- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
MormonThink is in the news with the editor being called in by his stake presidency. The question seems to be if it’s only putting up the “truth” then does the SP have a reason/right to call a council. See http://runtu.wordpress.com/ for details.“Truth” cannot be shared without presentation, and every presentation has bias. If the SP views his bias as against the church he could be in trouble. Agreed. I expect the SP will say that the “truth” isn’t the issue but want to know why he did it. Shut up and get in line. Fwiw, I’ve always been skeptical of the motives of that site. I have never gotten a “neutral” vibe from it, simply because I haven’t seen anywhere close to a balance in the slant of things written. I would not define it as apostate, but I certainly can understand how others would view it that way.
I think the MormonThink site shares a lot of difficult information. I think much of it has it’s basis in truth. The problem is the context in which he shares it in. It copies and pastes things together to make the issues way more serious then they reall are. His Context is to show the church in the worst light. He makes no attempt to simply show facts and be unbiased which can be done, but only if one shows both sides of the story and asks you to make up your own mind.
Since it is obvious that his effort is to damage the church and to do so on as large a scale as he can, then I have no problem with the church taking this action.
Now if he only presented facts as unbiased as possible, I would be the first to be upset.
I would be interested in a thread or threads that discuss information posted at mormonthink that is untrue or false. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:I would be interested in a thread or threads that discuss information posted at mormonthink that is untrue or false.
I expect that as far as true or untrue goes there’s not much to argue about. The feeling I got when I read through all the sections was that it wasn’t just a matter or providing information but more to warn people off. As I said on Runtu’s site it’s one thing to tell someone they’re ugly but another to explain why you did it. To add to that if you get punched out for your observation, you shouldn’t really be surprised or somehow put upon.
I haven’t done a full content analysis of mormonthink.com, but here are my thoughts so far. Mormonthink.com hits on all the major problems with the Church, presented with easy-to-navigate links on the left sidebar. The links lead to quotes from primary sources, as well as interpretations by various authors and outside sources. I agree that most of the content is true. But I don’t necessarily get a feeling that it’s a fair presentation of the facts.
With the reality of the complexity of truth and the limited nature of human language and discourse, context matters. So does a more nuanced view of truth. One of the main fallacies played upon by the authors of the site is the false dichotomy: “e.g., either we are right, or the Church and FAIR are right. You be the judge.” You can see this in the entries with a listing of links and arguments organized as “critic’s responses” and “faithful responses”. With a lot of these issues, I think that the truth is more complicated than the data we have available, so it’s difficult to judge what is right, wrong, or something in between. Of course, many GAs and even Q15s make the same false dichotomy fallacy, as well. I think for people who are still developing a personal epistemology (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ) that allows for complexity in truth (which is most people), the false dichotomy fallacy tends to lead straight to disaffection on these issues.In the “Who Are We” section of the site, there is a long list of arguments meant to increase the credibility of the articles. Here are some of the appeals to authority:
-living in Utah
-being an active member
-holding important callings:
-Gospel Doctrine teacher
-YW President
-Bishop
-CES Teacher
-being married in the temple
-writing for the Ensign or Sunstone
-being a scientist or historian
-being an apologist
It’s set up in a way that is meant to say “I am X, so you can trust my motives and what I have to said about Y.” The facts in the articles may or may not be true, but not necessarily because the author was “married in the temple” or whatever the appeal to authority is from the above list. FAIRLDS seems to have the same problems, but they present their info in a faithful way, which puts them off the apostasy radar.
Whatever the motives of the creators of the site, it seems to have the effect of loading up people’s shelves and collapsing them as quickly as possible. This seems to be accomplished by overwhelming visitors with issues and arguments against the truth claims of the Church. With the internet and the increased availability of information, I don’t know that this isn’t inevitable, anyway, but it seems the fruit of mormonthink.com is mostly quick cognitive dissonance and disaffection. The way the doctrine and history of the church is taught in SS and CES is a perfect setup for a quick fall when a member finds mormonthink.com, but that is another topic (big argument for new manuals, art, and inoculation!).
So is the falling away from the church of site visitors the intended effect of the authors? Who can say? But I think Bishops and SPs have the authority and the responsibility to find out through fair, thorough questioning of the contributors, hopefully not carried out in a witch hunt manner. But if the history of zealotry, purges, and witch hunts is any indication, I don’t have much faith that all will turn out fairly.
DBMormon wrote:The problem is the context in which he shares it in. It copies and pastes things together to make the issues way more serious then they reall are.
I agree with you on the context thing, and on leading readers to certain conclusions that aren’t exactly “faithful”, but I do disagree on the “way more serious than they really are.” When a person trusts the Church to teach them truth, and then they find out the facts are different, it leads to serious, serious personal crises. So any and all of these issues are serious, because they often lead a person to feel betrayed.
You know, I just thought about some of my arguments above. The Church also engages in appeals to authority and false dichotomies. So the question we’re left with is “Who can I trust?” Something has to tip the scale when logical, empirical arguments come to an impasse. For me, I guess it’s the supernatural experiences I have had. After all the critiques of everyone involved in this dispute, I guess the final questions are about the motives of mormonthink.com. And I guess the Church has the right to police it’s membership in some way; though I don’t like it.
MormonThink may have an agenda, but an agenda to get the facts out is not a bad thing. AS far as looking at things in context I find to be a red herring. As if the Book of Abraham translation needs to be understood in context. It is what it is. A book that was claimed to be something it was not. There is no context or nuance that changes the fact that Joseph misrepresented about what the papyri were. So we may not like what MormonThink says or the way they present it but you would be hard pressed to say they are lying or misrepresenting the truth. So if there is discipline for this individual it has to be on the grounds that he made the church look bad, not because he was misrepresenting the facts. Well, to be fair, the Church doesn’t publish things in a ‘fair’ manner either. One sided all the way, so it’s a moot point.
Except if one loves the church and wants to remain in it, one should find a way to share the truth in a loving kind way. This site seems to have an agenda outside of love. When my wife and I disagree do I lovingly try to share with her my point of view or do I scream at her and call names? IT is not a matter of whether what I say is true, it is the context in which I say it. This site seems to throw everything against the wall without spending as much time telling the positive or apologetic or explaining the way one who remains faithful views the context of these facts. Their agenda is anything but love towards the church. That said the church has a right to sift out those who seek malice towards it and to handle it how they see fit. I would hate it if it’s me, and I sure as heck have had an attitude with the church at times ( I am probably known by the strengthening members committee), but the church reserves the right to set the standard for membership. All I am saying is that Mormonthink, if their agenda was love and concern, could have approached the facts with a lot nicer kinder context and allowed members to deal with the info as they see fit. I am leaving for the day but I would be happy to give an example late or tomorrow if you would like?
In doing a little reading it becomes obvious that MormonThink is based from a stage 4 perspective. Basically absolutist or leaning to black/white, and discontent with many of the complexities that seem to surprise a large number of church members. Yes, they could phrase their comments in a friendlier or less divisive fashion; but that would also be out of character for someone in stage 4. Personally I think they do an admirable job of taming some of the discontent, but the framing of questions/comments still gives away their shattered worldview.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.