Jump to content

Sl trib headline: Fairmormon adopts a new name and urges a kinder approach in defending the lds church


Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, Garth18 said:

Cardon Ellis is 37/38 years old, and has young kids. 
 

 I grew up with him, and he is not a convert to my knowledge unless his family converted when he was a baby.  

He is not a BYU "student" and he is old enough to be a father to one. I don't think he went to BYU.

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

He is not a BYU "student" and he is old enough to be a father to one. I don't think he went to BYU.

If he got married at 19, he is old enough to have an 18 year old (say if like my son, his first was born one day after his first year wedding anniversary). He could be a father much younger of course...but it is the rare BYU student whose dad is 37 or 38.

Link to comment

 

13 hours ago, Calm said:

If he got married at 19, he is old enough to have an 18 year old (say if like my son, his first was born one day after his first year wedding anniversary). He could be a father much younger of course...but it is the rare BYU student whose dad is 37 or 38.

And the point of your post is what?   He is young enough to be a BYU student, probably is, and was a good fit for FAIR?   Why do you feel a need to stick up for this guy?  I mean, I know him pretty well.  I'm not going to say anything negative about him publicly, but really now.  What's next?  John Dehlin?

Edited by Bob Crockett
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

And the point of your post is what?   He is young enough to be a BYU student, probably is, and was a good fit for FAIR?   Why do you feel a need to stick up for this guy?  I mean, I know him pretty well.  I'm not going to say anything negative about him publicly, but really now.  What's next?  John Dehlin?

Why do you go there?  I was just focusing on the accuracy of your claim.  I found it rather silly and unnecessary.  How does focusing on demographics of BYU somehow translate as “stick[ing] up for the guy” since I haven’t commented on him at all outside his age and what that implies about him being a possible parent of a college kid?
 

While within the realm of possibility, there are likely very few 37-38 year old parents of BYU kids.  It makes more sense to just say he is on the old side to be a BYU student rather than to present him as a possible parent of a student. It would be interesting to see how many 37-38 year old BYU students there are compared to BYU parents of the same age.  Edited as found better stats:
 

https://www.univstats.com/colleges/brigham-young-university-provo/student-population/

In 2019, there were 309 students of ages 35-39.
 

Not sure how to find demographics on parents though.  

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

I just read this put out by Jeremy Runnells, thought it might be of some interest.  https://cesletter.org/debunkings/fairmormon-fair-tits/

I think there just may have been a problem with having the "This Is The Show" guys because the fall out for those that are in their age group finding out about things they'd most likely not hear about had it not been for them listening to their youtube. 

I understand that Fair helps many, but it also has led people out of the church. I often wonder if the church didn't have the apologists, if there would be less that leave. Remember the adage, what you don't know can't hurt you? And how about let the truth of the church speak for itself, just my 2 cents. 

Here are two excerpts from the post by Jeremy:

work-of-an-apologist-cs-lewis-resized.jpg

missionary-exposed-to-ces-letter-thanks-kwaku-tits.png

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I think there just may have been a problem with having the "This Is The Show" guys because the fall out for those that are in their age group finding out about things they'd most likely not hear about had it not been for them listening to their youtube ...

Remember the adage, what you don't know can't hurt you?

So you're going on record that it would be better for people in the Church to remain in ignorance?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So you're going on record that it would be better for people in the Church to remain in ignorance?

Well, the church thought along those lines for many years, am I right? Milk before meat, truth is not always useful: 

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful.

—Elder Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect"

And c/p'd again from FairMormon's website:

"You seminary teachers and some of you institute and BYU men will be teaching the history of the Church this school year. This is an unparalleled opportunity in the lives of your students to increase their faith and testimony of the divinity of this work. Your objective should be that they will see the hand of the Lord in every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning till now."

And another from Pres. Packer:

Elder Packer's worries about the actions of some historians were made clear in a letter to the First Presidency:

On several occasions I have expressed in our council meetings my concern for some projects being undertaken by the Church Historian's Office and some of those who have been engaged to work on the projects. May I state with emphasis, as I have in our meetings, that my concern does not deny in any way that these brethren are active members of the Church. I think our brethren in the Historical Department are wonderful men. It is the principle that concerns me.

It is a matter of orientation toward scholarly work—historians' work in particular—that sponsors my concern. I have come to believe that it is the tendency for most members of the Church who spend a great deal of time in academic research to begin to judge the Church, its doctrine, organization, and history, by the principles of their own profession. Ofttimes this is done unwittingly, and some of it perhaps is wholesome. However, it is an easy thing for a man with extensive academic training to consider the Church with the principles he has been taught in his professional training as his measuring standard.

In my mind it ought to be the other way around. A member of the Church ought always, particularly if he is pursuing extended academic studies, to judge the professions of men against the revealed word of the Lord.

I do feel, however, and feel very deeply, that some tempering of the purely historical approach needs to be effected. Otherwise these publications will be of interest to other historians and perhaps serve them well, but at once may have a negative effect upon many. Particularly can they affect our youngsters, who will not view the publications with the same academic detachment that a trained historian is taught to develop. [3]

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Well, the church thought along those lines for many years, am I right? Milk before meat, truth is not always useful: 

So just to clarify, you are definitely going on record that it would be better for people in the Church to remain in ignorance? I can't think of any other reason why you would be quoting Mr Runnells and wringing your hands over this issue.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So just to clarify, you are definitely going on record that it would be better for people in the Church to remain in ignorance?

Play fair.  Tacenda is pointing out that the Church used to take that approach.  Wondering if there was any value in that approach isn't the same as agreeing with it.

It was wrong when it was preached even indirectly.  But it may also have allowed some older members to remain faithful.  (My own Aunt and Uncle for instance).

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Play fair.

I prefer playing honestly. And I'm 100 per cent certain that Mr Runnells is losing no sleep over the possibility that certain apologetic efforts could potentially lead some ungrounded members to access unfamiliar critical materials (including his own!) and thereby leave the Church. In fact, this is one of his fondest dreams.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

So just to clarify, you are definitely going on record that it would be better for people in the Church to remain in ignorance?

That is a difficult situation as you probably understand. I wonder if the problem lies in having the critics' information turn out to be the correct information that was before, anti-information. This is a problem for many missionaries that come upon the anti information and then find out it's true. Or before the internet, many years later find out after reading the Gospel Topic Essays that what they thought was anti information is actually factual.

I don't know but think that the problem I had while reading on FairLDS many years ago, was that there were things brought up on their website that I had never known about. 

The church is definitely put in a terrible state at this time. With all of the information put out there. So too bad about that, because ignorance was bliss for me I guess. Another adage...My world was very nice in my bubble until the day it wasn't. I guess, like Pres. Packer mentions, that we need the spirit most of all in our lessons. But then we have real life smack us in the face. Many grow up learning things about church history in their homes, I never did.

The problem is that as youth we were sort of sheltered, maybe because of leaders like Pres. Packer or even long time church historian Joseph Fielding Smith from 1921 to 1970, I was born in '61. That's a lot of history that could have been kept under rap because he may have wanted to protect his family and the church, IMO.  Was he not the one to have possibly taken a page out of a book with a different version of the vision, the 1832 account? And stored in the safe in his office? And his great uncle was the prophet, Joseph Smith as you're probably aware.

I cannot give you a clear cut answer. My finding out about some things in history, has been one of the most painful trials of my life, my loss of testimony, friends and family connections, and now my weird obsession with all things Mormon where before I was not interested in learning about church history, I just enjoyed the culture, I was one of those members. 

Thanks for asking Hamba! You my friend are one of the good ones! I was a tiny bit like you when active, I'd love visiting teaching and doing little service things and helping where I could. Especially with the home bound and those that needed help with driving to medical appointments, or even hair appointments, or cleaning homes taking meals, walking the neighborhood with someone that needed to walk with her walker. So many things that I enjoyed doing for those I was assigned to. Then it all kind of fell apart. I know what you're going to say...that I can still do these things. Well, being assigned was kind of nice I guess. But now in my new ward I've been inactive and not too sure people trust me. It's too hard to explain for now. 

Have a good night Hamba! 

Link to comment

This is a good development, I think. Obviously an organization would want to be consistent with its core principles even when defending itself, or when criticizing others.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't know but think that the problem I had while reading on FairLDS many years ago, was that there were things brought up on their website that I had never known about. 

It's a problem that I think exist even now. What exactly is a "faithful answer" and how/who decides when an answer is or is not faith promoting? We can find widely different views on that easily now. Just look at the ongoing arguments between faithful LDS Egyptologists and  faithful LDS textual scholars.

Link to comment

Disappointed in the decision.  I understand not having personal attacks and all that.  One can redo the videos but if you want to reach younger people today on youtube, boring videos of people giving talks and lectures is not going to be successful.  They also need to be entertaining and some sarcasm and other things may be fine.  In the youtube world, success is determined by clicks and views.  If one is surrendering that to the opposition, then the opposition wins at least on platforms like youtube. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If you want to reach younger people today on youtube, boring videos of people giving talks and lectures is not going to be successful.

Mate, I'm old enough to be the father of younger people, and I'm not interested in watching boring videos of people giving talks and lectures ...

Link to comment
On 3/23/2021 at 11:56 PM, Tacenda said:

That is a difficult situation as you probably understand. I wonder if the problem lies in having the critics' information turn out to be the correct information that was before, anti-information. This is a problem for many missionaries that come upon the anti information and then find out it's true. Or before the internet, many years later find out after reading the Gospel Topic Essays that what they thought was anti information is actually factual.

I don't know but think that the problem I had while reading on FairLDS many years ago, was that there were things brought up on their website that I had never known about. 

The church is definitely put in a terrible state at this time. With all of the information put out there. So too bad about that, because ignorance was bliss for me I guess. Another adage...My world was very nice in my bubble until the day it wasn't. I guess, like Pres. Packer mentions, that we need the spirit most of all in our lessons. But then we have real life smack us in the face. Many grow up learning things about church history in their homes, I never did.

The problem is that as youth we were sort of sheltered, maybe because of leaders like Pres. Packer or even long time church historian Joseph Fielding Smith from 1921 to 1970, I was born in '61. That's a lot of history that could have been kept under rap because he may have wanted to protect his family and the church, IMO.  Was he not the one to have possibly taken a page out of a book with a different version of the vision, the 1832 account? And stored in the safe in his office? And his great uncle was the prophet, Joseph Smith as you're probably aware.

I cannot give you a clear cut answer. My finding out about some things in history, has been one of the most painful trials of my life, my loss of testimony, friends and family connections, and now my weird obsession with all things Mormon where before I was not interested in learning about church history, I just enjoyed the culture, I was one of those members. 

Thanks for asking Hamba! You my friend are one of the good ones! I was a tiny bit like you when active, I'd love visiting teaching and doing little service things and helping where I could. Especially with the home bound and those that needed help with driving to medical appointments, or even hair appointments, or cleaning homes taking meals, walking the neighborhood with someone that needed to walk with her walker. So many things that I enjoyed doing for those I was assigned to. Then it all kind of fell apart. I know what you're going to say...that I can still do these things. Well, being assigned was kind of nice I guess. But now in my new ward I've been inactive and not too sure people trust me. It's too hard to explain for now. 

Have a good night Hamba! 

Maybe you had better sources of anti information but I was first exposed to the stuff in my late teens and early 20s most of it turned out to be misleading and a substantial proportion was outright false. The only way I could conclude they were right is if I selectively only allowed the comparatively rare times they were accurately reporting the situation into evidence.

Maybe you had better antis?

Link to comment
Just now, The Nehor said:

Maybe you had better sources of anti information but I was first exposed to the stuff in my late teens and early 20s most of it turned out to be misleading and a substantial proportion was outright false. The only way I could conclude they were right is if I selectively only allowed the comparatively rare times they were accurately reporting the situation into evidence.

Maybe you had better antis?

If you call "In Sacred Loneliness" and the church's website for family history (a list Joseph Smith's wives) and FairMormon, the better antis. 

Link to comment
Just now, Tacenda said:

If you call "In Sacred Loneliness" and the church's website for family history (a list Joseph Smith's wives) and FairMormon, the better antis. 

Better than most. Is that all you were exposed to? As a teenager I got asked if “Mormons” grow horns.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Better than most. Is that all you were exposed to? As a teenager I got asked if “Mormons” grow horns.

Living in Utah you don't get that, but do remember going to Hawaii with my sister and her husband for a convention and my BIL was asked if we were both his wives. That's the first time for me as far as getting asked things like that. I grew up in a bubble with mostly LDS. You on OTOH grew up in Texas right?

Link to comment
On 3/26/2021 at 4:40 PM, Tacenda said:

Living in Utah you don't get that, but do remember going to Hawaii with my sister and her husband for a convention and my BIL was asked if we were both his wives. That's the first time for me as far as getting asked things like that. I grew up in a bubble with mostly LDS. You on OTOH grew up in Texas right?

This multiple wives question thing is very low-key compared to some things.

I got the "how many wives" question before I ever got married or served a mission. I also got it in the Army. On my mission if ever we did tradeoffs with sisters were only permitted to go in threesomes, one sister and two elders -- to avoid triggering the polygamy question, if possible.

I have a funny story about that, incidentally.

In my first assignment in the US Army, there was this one guy in my infantry platoon who, when he found out I was LDS, made a point of talking about how many wives I had and so forth. I got this at least weekly. I found it annoying, but as he wasn't trying to be really offensive, I let him live. :D  And then I got word that he and his girlfriend had decided to get married -- and since our battalion chaplain was very well-liked by the troops, he had asked him to perform the wedding. It happened that our battalion chaplain (an officer, of course, and a captain) was LDS. So at the next opportunity I had, I asked the guy, "So, who's marrying you?"  He looked at me with a big smile and said: "Some Mormon!"  He stopped harassing me after that; I almost missed it.

I remember this with a great deal of humor -- in fact I started chortling loudly while writing about it.  One of the highlights of my life.

Link to comment
On 3/26/2021 at 11:40 AM, Tacenda said:

Living in Utah you don't get that, but do remember going to Hawaii with my sister and her husband for a convention and my BIL was asked if we were both his wives. That's the first time for me as far as getting asked things like that. I grew up in a bubble with mostly LDS. You on OTOH grew up in Texas right?

Combination of California and Texas.

Edited by The Nehor
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...