on this board. Others - such as that Buckeye guy - tend to pop off too much.

I also Agree that Kevin is measured and responsible in his posting.  Kevin lives in ohio by the way Buckeye and sadly the two of us never met up.  Maybe you can correct my mistake

Bottom line advice - whether in marriage, family relations, church relations, professional relations, etc. - if you want your criticism to be taken seriously, it should be balanced with much more compliments and support than criticism. I'd aim for no more than 5-10% of one's speech being critical. For a good marriage, something around 1% is most healthy.

That may explain a few things here at home

 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Having been with FairMormon for a short time I am well aware that FairMormon has taken the approach that the organization will always operate from the perspective of staying side by side or behind the Church, never to appear out in front of it suggesting it consider making a change or validating that the church is doing something wrong and that wrong is hurting someone. 

If the mission ( http://www.fairmormon.org/about-fairmormon )is to provide well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief and practice, it does not have to:

1) Validate hurt – hurt is not a criticism.

2) Make room for dissent – just make room for criticism to be aired, acknowledged and answered; nor garner “trust” by pandering to dissent and public opposition instead of engaging in respectful discussion.

3) Advocate for change or take a stance on specific issues.

Do you have a reference from the organization's strategic plan that calls for the approach you mention in the first line of the OP?

[juliann]

5 hours ago, cdowis said:

If anyone is paying attention, why not invite Sandra Tanner to give a lecture at FairMormon.  In this case, the topic could be something like, "What I learned about Mormon history in my X years of research" or, even better, "What effect has my research had on the LDS church.
 

That would really be an in interesting lecture, and lots of tickets sold!  That would send the message, "We are not afraid of Sandra Tanner and her research."

Um, she sued FM over something so stupid it was thrown out of two courts. I can't think of one thing that the Tanners could add to the discussion. All we had to do back in the day was fill in the elipses they pepper their "proof" with. Their claim to fame is publicizing unknown documents. Other than that, I find them exceptionally dishonest. Seriously, suggestions like these just flabbergast me. 

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Um, she sued FM over something so stupid it was thrown out of two courts. I can't think of one thing that the Tanners could add to the discussion. All we had to do back in the day was fill in the elipses they pepper their "proof" with. Their claim to fame is publicizing unknown documents. Other than that, I find them exceptionally dishonest. Seriously, suggestions like these just flabbergast me. 

You guys at FM are probably getting real good at filling in elipses that pepper proof.  (Try and say that real fast)

[juliann]

6 hours ago, DBMormon said:

I hope by the way it can be seen that I am not being critical.  At least not unfairly.  While I struggle with Fair's loyalty, Fair likely struggles with my Criticism.  I am not saying one way is right or wrong only that I feel there has to be room for someone to do both and wonder how we capture that.  I think Patrick and Grant did a great job showing us with feet on the ground what that can look like.

They can do it because they express support and belief. They do not attack. 

Buckeye gave the best explanation I have ever seen. One of the things Mason/Hardy emphasized is the Mormon defensiveness. Any engagement has to start there, any attempt to bring up something uncomfortable must take that into account to be successful. It isn't that people don't see the problems, they do. But they don't want someone lecturing them, telling them they are abusive, or embarrassing the Church they love. Who would want that? That approach closes ears and shuts doors. So the question really is....does one want to be listened to? If they do, there are steps that must be taken. Perhaps the best example of that is what Valerie Hudsen and Neylan McBaine just put out on Square Two regarding the need for women to define themselves by having titles and appropriate terms for organizations.They will be heard. Carol Lynn Pearson is another example. She criticized polygamy but did it through expressing love for JS instead of disdain. She will ultimately be heard as well because her positive speaks just as loud as the negative. I am always on the hunt for people like these because what they offer, even if only parts of it, can be used without consequence. You know Suzette, she is another example.

Social capital is everything, as Buckeye pointed out. FM seems to have the audience you and others want, Bill.  But perhaps you burn vital bridges with the aggressive and sometimes hostile approach to even minor issues. FM has spent decades building social capital and trust. When we began our greatest hurdle was proving that we were not just another group buzzing around the Church to criticize it. At the time, that is all members had been exposed to. (This was at a time when even the awesome Dialogue sort of went south for awhile.)  

As you can see, there has been no backlash from the Mason/Hardy/Isom talks. It all blends together and fits well within our mission. 

[juliann]

7 hours ago, DBMormon said:

 

 

My questions

1.) Can an organization be both validating to real hurt the Church may be causing through unhealthy behaviors and policies while still standing with the Church?

2.) What room is there for individuals to dissent and publicly speak out against unhealthy behaviors perceived that still allows one to be fully seen as in and faithful?  In other words as soft and subtle as they try to be, does such talks put Mason and Hardy in a position to lose trust with the Church locally or generally?

3.) If FairMormon members care to jump in and address this directly, Is FairMormon's approach welcoming and supportive of a out front of the Church perspective?  And Could we ever expect FairMormon to ever officially validate that any of said out front ideas are good and positive?  Again I am not speaking about allowing or permitting such talks at their conference, but rather whether there would ever be room in FairMormon officially to endorse and/or validate and/or agree and/or empathize and/or promote such pushes for improvement?   Would FairMormon ever take such a public stance itself on such specific issues?   

 

 

I've run out of time for now but just let me say that there really isn't some big "official FM."  We put stuff up on a website and sponsor conferences worldwide. We don't do press conferences, make statements, etc. i guess the closest to that would be when newspapers want quotes but even then it is really just one guy/gal talking off the top of their head. 

FM has already had talks cautioning members in how they treat or talk about those leaving the Church. And I'll bet there is something on the website somewhere about that as well. FM is pretty much the wiki now. 

I'll come back later for the rest.

[Calm]

Quote

In other words as soft and subtle as they try to be, does such talks put Mason and Hardy in a position to lose trust with the Church locally or generally?

Patrick Mason has been giving firesides (including recent ones) in church buildings for a long time.  I believe that Grant Hardy has as well (obvious recent ones are not coming up in a quick and dirty google search so I say "believe").  They aren't really saying anything dramatically new in these talks, it would seem to me and they haven't been banned from the fireside circuit yet (as has happened with other speakers I am aware of, two of which who erred in overlaying their own ideas on church teachings as if they were doctrine).  Same with Givens.

That the talks work so well with someone's whose job is speaking for the Church provides support for their approach.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Calm

[DBMormon]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

They can do it because they express support and belief. They do not attack. 

Buckeye gave the best explanation I have ever seen. One of the things Mason/Hardy emphasized is the Mormon defensiveness. Any engagement has to start there, any attempt to bring up something uncomfortable must take that into account to be successful. It isn't that people don't see the problems, they do. But they don't want someone lecturing them, telling them they are abusive, or embarrassing the Church they love. Who would want that? That approach closes ears and shuts doors. So the question really is....does one want to be listened to? If they do, there are steps that must be taken. Perhaps the best example of that is what Valerie Hudsen and Neylan McBaine just put out on Square Two regarding the need for women to define themselves by having titles and appropriate terms for organizations.They will be heard. Carol Lynn Pearson is another example. She criticized polygamy but did it through expressing love for JS instead of disdain. She will ultimately be heard as well because her positive speaks just as loud as the negative. I am always on the hunt for people like these because what they offer, even if only parts of it, can be used without consequence. You know Suzette, she is another example.

Social capital is everything, as Buckeye pointed out. FM seems to have the audience you and others want, Bill.  But perhaps you burn vital bridges with the aggressive and sometimes hostile approach to even minor issues. FM has spent decades building social capital and trust. When we began our greatest hurdle was proving that we were not just another group buzzing around the Church to criticize it. At the time, that is all members had been exposed to. (This was at a time when even the awesome Dialogue sort of went south for awhile.)  

As you can see, there has been no backlash from the Mason/Hardy/Isom talks. It all blends together and fits well within our mission. 

That's funny.  Let's survey 1000 Mormons who have serious sincere doubts and ask them who they trust more to be honest and fair wth them..... Fairmormon or bill reel.    Notice those on the fence and what they say when you come at me from bitter and petty motives.   On one hand fair doesn't do ad hominem and on the other hand it its members Canberra seen on the attack pushing opinions of others beyond the evidence.  ( for example calm claiming I "knew" I had shared pirated material intentionally) when you claim another's motives without asking them and assuming beyond the evidence you are engaging in character assignation.   So why not simply take the op here as a chance to truly discuss the questions rather than try to put me in my place.  Sadly those who need faithful resources the most see right through it and do not appreciate it.  

[Calm]

Quote

On one hand fair doesn't do ad hominem and on the other hand it its members Canberra seen on the attack pushing opinions of others beyond the evidence.  ( for example calm claiming I "knew" I had shared pirated material intentionally) when you claim another's motives without asking them and assuming beyond the evidence you are engaging in character assignation....

You misread me or perhaps I wasn't clear.  My claim was you knew when you posted the opening post in that thread that the video had been pirated; that is why you didn't share a link---because the video had to be paid for/was behind a paywall.  You confirmed that you had learn it was pirated at 10:30ish that morning, an hour or two before you posted.  Therefore when you posted you knew you got your material you were posting from watching pirated material.  You were intentionally sharing material you got from the use of a pirated video, I believe I called it "fruit of the poisonous tree" earlier.

I am not saying that I hadn't assumed when I found out you had posted it on FB that you knew then it was pirated as it still bewilders me how you didn't catch on right away that it had been pirated given your experience, but when making accusations I try hard to limit it to what I know as opposed to what I believe, though of course I go too far at times.

Again I take your word for what happened (people bewilder me a lot, it doesn't mean I shouldn't accept their word), but in making my accusation in your other thread I believe I limited it to what I believed I knew for sure---which was that at the time of your OP, you knew the video wasn't available from FM and that you had posted the FB video and that you hadn't purchased the video yourself.  All of which you have confirmed as factual.

My apologies to you and anyone who was misled by my comments.  I should have been more precise when making any negative claims, especially when they are accusations.  I hope my reason for criticism is clear now.  I don't, of course, expect everyone to agree that using material obtained from stolen property is almost always inappropriate (life or death, false imprisonment, other extreme cases...such arguments I would certainly consider as likely exceptions).  As I explained in the other thread, it is a sensitive area for me because I have seen significant, though unintentional harm being caused by carelessness when people just assumed using something in a good cause was sufficient reason to appropriate someone else's work without paying for it whether knowingly or by not taking steps to ensure it was donated, something I see to be an "ends justifies the means" argument that appears to be no big deal for something small like this, but can end up ruining people's lives when the justification is not just done by one or two, but by hundreds and results in the loss of tens of thousands of dollars.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

18 hours ago, cdowis said:

If FairMormon can give us documented facts, unaffected by bias, that is all I can ask of it.  

You are asking the impossible, no matter how hard we or anyone else tries.  Bias is always there.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 8/20/2016 at 5:23 AM, Calm said:

You are asking the impossible, no matter how hard we or anyone else tries.  Bias is always there.

When I was a student at BYU in the 1970s, a guest speaker on campus was David Brinkley. Many people today will not recognize that name, but he was a very famous network TV news anchor and something of a household name.

Anyway, Brinkley said something I have always remembered. He said, "Bias is in the eye of the beholder."

He said something along the lines of this, and I think he used Spiro Agnew as an example: If he were to give nothing but glowing praise for Agnew, glossing over any faults, most people would probably accuse him of bias "except Agnew. He would think I had finally come to my senses."

So when cdowis demands "documented facts unaffected by bias," he would probably not be satisfied unless what he was getting was "facts" that cater to his own bias.

 

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Jeanne said:

You guys at FM are probably getting real good at filling in elipses that pepper proof.  (Try and say that real fast)

It is a real problem for someone like me who uses .... to convey how my train of thought is pausing or wandering off, as if I am speaking rather than writing my comments.  I have this developed sense that ellipses are red flags and then this instinctual need to use them.  

Your not quite to full term tongue twister is tempting me (needs at least 5 words to get the gratifyingly giddy goofs going good) but it is almost 6 and I have still not slept so figuring out something long enough to be interesting to post is not going to happen tonight/this morning.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So when cdowis demands "documented facts unaffected by bias," he would probably not be satisfied unless what he was getting was "facts" that cater to his own bias.

Yawn.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You are asking the impossible, no matter how hard we or anyone else tries.  Bias is always there.

I know the difference between facts/data,  and opinion/interpretation/speculation.

Bias in "facts" is evident only in the selection of those facts -- assuming that the researcher is honest and not distorting those facts.  Opinion is the interpretation of the facts.  It is indeed possible to have an unbiased, exhaustive  selection of ALL the facts.  

I believe that the Joseph Smith Papers project is such an example, in my (biased) opinion.  We are presented with photographic copies of the actual documents, so the only bias would be the omission of relevant documents.

Edited August 20, 2016 by cdowis

[Calm]

Don't see how we can put up an "exhaustive selection of ALL the facts" relating to Mormonism or even just Church History without having a much larger team of volunteers plus someone willing to pay for a much bigger website.

The Joseph Smith Papers have put a precise limit on what they are publishing.  They are not, for example, publishing all the sources that mentioned Joseph Smith during his lifetime or all writings about him by those directly involved with him.  They have, iow, decided what is important to their work and not left it to readers to decide.

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Calm

[cdowis]

del

Edited August 20, 2016 by cdowis

[DBMormon]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

You misread me or perhaps I wasn't clear.  My claim was you knew when you posted the opening post in that thread that the video had been pirated; that is why you didn't share a link---because the video had to be paid for/was behind a paywall.  You confirmed that you had learn it was pirated at 10:30ish that morning, an hour or two before you posted.  Therefore when you posted you knew you got your material you were posting from watching pirated material.  You were intentionally sharing material you got from the use of a pirated video, I believe I called it "fruit of the poisonous tree" earlier.

I am not saying that I hadn't assumed when I found out you had posted it on FB that you knew then it was pirated as it still bewilders me how you didn't catch on right away that it had been pirated given your experience, but when making accusations I try hard to limit it to what I know as opposed to what I believe, though of course I go too far at times.

Again I take your word for what happened (people bewilder me a lot, it doesn't mean I shouldn't accept their word), but in making my accusation in your other thread I believe I limited it to what I believed I knew for sure---which was that at the time of your OP, you knew the video wasn't available from FM and that you had posted the FB video and that you hadn't purchased the video yourself.  All of which you have confirmed as factual.

My apologies to you and anyone who was misled by my comments.  I should have been more precise when making any negative claims, especially when they are accusations.  I hope my reason for criticism is clear now.  I don't, of course, expect everyone to agree that using material obtained from stolen property is almost always inappropriate (life or death, false imprisonment, other extreme cases...such arguments I would certainly consider as likely exceptions).  As I explained in the other thread, it is a sensitive area for me because I have seen significant, though unintentional harm being caused by carelessness when people just assumed using something in a good cause was sufficient reason to appropriate someone else's work without paying for it whether knowingly or by not taking steps to ensure it was donated, something I see to be an "ends justifies the means" argument that appears to be no big deal for something small like this, but can end up ruining people's lives when the justification is not just done by one or two, but by hundreds and results in the loss of tens of thousands of dollars.

How does that change anything?  You knew that it was protected on FM.  You did not share it here intentionally because it was to be paid for content.  And now you are claiming you didn't know it was pirated?  <_____ your words.  

The trouble calm is before you say this, I already acknowledge that I knew between the Facebook post and this mason post on this board that the material was copyrighted and I explained this is why I didn't put the link on that mason post, and yet you call me out on not knowing it was pirated.   Hence logic says you are pointing to the first Facebook post because that is the only place I have claimed not to know it was pirated.

 

you follow that up with your next comment 

 

DB, You knew it was behind a paywall and did not post a link here.  Yet you had the link still up on your facebook page.  I think that speaks volumes for what you actually knew. 

 

Again you seemingly call me out for knowing more than I am claiming and yet I have already claimed to know just before the mason post went up.

can you see why logic and reason leave you calling me a liar as the best explanation by far for what you were doing? 

 

 I know that members of FAIR MORMON  feel I have unfairly come after them on things.  But it should be fairly stated that that goes both ways. I would welcome a conversation with FAIRmormon leadership that attempts to build bridges and put all the past on the table & figure out a way to work past it and move on. But until I'm confident that I am not in the crosshairs of FAIR MORMON Behind the scenes, I can only go off what has been relayed to me along with direct correspondence from some of your members to me publicly.  That is an open invitation.  But please know that it is obvious to everyone that both sides go above and beyond the mark in dealing with each other.  That even on a post like this where I attempt to be fair and reasonable, you guys come out swinging.   As if you're looking for blood. 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by DBMormon