Is FAIRMormon.org a Net-Positive or Net-Negitive for the Church?

[Calm]

Freedom, whenever you feel the scholarship could be improved, helpful suggestions or just pointing out where we need more work would be appreciated.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

32 minutes ago, Freedom said:

 They want a God that has a 2017 social standard. They expect that what is socially acceptable today represents the pinnacle of perfection, the top of the human evolutionary chain.

Yeah.  Some people believe that God makes decisions regarding his views and laws according to our calendar.  Then it became the 21st century, God had to change his views so that he would be in compliance of the standards of western civilization one one of his many billions of worlds he rules over.  In fact every single world in the universe is waiting on pins and needles to see what our society accepts next to know what is right and wrong.

[why me]

16 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

When I was going through my Faith Crises a decade ago...I did what many seekers of truth do.  I doubled downed on the scriptures, prayer and pondering.  I increased my knowledge of church history by reading everything I could get my hands on from Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Smith, Palmer, Southerton, Brookes, Crompton, Newell and more and then I would cross reference disconcerting information with the FAIR site in the hope that I had merely run into anti Mormon lies and I knew that certainly FAIR would have the answers to expose the new information as lies and I could lay the information aside.  But that wasn't what happened...instead FAIR confirmed that much of the information I was learning was true or it provided apologetic explanations that left me unsatisfied.   I was devastated and the rest is history.

I have spoken with others who have gone through a similar experience...turning to FAIR in the hope of resolving difficulties only to discover instead that FAIR confirm their worst fears.

So I ask, is FAIR a net-positive or net-negative for the church...at the time I saw it as a negative because it confirmed my fears and led me out of the church...however, in hind sight it certainly was a positive for the same reasons. What has been your experience?

I think that many go to fair to read that the facts the critics are writing are false. And when they discover that the facts are true, it does not matter how fair interprets the facts and how such interpretations are different from the critics. And so, if people go to fair to read alternative explanations of the facts, it helps. But if they went to fair because they want to read that the facts are false, they are disappointed.

[Bernard Gui]

FAIR provides a much-needed service. I respect and applaud their efforts to defend the faith. It's encouraging that the Church has given some recognition to the conference. A total positive experience for me and family and friends with whom I have shared the website and the conferences. Keep up the good work!

In the end, testimony and conversion come by manifestation of the Spirit. That is the rock on which we must stand, but the kind of sincere positive support given by FAIR is beneficial.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[juliann]

On 2/2/2017 at 10:45 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

 

I have spoken with others who have gone through a similar experience...turning to FAIR in the hope of resolving difficulties only to discover instead that FAIR confirm their worst fears.

So I ask, is FAIR a net-positive or net-negative for the church...at the time I saw it as a negative because it confirmed my fears and led me out of the church...however, in hind sight it certainly was a positive for the same reasons. What has been your experience?

Assuming you think that you are better off out of the church, why would you consider that a negative?  Don't assume that FM doesn't get plenty of people thanking them for keeping them in the church. Win some, lose some. You could say the same about the critic's sites in reverse , BTW.  Although FM does privately help individuals who send in questions, the purpose is providing answers to critics. You do have to acknowledge what they are claiming to do that....which doesn't always happen from the other side, BTW. Accusations  usually require much less work and don't require academic rigor.

[RevTestament]

On 2/2/2017 at 11:45 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

When I was going through my Faith Crises a decade ago...I did what many seekers of truth do.  I doubled downed on the scriptures, prayer and pondering.  I increased my knowledge of church history by reading everything I could get my hands on from Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Smith, Palmer, Southerton, Brookes, Crompton, Newell and more and then I would cross reference disconcerting information with the FAIR site in the hope that I had merely run into anti Mormon lies and I knew that certainly FAIR would have the answers to expose the new information as lies and I could lay the information aside.  But that wasn't what happened...instead FAIR confirmed that much of the information I was learning was true or it provided apologetic explanations that left me unsatisfied.   I was devastated and the rest is history.

To the extent that the Church needs a source of independent thought, I believe FAIR is an important resource for church members, especially now that FARMS is basically done. I know I have often found facts and information through FAIR which just would not be readily accessible otherwise. I am very grateful for the resource even if it fields papers with opinions or presentations I do not completely agree with - for instance I am not favorable about the Mesoamerica model often supported by various authors which get published by FAIR, yet I believe the research presented is important for a variety of reasons. It is important to remember that FAIR is a scholarly source, and not an official Church source, and as such does not necessarily present one position or picture about any particular subject. One might find any number of opinions on a subject through FAIR. To say that "FAIR confirmed... much of the information" from critical books is really just not the case. It was various authors which probably admitted many of the facts you were reading about were or seemed to be true. In other words various authors published through FAIR seemed to confirm that you had been taught a "white-washed" version of church history. I know that to be true for myself, but yet I still know the Church is true. I am sorry it was such a crisis for you. I think the Church has finally begun to accept that its approach was a mistake or at least that it won't work now. I consider myself to always have been a very free thinker tho, so I have never accepted everything I am taught carte blanche. You will find however, that all churches have their own version of history - certainly including the Catholic Church. They largely believe a very rosy picture about their past. Lutherans probably mostly are not aware of the anti-semitic views of Luther.

Quote

I have spoken with others who have gone through a similar experience...turning to FAIR in the hope of resolving difficulties only to discover instead that FAIR confirm their worst fears.

So I ask, is FAIR a net-positive or net-negative for the church...at the time I saw it as a negative because it confirmed my fears and led me out of the church...however, in hind sight it certainly was a positive for the same reasons. What has been your experience?

Because I don't have a lot of preconceived notions about Church history - at least which I am not willing to shed - I have found FAIR to be an important alternative source for information about various church related subjects - papers which would probably not otherwise get published - at least not be the church - and certainly not by church critics. I hope FAIR continues to do its work. It is important. It is filling a gap which otherwise would be a void of information. I don't know your experience, but I have also found a lot of information through FAIR which refutes common criticisms and misinformation of critics of Joseph Smith and the Church. The fact that authors sometimes admit that Joseph Smith was human, made mistakes, and had incorrect personal opinions, etc should not be a net negative for the Church. Indeed, I find it refreshing rather than the general almost platitudinous Sunday lesson on Joseph Smith. My hat is off to FAIR...1

[VideoGameJunkie]

It's a positive. I love how there's basically a FAIR article for every topic. They put in a lot of hard work and I appreciate it a lot.

[Teancum]

On ‎2‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 1:45 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

When I was going through my Faith Crises a decade ago...I did what many seekers of truth do.  I doubled downed on the scriptures, prayer and pondering.  I increased my knowledge of church history by reading everything I could get my hands on from Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Smith, Palmer, Southerton, Brookes, Crompton, Newell and more and then I would cross reference disconcerting information with the FAIR site in the hope that I had merely run into anti Mormon lies and I knew that certainly FAIR would have the answers to expose the new information as lies and I could lay the information aside.  But that wasn't what happened...instead FAIR confirmed that much of the information I was learning was true or it provided apologetic explanations that left me unsatisfied.   I was devastated and the rest is history.

I have spoken with others who have gone through a similar experience...turning to FAIR in the hope of resolving difficulties only to discover instead that FAIR confirm their worst fears.

So I ask, is FAIR a net-positive or net-negative for the church...at the time I saw it as a negative because it confirmed my fears and led me out of the church...however, in hind sight it certainly was a positive for the same reasons. What has been your experience?

I would say it depends on the individual. For many years for me apologetics, including FAIR and FARMs was very helpful.  But there was a turning point for me when both became very hurtful in my progress and not I think that FAIR does more harm than good.  But like I said it is perspective.

 

[bluebell]

Oops, wrong thread!

Edited February 4, 2017 by bluebell

[sam]

A net negative they refuse to look at all evidence. They only support the Meso American model even though their is a tremendous amount of evidence for the Book of Mormon in North America. After this post the meso American apologist moderators will cut my ability to post they have done it before and also made it so I can't start a topic.

Native American ties to the Book of Mormon
Native American ties to the Book of Mormon, either through legend or culture.

 

Kishkumen

An Ojibwa Indian Chief named Keeshkemun, who succeeded his father to be chief, is mentioned in Warren’s book, Ojibwa History. Keeshkemun sounds strikingly similar to Kishkumen the Gadianton leader and one of the cities mentioned in the Book of Mormon. In fact if you google Keeshkemun, Kishkumen will come up. Besides Isrealis Ojibwa Indians have the highest concentration of haplogroup X DNA.

Onidah

The Book of Mormon in Alma 47:5 states that disaffected Lamanites gathered at a hill called Onidah
There is Native American Tribe in New York called Onieda phonetically exactly the same as Onidah


Onondaga
 

In May and June 1834 Joseph Smith led a Mormon group (a paramilitary expedition known as Zion’s Camp) on a march from Kirtland, Ohio to Jackson County, Missouri. On June 3, while passing through west-central Illinois near Griggsville, some bones were unearthed from a mound. These bones were identified by Smith. He had vision as to who the bones belonged to.

“At about one foot deep we discovered the skeleton of a man, almost entire; and between two of his ribs we found an Indian arrow, which had evidently been the cause of his death. Subsequently the visions of the past being opened to my understanding by the Spirit of the Almighty, I discovered that the person whose skeleton was before us was a white Lamanite, a large, thickset man, and a man of God. His name was Zelph. He was a warrior and chieftain under the great prophet Onandagus, who was known from the Hill Cumorah, or eastern sea to the Rocky Mountains.” 

The Prophet Onandagus is not mentioned in the Book of Mormon, but has obvious ties to the Onondaga Tribe whose traditional lands are in the state of New York. 

Native American Council Tower

Mosiah 2:7

7 For the multitude being so great that king Benjamin could not teach them all within the walls of the temple, therefore he caused a tower to be erected, that thereby his people might hear the words which he should speak unto them.

“Professor Carr of its once having supported a building similar to the council-house observed by Bartram on a mound at the old Cherokee town Cowe. Both were built on mounds, both were circular, both were built on posts set in the ground at equal distances from each other, and each had a central pillar. As tending to confirm this statement of Bartram’s, the following passage may be quoted, where, speaking of Colonel Christian’s march against the Cherokee towns in 1770, Eamsey says that this officer found in the center of each town ”a circular tower rudely built and covered with dirt, 30 feet in diameter, and about 20 feet high. This tower was used as a council-house… Mr. M. C. Bead, of Hudson, Ohio, discovered similar evidences in a mound near Chattanooga, and Mr. Gerard Fowke has quite recently found the same thing in a mound at Waverly, Ohio.”
(Thomas 1889 pg. 32)

 

The Saying Bury the Hatchet

The Book of Mormon tells the history of the Anti-Nephi’s, a Lamanite people who no longer wanted to fight or kill other people. They made this covenant to God to longer fight by burying their weapons in the ground, never to use them again even in the case of self-defense for themselves or for their family.

The saying bury the hatchet comes from the Algonquin Indians of the Great Lakes area who also made peace by burying their weapons of war. As mentioned before, I think the Hopewell Indians are the best candidate to be the Nephites for numerous reasons - this is one of them.

The first mention of the practice in English is to an actual hatchet-burying ceremony.

Years before he gained notoriety for presiding over the Salem witch trials, Samuel Sewall wrote in 1680, “I write to you in one [letter] of the Mischief the Mohawks did; which occasioned Major Pynchon’s going to Albany, where meeting with the Sachem the[y] came to an agreement and buried two Axes in the Ground; one for English another for themselves; which ceremony to them is more significant & binding than all Articles of Peace[,] the hatchet being a principal weapon with them.”
(South Carolina and the Cherokee Nation 1785)

Treaty of Hopewell 1785, Keowee, South Carolina: signed by Col. Benjamin Hawkins, Gen. Andrew Pickens and Headman McIntosh, establishing the boundary of the Cherokee Nation. Use of the phrase ‘Bury the Hatchet: “ARTICLE 13. The hatchet shall be forever buried, and the peace given by the United States, and friendship re-established between the said states on the one part, and all the Cherokees on the other, shall be universal; and the contracting parties shall use their utmost endeavors to maintain the peace given as aforesaid, and friendship re-established.”



 

Native American Idioms and Phraseology

Native American idioms and phraseology, as described by early settlers, are consistent with the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon. Below are some examples of Native American idioms consistent with scripture. Examples are from John Heckewelder’s Manners and Customs of The Indian Nations Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States.

Native American saying: “I will place you under my wings!”

Meaning: I will protect you at all hazards! You shall be perfectly safe, nobody shall molest you!

Scripture: 3 Nephi 10:6 O ye house of Israel whom I have spared, how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if ye will repent and return unto me with full purpose of heart.
(Heckewelder pg. 139)

Native American saying: ”To bury deep in the earth” (an injury done)

Meaning: To consign it to oblivion.

Scripture: 2 Nephi 26:5 And they that kill the prophets, and the saints, the depths of the earth shall swallow them up, saith the Lord of Hosts; and mountains shall cover them.
(Heckewelder pg. 140)

Native American saying: “You have spoken with your lips only, not from the heart!”

Meaning: You endeavor to deceive me; you do not intend to do as you say!

Scripture: 2 Nephi 27:25 Forasmuch as this people draw near unto me with their mouth, and with their lips do honor me, but have removed their hearts far from me, and their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men.
(Heckewelder pg. 139)

Native American saying: “draw the thorns out of your feet and legs, grease your Stiffened joints with oil, and wipe the sweat off your body.”

Meaning: I make you feel comfortable after your fatiguing journey, that you may enjoy yourself while with us.

Hebrew Custom: The washing of feet is a Hebrew custom. It was the first item done when entering a house or tent. The host would provide the water and the guest would wash his own feet. If the host was wealthy, a slave would wash the feet.

Anointing of oil was used by Jews to refresh and invigorate the body. This custom is still done today by Arabians. In the example there are some similarities in the cleaning of feet and legs from thorns and the anointing of oil or grease to refresh the body.
(Heckewelder pg. 139)

Native American Hebrew and Old World Language Ties

 

 

Hebrew and Greek language comparisons

There are examples of Hebrew customs, characters, beliefs and language among Native Americans. According to Mormon, they knew how to write in Hebrew and of course had Hebrew customs and beliefs (Mormon 9:33). The Greek language is also compared to the Native American languages of Indian tribes.

Comparison of Creek Indian Language

“The name of the Creeks for man, is ishto, and so it is in Hebrew…The same remark might be made with respect to the word Kenaai, for Canaan. Jehovah they call Y-he-ho-wah. The roof of the house they call toubanora; in the Hebrew it is debonaour. The nose they call nichiri in Hebrew, neheri. The great first cause, Yo-hewah; in Hebrew, Jehovah. Praise the first cause, in their language, halleluwah; in Hebrew, hallelujah. Father they call abba; the same in Hebrew. Now they call na; in Hebrew, na. To pray they call pliale; in Hebrew, phalae. In their language, abel is manslaughter; the same in Hebrew. Wife, awah; in Hebrew, eve, or eweh. Winter, kora in Hebrew, cora. God, Ale; in Hebrew, Ale, or Alohini. A high mountain, ararat; the same by the Indians of Penobscot.”
(Haywood 1823 pg. 282)

Mormon 9:33 – And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

Silas T Rand knew several languages to include Hebrew concerning Micmac Indians:

“There are also some words in the language which resemble Greek. The Micmac word Ellenu, an Indian, is not very different from Hellene, a Greek. Ellenu esit (“He speaks Micmac”) is strikingly like the Greek, Hellenize (“He speaks Greek”). But in other respects the language resembles the Hebrew, especially in the suffixes by which the pronouns are connected in the accusative case with the verb.”
(Silas T Rand 1893)

“Their languages are very diverse and differs as much from one another as Dutch, French, Greek and Latin. Declension and conjugation resemble those in Greek, for they, like the Greeks, Have duals in their nouns and even augments in their verbs.”
(In Mohawk Country: Early Narratives About a Native People)

“Shilu in Indian is the same as Shiloh in Hebrew; the Indian word for father is Abba; the word for “waiter of the high priest” is Sagan in both Indian and Hebrew; the word for man in Indian is Ish or Ishie.”
(Adair 1735)

Gaspesian/Micmac Indians:

“Our Indians agree with the Greeks and Latins in this, that they use always the singular, and almost never, or at least very rarely, the plural, even when they speak to their missionaries, or to some other person of prominence. They express themselves by the word kir^ which means “thou,” whether it is the child speaking to its father, the wife to her husband, or the husband to his wife.”
(Clercq 1680 pg. 141)

 “Antipas – name of a general in the BoM (Alma 56); name of a mountain in the BoM (Alma 47:7, 10); It is a Greek name, an abbreviation for ‘Antipater.’

Archeantus – Nephite commander (Moroni 9:2); a typical Greek formation, made using the Greek prefix ‘arch-‘ (“great, chief”), as in the Biblical Greek names Archelaus and Archippus.

Judea – the name of a Nephite city (Alma 56, 57); it is the Greek (i.e., New Testament) form of the Hebrew name ‘Judah,’ referring to the tribe, the Southern Kingdom, and the area of southern Palestine occupied by the tribe of Judah (the Jews).

Angola – city name at Mormon 2:4 – Greek ‘angelos’, meaning ’angel’”

[smac97]

On 2/2/2017 at 11:45 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

When I was going through my Faith Crises a decade ago...I did what many seekers of truth do.  I doubled downed on the scriptures, prayer and pondering.  I increased my knowledge of church history by reading everything I could get my hands on from Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Smith, Palmer, Southerton, Brookes, Crompton, Newell and more and then I would cross reference disconcerting information with the FAIR site in the hope that I had merely run into anti Mormon lies and I knew that certainly FAIR would have the answers to expose the new information as lies and I could lay the information aside.  But that wasn't what happened...instead FAIR confirmed that much of the information I was learning was true or it provided apologetic explanations that left me unsatisfied.   I was devastated and the rest is history.

A few thoughts:

First, I respect your position, and your conclusions.  I am curious, though as to how you account for the many people who have done what you did (study, pray, ponder, etc.), who have turned to "the best books" and so forth, and who have come to the opposite conclusion you have?

Second, you seem to be painting FAIR with some very broad strokes which do not illuminate much.  Are you suggesting that FAIR has some sort of systemic problem with accurately citing historical resources?  That its apologetic responses are uniformly "unsatisfying"?  That it is a fundamentally dishonest endeavor?

Third, what is the scope and depth of FAIR's shortcomings?  Is it just a handful of its "apologetic explanations" that left you "unsatisfied" and "devastated"?  Or was it pretty much the whole kit 'n kaboodle?

On 2/2/2017 at 11:45 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

I have spoken with others who have gone through a similar experience...turning to FAIR in the hope of resolving difficulties only to discover instead that FAIR confirm their worst fears.

Could you give some examples here?  You are speaking in very, very broad terms.  I seldom see substantive, specific, quantifiable criticisms of FAIR content.  

On 2/2/2017 at 11:45 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

So I ask, is FAIR a net-positive or net-negative for the church...at the time I saw it as a negative because it confirmed my fears and led me out of the church...however, in hind sight it certainly was a positive for the same reasons. What has been your experience?

I think it is clearly a net-positive for the Church.  FAIR has every incentive to play it straight with its presentation of the Church's history and doctrines, with historical materials, with "evidences" favoring the Church's position, and so on.  It seems rather clear that FAIR is very much aware that its audience includes many folks who are skeptical or outright hostile to their position.  FAIR would undercut its credibility if it were to cut too many corners in terms of assessing evidence, presenting historical facts, and otherwise developing intellectual, perhaps even scholarly, exposition on the LDS Church and its truth claims.  

As an attorney, I value to the adversarial construct of the U.S. legal system.  When I write a complaint or a motion or whatever, I know it will be heavily scrutinized by the other party's attorney, whose raison d'être is to oppose and attack my client's position, both in terms of factual circumstances and legal authorities and reasoning.  I also know that the judge and his/her clerk(s) will be evaluating my recitation of facts and law.  I think FAIR necessarily operates under similar circumstances.  Those folks know everything they write is going to be heavily scrutinized by a hostile audience, and they proceed accordingly.

Overall, I think FAIR is doing a very good job.  I think this quote from Daniel Peterson is aptly applied to FAIR's efforts:

Quote

{S}cholarship has a definite place even in spiritual matters. The Lord said in an 1829 revelation through the Prophet Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery, “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost” (D&C 8:2; emphasis added). In 1832 the Lord said to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Seek learning, even by study and also by faith” (D&C 88:118). As one writer observed: “What no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” 3

...

3. Austin Farrar, “The Christian Apologist,” in Light on C. S. Lewis, ed. Jocelyn Gibb, (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965), 26. Compare John W. Welch, “The Power of Evidence in the Nurturing of Faith,” in Jeffrey R. Holland and others, Nurturing Faith through the Book of Mormon: The 24th Annual Sidney B. Sperry Symposium (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1995), 149–86.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 2/2/2017 at 0:09 PM, Gray said:

There is no real data, so it's all speculation. 

"No real data?"  What about The Book of Mormon?  It exists, does it not?  Its origins must be accounted for, do they not?  There are competing theories as to its origins, are there not?  These theories are, to varying degrees, supported by various types of evidence, correct?  These evidences are susceptible to evaluation and analysis as to their provenance, probative value, etc.?

Seems like there's quite a bit of data after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/2/2017 at 10:20 PM, Freedom said:

FAIR is certainly a great resource. some of the scholarship is a bit week...

OK ... as long as it's not "month" or "year."

Sorry.

Couldn't resist!  

(As the noted English Professor, Dr. Festus Doofus of the University of Southern Nowhar put it, "Them homophones, they's tricky thangs!"  )

P.S.: Auto-Complete/Auto-Correct strikes again?

P.P.S.: Reminds me of a story my A.P. English teacher told when I was in high school.  It seems he had some piglets to sell, and he wanted to advertise that fact in the local newspaper.  Alas, the editor of The Richfield Reaper mangled the ad.  Six week-old pigs became "six weak, old pigs ..."   It's beyond me why nobody would positively jump at the chance to buy some weak, old pigs!  

Edited February 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/5/2017 at 6:47 PM, smac97 said:

"No real data?"  What about The Book of Mormon?  It exists, does it not?  Its origins must be accounted for, do they not?  There are competing theories as to its origins, are there not?  These theories are, to varying degrees, supported by various types of evidence, correct?  These evidences are susceptible to evaluation and analysis as to their provenance, probative value, etc.?

Seems like there's quite a bit of data after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair (er, pardon the pun! ) but I think Gray's referring to what data exists (or not) to provide an answer to the question of what Affect  effect FAIRMormon has on individual decisions regarding continued commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and in what direction those individual decisions "move the needle," collectively).  

Edited February 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/3/2017 at 6:36 AM, Bernard Gui said:

FAIR provides a much-needed service. I respect and applaud their efforts to defend the faith. It's encouraging that the Church has given some recognition to the conference. A total positive experience for me and family and friends with whom I have shared the website and the conferences. Keep up the good work!

In the end, testimony and conversion come by manifestation of the Spirit. That is the rock on which we must stand, but the kind of sincere positive support given by FAIR is beneficial.

Yes. It helps keep the ground free of noxious weeds so that the seed of faith can sprout and flourish.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK ... as long as it's not "month" or "year."

Sorry.

Couldn't resist!  

(As the noted English Professor, Dr. Festus Doofus of the University of Southern Nowhar put it, "Them homophones, they's tricky thangs!"  )

P.S.: Auto-Complete/Auto-Correct strikes again?

P.P.S.: Reminds me of a story my A.P. English teacher told when I was in high school.  It seems he had some piglets to sell, and he wanted to advertise that fact in the local newspaper.  Alas, the editor of The Richfield Reaper mangled the ad.  Six week-old pigs became "six weak, old pigs ..."   It's beyond me why nobody would positively jump at the chance to buy some weak, old pigs!  

 

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Fair (er, pardon the pun! ) but I think Gray's referring to what data exists (or not) to provide an answer to the question of what affect FAIRMormon has on individual decisions regarding continued commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and in what direction those individual decisions "move the needle," collectively).  

Did Professor Doofus talk about the difference between affect and effect?

Sorry, Kenngo. Couldn't resist. But you know I love you, right?

By the way, that's a great story out of Richfield.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

"No real data?"  What about The Book of Mormon?  It exists, does it not?  Its origins must be accounted for, do they not?  There are competing theories as to its origins, are there not?  These theories are, to varying degrees, supported by various types of evidence, correct?  These evidences are susceptible to evaluation and analysis as to their provenance, probative value, etc.?

Seems like there's quite a bit of data after all.

Thanks,

-Smac

There's no data regarding the question, "is FairMormon a net positive or net negative for the church?" It's not like anyone is tracking results over time in any meaningful way - not sure if it would even be possible. 

I wasn't talking about data regarding BOM evidences. 

[hope_for_things]

On 2/2/2017 at 11:45 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

When I was going through my Faith Crises a decade ago...I did what many seekers of truth do.  I doubled downed on the scriptures, prayer and pondering.  I increased my knowledge of church history by reading everything I could get my hands on from Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, Smith, Palmer, Southerton, Brookes, Crompton, Newell and more and then I would cross reference disconcerting information with the FAIR site in the hope that I had merely run into anti Mormon lies and I knew that certainly FAIR would have the answers to expose the new information as lies and I could lay the information aside.  But that wasn't what happened...instead FAIR confirmed that much of the information I was learning was true or it provided apologetic explanations that left me unsatisfied.   I was devastated and the rest is history.

I have spoken with others who have gone through a similar experience...turning to FAIR in the hope of resolving difficulties only to discover instead that FAIR confirm their worst fears.

So I ask, is FAIR a net-positive or net-negative for the church...at the time I saw it as a negative because it confirmed my fears and led me out of the church...however, in hind sight it certainly was a positive for the same reasons. What has been your experience?

That FAIR or other apologists exist is a natural response due to the church's lack of transparency and the simplified correlated history that is taught by the church.  Does FAIR help or hurt, positive or negative, is largely going to depend on your perspective.  Personally I see it as a positive thing.  The more information available to people the better.  I think that FAIR has a particular tone that they try to maintain and that is one of defending what they consider faithful narratives of the church.  That puts them in the unenviable position of trying to spin really problematic episodes in faith promoting ways.  I like using FAIR as a resource, and I think the people behind it have good intentions.  I think its a net positive.  

[Bernard Gui]

On 2/5/2017 at 10:07 AM, sam said:

A net negative they refuse to look at all evidence. They only support the Meso American model even though their is a tremendous amount of evidence for the Book of Mormon in North America. After this post the meso American apologist moderators will cut my ability to post they have done it before and also made it so I can't start a topic.

Native American ties to the Book of Mormon 
Native American ties to the Book of Mormon, either through legend or culture.

You have some pretty obscure stuff there. How do account for the obvious dearth of cultural, social, and material artifacts commonly associated with Native Americans in contemporary 19th-century American literature in the Book of Mormon? Such as canoe, tomahawk, knife, tipi, lodge, wampum, moccassins,  sea shells, medicine, medicine man and bag, beads, feathers, moose, deer, bison, wolf, beaver, fox, bear, raven, eagle, animal spirits, Manito, Mississippi, corn, squash, drums, pottery, war chant or song, scalping knives, scalping as a deliberate act of war and revenge, savages, Indian soldiers called warriors, red, copper-color or tawny skin, tobacco and pipes, etc.?

Edited February 6, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Did Professor Doofus talk about the difference between affect and effect?

Sorry, Kenngo. Couldn't resist. But you know I love you, right?

By the way, that's a great story out of Richfield.

Yes, he did.   Fixed.  Good catch.

And yes, I know: Whom Scott Lloyd loveth, he chasteneth.  

Edited February 7, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[hagoth7]

On 2/2/2017 at 0:09 PM, Gray said:

There is no real data, so it's all speculation. 

There are a surprising number of narrative of those who left the church after exploring FAIR-type explanations.

I would venture to estimate that if the data were actually crunched, it would show that certain specific temperament types tend to be aided by such sources, while other specific temperament types tend to be further disillusioned by such....

As in most things, neither FAIR nor this forum provide one-size-fits-all answers.

Answers are best served when they cater *to the specific needs* of the questioner. Which is why pat, fixed, passive responses (including this one) can miss the mark for some hearers.

And sometimes, people are looking less for answers...and more to simply be heard/understood/accepted/loved.

Edited February 9, 2017 by hagoth7