What do you guys think of the ldsanswers web site?

[churchistrue]

It appears to be from ultra-conservative LDS perspective, taking aim not so much at the "anti-Mormon" material that FairMormon types usually aim at, but moving the dial a step to the right, and taking aim at Progressive LDS.

Some of their topics are anti-evolution and anti-Progressive-Mormonism.  Here's a very interesting article.  http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/  

The articles are well footed and seem to be pretty well written, thought I've just skimmed through most of the articles.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

It appears to be from ultra-conservative LDS perspective, taking aim not so much at the "anti-Mormon" material that FairMormon types usually aim at, but moving the dial a step to the right, and taking aim at Progressive LDS.

Some of their topics are anti-evolution and anti-Progressive-Mormonism.  Here's a very interesting article.  http://www.ldsanswers.org/dominant-church-history-narrative-not-true-lds-scholars-encourage-new-history-new-policy-new-church/  

The articles are well footed and seem to be pretty well written, thought I've just skimmed through most of the articles.  

I'm not acquainted with "ldsanswers," but I think progmos very often do need to be challenged -- on various subjects like the Book of Mormon being fictional and whether to repeal the law of chastity. If ldsanswers is filling that niche and doing it responsibly and accurately, well, more power to them.

[Benjamin Seeker]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not acquainted with "ldsanswers," but I think progmos very often do need to be challenged -- on various subjects like the Book of Mormon being fictional and whether to repeal the law of chastity. If ldsanswers is filling that niche and doing it responsibly and accurately, well, more power to them.

This is part of the problem. There are very moderate voices, like Bushman, saying the traditional narrative is incomplete (missing seerstones, hats, folk magic, etc), and ultra conservatives like ldsanswers group moderate claims, like his, that represent the faithful and secular scholarly consensus with more progressive ideas like the BOM being entirely fictional. Meanwhile, Bushman holds to traditional truth claims like the BOM being historical, and other reasonable educated people in Mormonism scratch their head at how ultra-conservative  can be so ignorant of what are essentially uncontroversial historical claims.

When we move to a claim like the BOM being fictional, this is highly controversial among faithful scholars (though from what I understand, the concensus among completely secular scholars), and so should be separated from the more mundane facts that the ultraconservatives are having trouble digesting.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Benjamin Seeker

[longview]

James F. Stoddard III appears to be some kind of an oddball.  I do not see why you label his various sites as being "ultra-conservative" when he is entertaining revisionism of Mormon history and rehashing tired old anti-mormon charges.

[bluebell]

I don't agree with random people who think they can speak for LDS.  I don't have a problem with people saying "this is my opinion" or "this is how i believe" or "these are my answers to those questions" but implying that their answers are the answers always bugs me.

This is why people still believe that we don't drink tea because of tannic acid or coffee because of caffeine.  

[churchistrue]

52 minutes ago, longview said:

James F. Stoddard III appears to be some kind of an oddball.  I do not see why you label his various sites as being "ultra-conservative" when he is entertaining revisionism of Mormon history and rehashing tired old anti-mormon charges.

You must be reading something different than I am.  Just about everything I've seen on the site would be categorized as "ultra-conservative".

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not acquainted with "ldsanswers," but I think progmos very often do need to be challenged -- on various subjects like the Book of Mormon being fictional and whether to repeal the law of chastity. If ldsanswers is filling that niche and doing it responsibly and accurately, well, more power to them.

I think any opportunity to responsibly evolve the standing, teachings, policy etc. of a religious organisation (or any organisation) benefits from having strong and articulate views in both the "ayes" and "noes."

Out of interest, based on his public answers to doctrinal questions and based on his publications, would you consider people like Bushman and/or the Givenses to be progressive mormons or not?

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not acquainted with "ldsanswers," but I think progmos very often do need to be challenged -- on various subjects like the Book of Mormon being fictional and whether to repeal the law of chastity. If ldsanswers is filling that niche and doing it responsibly and accurately, well, more power to them.

LDSAnswers is more clearly cut along the Chapel Mormon/ Internet Mormon divide, with a strong support of Chapel Mormon tenets including anti-evolution:

 

Quote

Creationism holds that true scientific principles will never contradict correct interpretations of scripture and revelation.  The Gospel is not separate and distinct from the real world. While Brigham Young taught the truth that we do not oppose true science, he also taught that the earth has a temporal existence of 6,000 years, that the Fall of man was literal, that there was no death on this earth prior to the Fall, and so on.  As mentioned, Brigham Young strongly opposed Darwinism and

endowed Brigham Young Academy to refute these false scientific theories.  Why has every President of the Church in this dispensation been a supporter of the principles of Creationism?

http://www.ldsanswers.org/latter-day-saints-view-creationism-latter-day-saints-understand-creation-account-literally/

 

 

Stoddard is also a supporter of Meldrum, so there's that ilk of bunkum throughout the site as well...

Edited December 19, 2016 by cinepro

[churchistrue]

52 minutes ago, cinepro said:

LDSAnswers is more clearly cut along the Chapel Mormon/ Internet Mormon divide, with a strong support of Chapel Mormon tenets including anti-evolution:

 

 

Stoddard is also a supporter of Meldrum, so there's that ilk of bunkum throughout the site as well...

In the link you provided, it appears they're against the Christ-centered energy healer movement.  So that's a good thing (at least according to this liberal Mo).

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, canard78 said:

I think any opportunity to responsibly evolve the standing, teachings, policy etc. of a religious organisation (or any organisation) benefits from having strong and articulate views in both the "ayes" and "noes."

 

Unbelievers are not going to accept this, but I see an organic difference between secular/earthly organizations and the Church of Jesus Christ, to the effect that, in the latter, unauthorized meddling (call it ark steadying, if you will) is decidedly not of benefit to the organization.

Quote

Out of interest, based on his public answers to doctrinal questions and based on his publications, would you consider people like Bushman and/or the Givenses to be progressive mormons or not?

I know that he's the darling of some in the liberal "Mormon Studies" crowd, but I don't really see Bushman as a "progressive Mormon" in an ideological sense. He seems orthodox enough to me.

I'm OK with the Givenses except when they have been unduly negative. Terryl, I understand, has made inappropriately harsh comments about Church curriculum. And as you know, I have no patience at all with Fiona's self-righteous pontificating about the admiration that Latter-day Saints feel for Joseph Smith and their enjoyment of the hymn "Praise to the Man."

Edited December 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

This is part of the problem. There are very moderate voices, like Bushman, saying the traditional narrative is incomplete (missing seerstones, hats, folk magic, etc), and ultra conservatives like ldsanswers group moderate claims, like his, that represent the faithful and secular scholarly consensus with more progressive ideas like the BOM being entirely fictional. Meanwhile, Bushman holds to traditional truth claims like the BOM being historical, and other reasonable educated people in Mormonism scratch their head at how ultra-conservative  can be so ignorant of what are essentially uncontroversial historical claims.

When we move to a claim like the BOM being fictional, this is highly controversial among faithful scholars (though from what I understand, the concensus among completely secular scholars), and so should be separated from the more mundane facts that the ultraconservatives are having trouble digesting.

For me, the dichotomy that matters is the one between truth and buncombe. Heresies on the "progressive" side and stubborn ignorance on the "conservative" side both belong in the latter category.

[Jeanne]

• I just read through everything and found it very interesting.  Then I went to the Helen Mar question and was kind of disappointed.  A big E for effort but the comments made my day.

[Benjamin Seeker]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

For me, the dichotomy that matters is the one between truth and buncombe. Heresies on the "progressive" side and stubborn ignorance on the "conservative" side both belong in the latter category.

And as browsing a couple of contradictory website demonstrates, one person's truth is another person's heresy, which makes moderate, non-controversial common ground an important starting point for dialogue. When a particular group decides that what others perceive as the moderate, non-controversial facts are progressive controversial claims, the conversation comes to a halt.

[mfbukowski]

Confusing science with religion can only hurt the church.

The sooner we figure that out the better.  If these views persist, the church will eventually disappear because it will become irrelevant.

The view that confuses science with religion is a paradigm which will not survive, and there is no reason to perpetuate this paradigm.   Others work much better.  It is simply another iteration, as I have said before, of the idea that the bible prohibits the belief that the earth rotates around the sun instead of being the center of the universe, because Joshua stopped the sun from moving?

Would you join a church today that preaches that the sun revolves around the earth?

That there is a dome of stars over the earth and that heaven exists above that dome in a higher dome?

How are those beliefs different from a universal flood?

 

[canard78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Unbelievers are not going to accept this, but I see an organic difference between secular/earthly organizations and the Church of Jesus Christ, to the effect that, in the latter, unauthorized meddling (call it ark steadying, if you will) is decidedly not of benefit to the organization.

Do you feel a website like ldsanswers is also ark steadying? Or is it a reasonable "grass roots" defence of the leadership and a way of calling out the arc-steadiers?

Quote

 

I know that he's the darling of some in the liberal "Mormon Studies" crowd, but I don't really see Bushman as a "progressive Mormon" in an ideological sense. He seems orthodox enough to me.

I'm OK with the Givenses except when they have been unduly negative. Terryl, I understand, has made inappropriately harsh comments about Church curriculum. And as you know, I have no patience at all with Fiona's self-righteous pontificating about the admiration that Latter-day Saints feel for Joseph Smith and their enjoyment of the hymn "Praise to the Man."

 

I'm actually inclined to agree with you on Bushman. I think he's said a few things that suggest he doesn't have a "simplistic" chapel mormon belief (I use that word with caution... I recognise the negative/patronising connotation) and I think he recognises some of the difficult and unanswered questions... but I think he's a long way off some of the very "mormonism-lite" perspectives that are common among other groups. 

On the Givenses. I think the critique of the church curriculum is reasonable, from a personal perspective. The sunday school manuals, if followed with exactness, are very boorish and the teaching of the presidents feel pretty repetitive.

I can understand why you'd take umbrage at Fiona's comments. I think that people who accept Joseph Smith status as prophet in totality, can reasonably admire and revere the work he did. I can remember, around 2010 or 2011... whichever year we did Joseph Smith for the third hour, having a moment during the course where I felt a deep and sincere admiration for the work he'd done.

Today, I struggle to feel that, but I still try to give him the benefit of the doubt. When considered in a certain light, some of his actions are fairly abhorrent to me, but when I try to consider them in another, I can still see the reasons to see him as one of humanity's significant thought leaders and influences. And, if nothing else, these statements, shortly before his death, are still ones I consider worthy of admiration:

Quote

"Greater love hath no man than that he should lay down his life for his friends. You have stood by me in the hour of trouble, and I am willing to sacrifice my life for your preservation..."

"If you go there they will kill you." "I know it, but I am going. I am going to give myself for the people, to save them"

 

 

[hagoth7]

16 hours ago, longview said:

James F. Stoddard III appears to be...

Met the Stoddards once.

Pleasant experience. A very nice family. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by hagoth7

[Calm]

Lots of Stoddard's around, sure it was the same one?

[Scott Lloyd]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

And as browsing a couple of contradictory website demonstrates, one person's truth is another person's heresy, which makes moderate, non-controversial common ground an important starting point for dialogue. When a particular group decides that what others perceive as the moderate, non-controversial facts are progressive controversial claims, the conversation comes to a halt.

Which is why it is vital to understand the distinction between official Church sources and what Elder Dallin H. Oaks has characterized as "alternate voices." (I recommend looking up and reading the general conference talk of years ago in which he drew that distinction.)

One who understands the definition of an alternate voice would be less inclined to dogmatize on anything coming from such a source, it seems to me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, canard78 said:

Do you feel a website like ldsanswers is also ark steadying? Or is it a reasonable "grass roots" defence of the leadership and a way of calling out the arc-steadiers?

I'm actually inclined to agree with you on Bushman. I think he's said a few things that suggest he doesn't have a "simplistic" chapel mormon belief (I use that word with caution... I recognise the negative/patronising connotation) and I think he recognises some of the difficult and unanswered questions... but I think he's a long way off some of the very "mormonism-lite" perspectives that are common among other groups. 

On the Givenses. I think the critique of the church curriculum is reasonable, from a personal perspective. The sunday school manuals, if followed with exactness, are very boorish and the teaching of the presidents feel pretty repetitive.

I can understand why you'd take umbrage at Fiona's comments. I think that people who accept Joseph Smith status as prophet in totality, can reasonably admire and revere the work he did. I can remember, around 2010 or 2011... whichever year we did Joseph Smith for the third hour, having a moment during the course where I felt a deep and sincere admiration for the work he'd done.

Today, I struggle to feel that, but I still try to give him the benefit of the doubt. When considered in a certain light, some of his actions are fairly abhorrent to me, but when I try to consider them in another, I can still see the reasons to see him as one of humanity's significant thought leaders and influences. And, if nothing else, these statements, shortly before his death, are still ones I consider worthy of admiration:

 

I know next to nothing about ldsanswers.org, but obviously it falls within the category of alternate voices (see my citation of Elder Oaks's talk above). So do the ark steadiers. So does Bushman, for the most part, and so do the Givenses. So do the progmos. 

It should be noted that alternate voices is not inherently a pajorative. Some entities that I hold in very high esteem would be classed as alternate voices, such as FairMormon and Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture. Of course, I have far less respect and esteem for other alternate voices. 

As pertaining to much of what I post on this board, I am an alternate voice. So is virtually everyone who posts here. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is why it is vital to understand the distinction between official Church sources and what Elder Dallin H. Oaks has characterized as "alternate voices." (I recommend looking up and reading the general conference talk of years ago in which he drew that distinction.)

One who understands the definition of an alternate voice would be less inclined to dogmatize on anything coming from such a source, it seems to me. 

 

36 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know next to nothing about mormonanswers.org, but obviously it falls within the category of alternate voices (see my citation of Elder Oaks' talk above). So do the ark steadiers. So does Bushman, for the most part, and so do the Givenses. So do the progmos. 

It should be noted that alternate voices is not inherently a pajorative. Some entities that I hold in very high esteem would be classed as alternate voices, such as FairMormon and Interpreter: a Journal of Mormon Scripture. Of course, I have far less respect and esteem for other alternate voices. 

As pertaining to much of what I post on this board, I am a alternate voice. So is virtually everyone who posts here. 

I'm glad you clarified your use of alternate voice.

I have to say that I use to take the official source boundary line very seriously.  I was always cautious when reading alternate voices, and I established a careful hierarchy with official sources at the top. After a number of years of studying church history I learned official sources have done a pretty piss poor job on certain subjects, and while there has been impressive improvement in recent years, there are plenty of problematic areas. 

To sum it up, I've learned that official sources can also contain heavy bias, to the point that they become counterproductive when seeking truth on certain subjects.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

 

I'm glad you clarified your use of alternate voice.

I have to say that I use to take the official source boundary line very seriously.  I was always cautious when reading alternate voices, and I established a careful hierarchy with official sources at the top. After a number of years of studying church history I learned official sources have done a pretty piss poor job on certain subjects, and while there has been impressive improvement in recent years, there are plenty of problematic areas. 

To sum it up, I've learned that official sources can also contain heavy bias, to the point that they become counterproductive when seeking truth on certain subjects.

I've observed that most often, those who complain about official Church sources do so because the source did not include this or that portion of the narrative that the complainer thought should have been included. 

So it thus becomes a matter not of getting facts wrong, per se, but of allegedly not being thorough enough with inclusion of facts. And that is very much a subjective judgment. Making a fact error, on the other hand, is an objective, cut-and-dried determination. 

I therefore see the two as falling at different points along the egregiousness scale. 

Furthermore, though official sources might not be inclusive enough to suit some people, I by and large find them more trustworthy than most alternate voices. Anti-Mormon or unfriendly sources are by far the worst offenders where it concerns leaving out relevant or clarifying facts or engaging in slanting, spin and distortion.

By the way, did you look up and review the Oaks talk? It is very good. I gained more from my reading of it today than I did when I first heard it. 

Edited to add: 

Here's a link:

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/alternate-voices?lang=eng

I highly recommend a reading/review of it. 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[hagoth7]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Lots of Stoddard's around, sure it was the same one?

I leave possibilities open for

1. The meeting with the Stoddard family that I remember could have happened in a fold in space/time/reality with an iteration of the Stoddard family slightly different from the version you're now asking about. 

2. Or, two LDS media producers are walking this planet at the same time, using the same graphics and videos, using the same name (...Stoddard III), who both match the photo on the website. (Tracting near the end of my mission, I encountered the spitting image of the young woman back home that I would later marry. Later that week, we tracted out my favorite uncle's exact double. It happened in a small country to which both people's families traced - perhaps genetic whimsy or something. And some twins happen to choose parallel life paths.)

If such things are not in play, then I'm *reasonably* sure it was the same one.

Edited December 20, 2016 by hagoth7

[HappyJackWagon]

I'm struck by the hubris of Stoddard to think she has a better understanding of church history than Richard Bushman. She, and the others seem to think that Bushman is a leader of a progressive infiltration aimed at destroying the church. She is showing her lack of understanding as she clings to the narrative she's most familiar with.

This website seems rather fundamentalist as they attempt to make a name for themselves by knocking down scholarship in general and Bushman specifically. Frankly, this website represents the worst possible approach to having a conversation on challenging issues as it assumes that anyone (even well-respected historians) who share uncomfortable history are doing so out of a desire to destroy church history as a means of destroying the church. How does one have a conversation with a person starting from that belief?

[hagoth7]

22 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm struck by the hubris...How does one have a conversation with a person starting from that belief?

How about by sitting down with any such person, inviting them to share their core beliefs, listening, and seeking their help gaining understanding how such beliefs could drive actions that might, out of context, seem misplaced?

[rodheadlee]

28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm struck by the hubris of Stoddard to think she has a better understanding of church history than Richard Bushman. She, and the others seem to think that Bushman is a leader of a progressive infiltration aimed at destroying the church. She is showing her lack of understanding as she clings to the narrative she's most familiar with.

This website seems rather fundamentalist as they attempt to make a name for themselves by knocking down scholarship in general and Bushman specifically. Frankly, this website represents the worst possible approach to having a conversation on challenging issues as it assumes that anyone (even well-respected historians) who share uncomfortable history are doing so out of a desire to destroy church history as a means of destroying the church. How does one have a conversation with a person starting from that belief?

Yeah, how do you know? Are you aware of her qualifications?