FAIR (Problems critics may have with the Church)

FAIR is a good site, and it plays a valuable role in the overall faith spectrum. In order to really appreciate FAIR, you have to understand (IMO) what it is.

FAIR engages in traditional, straight-forward LDS apologetics, which is the fancy theological term for “defending the faith.” They provide faithful, orthodox answers to the faithful and orthodox members. That is a good match — the right product for the right consumer. Keep that in mind. Their target audience is the faithful believers, NOT THOSE WITH SERIOUS DOUBTS. They always start from the position that the LDS Church is correct no matter what, then they reason through a defense. They are there as a resource and support for the faithful to know that someone out there who is really smart knows the answer, or can rationally and effectively defend the theological positions of the church. That is the service they provide, and it is a good one.

People who are drawn to a site like ours (or NOM and RfM) are probably not satisfied with FAIR. In fact, their answers can often lead to a loss of more testimony. Their answers look like horrible mental gymnastics to wiggle into a defense with gross disregard for “the facts” and of “history.” I am not passing that judgment, just repeating criticisms I often see. I have a similar reaction when I read many of their articles. It just doesn’t satisfy me. It seems awkward, contrived and heavily weighted toward an outcome — which it is. I am not the target audience, so that’s fine, which is why I have no problem with what they do. It serves a purpose, just not my purpose.

You will often see negative comments about FAIR (and traditional apologetics in general) made by people who are doubting and questioning the church. They are looking to the wrong resource for help at that point in their spiritual journey. The perfect person for FAIR is someone like a former friend of mine in my old ward’s bishopric. He told me about the site, knowing a little about my struggles. He was being REALLY nice and cool about it, suggesting that I check out the site cause it has answers to everything. I of course already knew all about FAIR, but I thanked him anyway. He was just trying to be helpful and nice. He cared. It is a perfect site for him, just what he needed — to know there are answers, so he could continue on without getting all tripped up in the controversy.

Sites like FAIR and FARMS sometimes amaze me, and at other times have me banging my head on the desk.

The likes of Hugh Nibley could be capable of incredible insight, as well as deliberate obfuscation (blinding with science), and sometimes nonsense dressed up in fancy terms. Even if you dip straws in gold paint, they’re still straws when you clutch at them.

I just want to add a word of balance.

FAIR and FARMS and other “apologist” organizations aren’t about “bad” or “weak” arguments. They are about “faithful” arguments – and I have found that many of those arguments actually are good, reasonable arguments, particularly from a certain paradigm. I think that’s what Brian is saying when he talks about a target audience, but I think it goes a bit further than that.

I honestly have gained insight and clarity occasionally from something written at FAIR. I know some of the contributors through my participation in the Bloggernacle, and some of them simply are BRILLIANT – abso-freaking-lutely, intensely brilliant. Some of what I’ve found there makes me roll my eyes, but some of it has blown me away with its insight and resonated with my heart and mind. It runs the spectrum, and to dismiss it out-of-hand (in a firm black-and-white way) is over-simplistic and self-fulfilling, imo.

If I can gain insight and understanding from listening to an evangelical, anti-Mormon preacher on the radio – even as I label 90% of his sermon as classically crap-tastic, I certainly can gain insight and understanding from very intelligent, faithful LDS apologists – even if I label a MUCH lower percentage of what they write as not applicable to my own paradigm and individual faith. It’s the same stance I take in Sacrament Meeting and Sunday School and Priesthood meeting, and I find that I get more from most talks and classes than some others simply and specifically because I strive to be open to doing so.

I try to keep my mind open to truth no matter the source, and there is much at a place like FAIR to find truth – even in instances where it is surrounded by crap.

The problem I have with FAIR is often one of tone. Frequently, especially when responding to some sort of specific criticism from an individual or book, the apologist will do his/her best to denigrate the individual, to try and cast doubt upon the “objectiveness” or at least evenhandedness of the critic’s argument. Also, they frequently appear condescending, and act as if belief in the claims of LDS are obvious, simply to be expected, “the norm” (if spiritually in tune), and conclusive, and that the doubter, questioner, or disbeliever is simply fooling himself, not grasping reality as they see it, or is simply evil in their agenda or own moral character. I recognize that in some cases, they are simply mimicking the tone in which their cherished beliefs are being “attacked”, and adversarial debate is exactly that, adversarial. But I think something is lost when they wander from a purely academic or positive, but passionless thesis, and use tactics that, to me, are unbecoming to believers who tout very specifically that they are in Christ’s true church, and thereby are representative of his teachings. Thus, while I’ve often been enlightened by their own research into many matters that I’ve found troubling, much of the tone and arguments have been off-putting to me. I also find that the goals seem to be to simply blur the lines between probable and possible, in order to kick the ball back over into the faith field, on which they have the best offense. When one is operating in and relying on the supernatural realm, anything is possible–but then it also puts all those other religions and viewpoints also into play. But that field is familiar territory for most of us, especially RM’s, and it comes down to “my God/gospel/witness is better than your God/gospel/witness”, and the arguments at that point, to me, are meaningless. For the faithful, it’s a pretty good life raft if you don’t get too involved in critical thinking outside the Mormon paradigm. For those more critical and open to doubting, it can make an already open wound bigger.

Latterday Skeptic

Some of you have mentioned that it is meant for the TBMs… mmmm Maybe. I think certain key issues without a good solid answer will cause a TBM to put many things into question. If someone is on these sites in the first place then maybe they aren’t a TBM anymore.

Maybe some might consider myself a TBM.

I still attend church. I accept the beliefs of the afterlife. I try to live by church standards. There are a few things I’m still a little so so about. I don’t feel it’s enough to drop it all. Nor do I consider everything a fairytale.

regardless I don’t feel that they have totally helped me on certain key issues. Some issues don’t really have an answer. There isn’t enough evidence to defend anything. Instead they come up with theories. The theories they come up with at times sound so ridiculous that someone going through a faith crises might want to run the other way.

I think FAIR and FAMRS acted as a helpful tool for a short moment. However it quickly turned did more harm than good.

Honestly If it wasn’t for stumbling on the Mormon Stories Podcast I probably would have left the church completely. Certain podcasts really helped me feel comfortable enough with certain issues I had with the church and its history.

Some of you have mentioned that it is meant for the TBMs… mmmm Maybe. I think certain key issues without a good solid answer will cause a TBM to put many things into question. If someone is on these sites in the first place then maybe they aren’t a TBM anymore.

…I don’t feel that they have totally helped me on certain key issues. Some issues don’t really have an answer. There isn’t enough evidence to defend anything. Instead they come up with theories. The theories they come up with at times sound so ridiculous that someone going through a faith crises might want to run the other way…I think FAIR and FAMRS acted as a helpful tool for a short moment. However it quickly turned did more harm than good.

I agree that Mormon apologists often do more harm than good when they try to defend relatively indefensible positions. By responding to some of these issues they are basically admitting that there really is a problem and that it’s not just something completely made up by evil anti-Mormons; then if they give a weak answer to these problems as if they are grasping at straws it is mostly just embarrassing for the Church. However, I don’t know what else they can do in many cases given some of the Church’s official doctrines and whitewashed history other than just ignore or deny these issues entirely when much of the available evidence is not exactly their friend.

In my experience, some of the apologist-style rationalizations, denial, and mistrust of anti-Mormon propaganda work best when you only have one or two major doubts that you can put on the shelf and try not to worry about. Once I started to have more and more questions and doubts at the same time the combined weight was harder to shrug off and ignore anymore. Some of the most disturbing things to me were some of the words and deeds of past and present Church leaders. How do we know when Church leaders are speaking as men and when they are speaking as a prophet? If there is no way to tell the difference or you suspect that they are basically always speaking as men then it’s hard to try to go back to being an unquestioning TBM again.

Another thought about apologetics in general: they only exist to refute critics, and they always come from a defensive perspective. To clarify, apologetics don’t have to prove the truth or provide all the answers; they only exist to disprove the criticism (or to provide counterargument to it, to create enough “reasonable” doubt – no matter how slim or remote, even if that reasonable doubt is only a theory or another question that raises doubts about the criticism or critic). Apologetics just re-opens the door to the idea that the criticism may be faulty or incorrect. And if reasonable doubt can’t be achieved, unreasonable doubt (some implausible possibility) may be the only substitute.

The other thing to remember is that religious criticisms are really another form of apologetics. For example, when other churches say Mormons are not Christians, what some of them mean is something along the lines of: “we want our flock to stop defecting to Mormonism, so we need to undermine their argument.” People seldom attack religion just for the fun of it; they do so because they believe something else, and that belief is what they are defending (whether the critic is a group or an individual). Both apologists and the critics they are refuting are coming from the same premise: “I’m right.” They aren’t doing an exploration of their own views considering how they might be wrong. Both are just pointing out why they think the other is wrong.

But the reality of it is, there’s evidence out there both for and against almost any belief you might hold. The evidence is usually biased or complex and subject to interpretation. But ultimately you are the only one who decides what you believe and why. I’ve found some apologetics compelling and interesting, well researched, and so forth. I’ve found some apologetics grasping at straws or ludicrous. In my view, not all apologist arguments are equally compelling, and I imagine apologists would agree.