Your Favorite FAIR article

[Freedom]

I responded to the topic that asked if FAIR was a benefit to the church and I thought it would be a good idea for people to post articles they found on FAIR that were particularly helpful, well written, scholarly or otherwise worth sharing. I will start by linking to the article I referred to in my response on the other thread. 

 

Are Jesus and Satan Brothers?

[Calm]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_history/Gospel_Topics_essays

Just because it was such an exciting time to see one major step in education, especially the long term place they are meant to have

[cinepro]

Without a doubt, my favorite FAIR article is the one on Noah's Flood:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Global_or_local_Flood

It's masterful in its use of sources to establish their arguments; they wrote an entire page that is sourced from the following publications:

Encyclopedia of Mormonism (the quote supports the Global Flood theory)

A Sunstone article.

Sunstone again.

The Journal of Discourses.

The History of the Church

Donald W. Parry, “The Flood and the Tower of Babel,” Ensign, Jan 1998, 35. off-site

Sunstone again

The "By Common Consent" blog

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions (with the proviso that it was just the author's personal opinion).

John Taylor, Government of God (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1852), 110. off-site

Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. (with the same proviso).

Richard A. Davis, Principles of Oceanography, 2nd edition

J. Reuben Clark, Jr., "Church Leaders and the Scriptures," (arguing that we don't always have to listen to Church leaders)

Teachings of Harold B. Lee (again, we don't always have to listen to Church leaders)

LDS Newsroom, "Approaching Mormon Doctrine," lds.org (4 May 2007) (ironically, this page defines "doctrine", and the global flood is one of the few things that meets the criteria they set forth)

Charles W. Penrose, "Peculiar Questions Briefly Answered," Improvement Era 15 no. 11 (September 1912). (again, you don't always have to listen to Church leaders!)

 

What's funny in all this is that there is a link to a separate page that lists some (but not all) of the statements made by Church leaders.  Why would there need to be two separate pages on the subject?  There is a page explaining all the reasons we can ignore the Church's teachings on the subject, and then a separate page (buried almost as deep as the second Polygamy essay on the Church's website) with some of those actual teachings.  

I can think of no better example of how apologetics works (or doesn't work, as it may be).

 

 

[Calm]

Separate pages could be an artifact of two different people or more working on the topic multiple times as well as some stuff that didn't get merged properly when shifts in focus or formatting occurred.  Upgrades are happening  all the time and sometimes stuff gets missed, overlaps or repeats, pages no longer used are not removed, etc.

It is most likely just a demonstration of what goes on in a completely volunteer organization.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Calm

[Kevin Christensen]

There is no one favorite, since what makes a particular article important and significant depends on the interest and reaction of the reader.  These all provoke strong interest and powerful reaction in me.

Brant Gardner, The Social History of the Early Nephites

http://www.fairmormon.org/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites

Ben McGuire, Nephi and Goliath

http://www.fairmormon.org/2001-nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

Brant Gardner, Mormonism, Motheisem and Mormon's Book

http://www.fairmormon.org/2003-monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

Matt Roper, Nephi's Neighbors

http://www.fairmormon.org/2003-nephis-neighbors-book-of-mormon-peoples-and-pre-columbian-populations

Matthew Brown on Historical Sources for Foundational Events

http://www.fairmormon.org/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-historical-or-hysterical-anti-mormons-and-documentary-sources

and here as well

http://www.fairmormon.org/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories

Wendy Ulrich on Cognitive Dissonance

http://www.fairmormon.org/fair-conferences/2005-fair-conference/2005-believest-thou-faith-cognitive-dissonance-and-the-psychology-of-religious-experience

Larry Morris on Cowdery Controversies

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2007-Larry-Morris.pdf

Blake Ostler on Spiritual Experience as a Basis for Commitment.

http://www.fairmormon.org/2007-spiritual-experiences-as-the-basis-for-belief-and-commitment

Larry Poulson on Book of Mormon Geography

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

Will Schryver on the Kirtland  Egyptian Papers

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-meaning-of-the-kirtland-egyptian-papers-part-i

and here

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2010-fair-conference/2010-the-meaning-of-the-kirtland-egyptian-papers-part-ii

Roger Nicholson the background politics at Wikipedia

http://www.fairmormon.org/fair-conferences/2011-fair-conference/2011-something_wiki_this_way_comes

Don Bradley, The Original Context of the First Vision Narrative, 1820s or 1830s

http://www.fairmormon.org/2013-the-original-context-of-the-first-vision-narrative-1820s-or-1830s

Margaret Barker, the Mother in Heaven and Her Children

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/the-mother-in-heaven-and-her-children

Lynn Wilson, Christ's Emancipation of Women in the New Testament.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2015-fairmormon-conference/christs-emancipation-of-women-in-the-new-testament

And that is just a quick sampling of the Conferences... really, I don't think an LDS person can call themselves informed unless they are paying attention to FAIR Mormon and other LDS sources.  And those who complain about how FAIR or other apologetic resources are ad hominem based or inadequate never ever address or even mention the kinds and quality of the information here, despite Dehlin and Runnells claiming that all they are trying to do it put all of the information on the table so that people can make an informed decision.  It's not and never is a matter of facing "hard truths", following facts and letting them speak for themselves.  It's about control of the narrative, and using that narrative to include or exclude information and sources based on some underlying agenda.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[cinepro]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

Separate pages could be an artifact of two different people or more working on the topic multiple times as well as some stuff that didn't get merged properly when shifts in focus or formatting occurred.  Upgrades are happening  all the time and sometimes stuff gets missed, overlaps or repeats, pages no longer used are not removed, etc.

It is most likely just a demonstration of what goes on in a completely volunteer organization.

I love the article because it is a great example of the double-edged sword that is apologetics. 

To be clear, the article does admit this:

Quote

Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as a global event as it is taught by Church leaders

Without a doubt, the flood is always treated as a global event as it is taught by Church leaders. This is not likely to ever change, since it is based directly upon a straightforward reading of the scriptures. The challenge comes to those who examine scientific data showing the diversity of plant and animal life, and the millennia required to achieve such diversity. The story of a global deluge then appears to be at complete odds with scientific data, which may encourage some not only to doubt the scriptures, but to even question the existence of God. Therefore, can one believe that the Flood of Noah may have been of limited scope, yet still accept what is taught in Church? We examine the scriptures from the point of view of the prophets who wrote the story of the Flood in order to answer this question.

 

 

The premise of the page isn't that there is any objective truth to whether or not the flood was global or not (or that it even happened), or that the scriptures or latter-day prophets and apostles would in any way be a good source of info about this. 

The argument is that you can believe whatever the heck you want to believe as long as you stay a member of the Church.  Obviously, I agree with all of the back-pedaling done on that page, but I think it's hilarious that "ignore the scriptures and official Church teachings on this subject" is considered a "defense."

Edited February 3, 2017 by cinepro

[Calm]

Unless it actually says ignore the scriptures, etc., please remove the quotes and don't misrepresent what is written.

[Calm]

This is what is actually the summary:

"Whether the Flood covered the entire earth, or whether it only covered Noah's world, makes no difference

Latter-day Saints believe that the prophet Noah existed, and that he was commanded to build an ark and save his family from a flood. A belief that this flood was global in nature is not a requirement for Latter-day Saints; traditionally, many earlier members and leaders endorsed the global flood views common in society and Christendom generally. The accumulation of additional scientific information have led some to conclude that a local flood — one limited to the area in which Noah lived — is the best explanation of the available data. People of either view can be members in good standing."

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Unless it actually says ignore the scriptures, etc., please remove the quotes and don't misrepresent what is written.

That's a real problem with scare quotes. They are often misrepresentative. 

Quotation marks should never be used unless they identify something being directly quoted. 

Edited February 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

So much published by FairMormon that is so good, it is very difficult to narrow it down. 

I would say, though, anything by Greg Smith. 

But they should have run his review essay about Dehlin's stuff, the one that was the object of all the controversy, the one that the Maxwell Institute director spiked when it was slated for the Mormon Studies Review. It was a misstep by FairMormon not to run that piece when they had the chance. 

I'm glad it was picked up by the Interpreter, though. 

[Calm]

 If Interpteter published it first, it was because it was offered to Interpreter first.  That happens with somethings given that some of our members are also members of Interpreter and see that as a better format for somethings than FM...which it is.  Other things fit our format better.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Calm

[VideoGameJunkie]

I like the one on "Do we have the potential to become like God?"

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

 If Interpteter published it first, it was because it was offered to Interpreter first.  That happens with somethings given that some of our members are also members of Interpreter and see that as a better format for somethings than FM...which it is.  Other things fit our format better.

Is that the reason FM didn't publish it? Because Interpreter had already done so?

[Calm]

Going off memory here, but I believe so.   I would have to go dig up old emails to be sure.  

[Freedom]

On 2/3/2017 at 8:28 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

There is no one favorite, since what makes a particular article important and significant depends on the interest and reaction of the reader.  These all provoke strong interest and powerful reaction in me.

Brant Gardner, The Social History of the Early Nephites

http://www.fairmormon.org/2001-a-social-history-of-the-early-nephites

Ben McGuire, Nephi and Goliath

http://www.fairmormon.org/2001-nephi-and-goliath-a-reappraisal-of-the-use-of-the-old-testament-in-first-nephi

 

 

I love the Gardner article. I share these thoughts with every new missionary that comes to my ward and they go away thinking I am a god among scholars. 

The article by McGuire reminds me of the paper "Killing Laban: The Birth of Sovereignty in the Nephite Constitutional Order" by Larsen

http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1416&context=jbms

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Going off memory here, but I believe so.   I would have to go dig up old emails to be sure.  

Obviously you are closer to the scene than I, and I would thus defer to your recollection. 

But the impression I drew from casual conversation with a credible source is that when the opportunity came to publish the Greg Smith piece, there was a division between decision makers as to whether or not to do so, and the nays ultimately prevailed. 

I don't recall whether the likelihood that Interpreter would publish it was an element in the deliberation, but maybe it was. 

At the end of the day, I'm just glad that the piece saw the light of day, and Interpreter was as good a venue for it as any. It never should have been supressed in the first place.