New MORMON CHALLENGES web site

Wow, that first video “Alone” brought back some very real emotions from back when I went through that. The situation is so typical for whatever reason – feeling that you can’t share, the wife being upset for not being told. They nailed a lot of things. I applaud the realistic approach, the way they say you have to let go of a lot of assumptions. It’s kind of freaky the way they almost modeled the wife’s reaction after my own experience, her feeling hurt for being left out. Except shortly after my wife said “I want to know everything” and got an idea of a few issues, she changed her mind and realized she really didn’t want to get into it. I don’t blame her one bit, I don’t think all personalities are built for this particular journey.

While I watched I felt the weight of the issue that the church faces. In order to fight the problem head-on to prevent more members from feeling betrayed, they must risk exposing other members to problems that will become toxic for them. This process will result in some leaving for good, while allowing others to grow into a more informed and mature faith. It is not a “win-win” proposition, while doing nothing is damaging as well.

You summed up my thoughts and feelings so well. If only parents and spouses all reacted like this. My wife feels threatened and hurt. We talk some but she doesn’t want to know and I don’t want to tell her either. I wonder where all this will lead us. I have shared my feelings with one friend and he has been great. He said he understands and today he asked me if I could take the doctrines of Christ and leave out all the personalities of the people from JS to my home teachers and if I could feel good about that. I have been thinking about that all day. Maybe Christ’s opinion is the only one that really matters and I don’t have to agree much with anyone else. It’s something to think about, isn’t it?

I’m sure it is private, just as FAIR and the others are not officially connected with the church there are a lot of good reasons for this not to be official – at least for now. My hunch is there are probably leaders watching the reaction of this type of thing very closely – to feel out the best direction to take.

DB, do you know who is the backing behind this? Is this officially church sponsored or private?

My guess is not the church. It was shown at the independant utah film festival. That said I agree with the followup comment. I see this approach as very viable. I can see them utilizing this in many ways.

DB, do you know who is the backing behind this? Is this officially church sponsored or private?

I’m guessing the site was put up by the producer of the videos, Prof. Dennis Packard of BYU’s Dept. of Philosophy.

Producer of the site is a professor within the BYU system.

The owner of the domain is listed as an e-mail address at byu.edu

Funding for the video probably came from the video department at BYU, and scripted by professors within BYU, or possibly within Fair, which again is paid out of BYU.

BYU is owned by whom?

I would consider this to be officially church sponsored, supported, backed, researched, produced, and endorsed.

Producer of the site is a professor within the BYU system.

The owner of the domain is listed as an e-mail address at byu.edu

Funding for the video probably came from the video department at BYU, and scripted by professors within BYU, or possibly within Fair, which again is paid out of BYU.

BYU is owned by whom?

I would consider this to be officially church sponsored, supported, backed, researched, produced, and endorsed.

No, Packard teaches film theory and produces his own films. I don’t know anything about the website, but the films are Packard’s own initiative. Even if he was able to get some support from various campus units, this is in no way a BYU production. If it was, it would says so. BYU doesn’t do stealth.

BofA is just a tough one. I haven’t seen anything other than apologetics that isn’t pretty implausible. Maybe they are just working with what they’ve got.

Can you imagine if all science was done this way? Start from a conclusion and go backwards, you dig and dig until you find a few scraps of obscure and weakly associated evidence that support your hypothesis, while ignoring the obvious and compelling evidence that is right there on the page!

Bad science but good apologetics. I think all he’s trying to do is show that, at a few important points, the evidence is partial and complicated, and therefore leaves “room for belief” that Joseph was a prophet. That’s how apologists put it, though I think the goal is even more modest than that: To create room for doubting that Joseph was absolutely a fraud. And it doesn’t take much to establish that seed of doubt. If you can establish that one cannot know 100% absolutely positively without doubt that Joseph was a total fraud, mission accomplished.