FAIR/FARMS LDS Apologetics

[Anonymous]

For those of you who read through apologetic material during your faith crises, were there any specific defensive arguments that you found offensive, incredible, or in direct contradiction to what you had been taught in the church?

Two members of FAIR have issued public requests for information in this regard as the claim was made by John Dehlin that his informal research shows apologetics as conducted by these and other LDS groups to have harmed struggling church members more than helped.

If you have examples and post them in this thread, I will send copy them and get them to the folks at FAIR, a couple of whom have been more than understanding and quick to correct errors when pointed out.

Thanks,

Cate

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

For those of you who read through apologetic material during your faith crises, were there any specific defensive arguments that you found offensive, incredible, or in direct contradiction to what you had been taught in the church?

they are too numerous to enumerate.

Simple honesty would be useful: for example, let’s recognize that the DNA evidence has fully debunked any real possibility that native americans are the descendents of Lehi. To try to continue to make arguments about DNA methods is unuseful. It’s an elephant in the room that cannot be ignored. Here is the FAIR summary:

FAIR wrote:

DNA attacks against the Book of Mormon are ill-advised, a “contrived controversy.”[1] Various geographical models introduce issues unique to each model, but the DNA data is no where as conclusive as the critics claim, regardless of the geographical model chosen.

Flat out lie. Flat out. It’s the same argument that young earth creationists propose as debunking evolution. To FAIR I’d say: “Stop treating us like idiots.” There is no ‘geographic’ model that can describe an extant lamanite civilization today. Nothing, nothing mentioned in the book of mormon or by Joseph Smith would imply that the Lamanites inbred with native americans so as to completely eliminate any of their limited-geography DNA evidence.

FAIR wrote:

Critics tend to opt for the most naive, ill-informed reading possible of the Book of Mormon text, and then cry foul when the Saints point out that they have given much thought to these issues and come to more nuanced conclusions that are more faithful to the Book of Mormon text than the critics’ poorly-considered caricatures.

Please give me a break and don’t insult my intelligence or reading of the book of mormon or Joseph Smith’s reading thereof. One word here: “Zelph”.

I have been LDS all my life and learned long ago that the book of mormon is not a literal history. It even says that it isn’t; and yet, to learn that the BoM was dictated largely through a seerstone puts the Book of Mormon into a consistent category of scripture: Pious Fiction. I have no problem with this. It does not alter my testimony. When I hear FAIR try to make all this make sense as literal history it completely degrades the process whereby prophecy occurs and how scripture is created.

I would say, definitively, that FAIR is the one who is adopting the most naive, ill-informed reading of LDS scripture. And by trying to defend it through selective interpretation of science is appallingly insulting.

And although FAIR has removed some offensive material, that anyone would even think the following has me running the oppposite direction:

FAIR wrote:

8. Plural marriages increased competition in the marriage market, so the “spiritual slackers” and lower quality men had to work to improve their standing to compete. They had to clean up, try to get good jobs and treat the women with respect. It gave the women more options as to whom to marry.

I would love for FAIR to define what a ‘lower quality man’ would be.

[Anonymous]

Honestly, I think it varies radically by author. I haven’t read FAIR or FARMS in a long time, largely because it’s such a crapshoot. There are some authors I really respect whose writing I really admire – and there are others . . .

I want to address one thing in wayfarer’s comment ONLY to illustrate how difficult it is to write apolgoetics – not to excuse FAIR or FARMS in any way, but just to show that there are legitimate differences of opinion that aren’t as black-and-white as we tend to think and influence some apologetic topics.

Quote:

Nothing, nothing mentioned in the book of mormon or by Joseph Smith would imply that the Lamanites inbred with native americans so as to completely eliminate any of their limited-geography DNA evidence.

I actually believe there is a solid argument from the Book of Mormon itself that supports both the Limited Geography model and Lamanite assimilation into and leadership of an indigenous population. In fact, I think that scenario is the only one that makes sense, given the basic population demographics described in the book itself. I also believe the Jaredites were of Asiatic descent and only the central kingdom was destroyed, which opens up all kinds of possibilities concerning DNA evidence that have been ignored largely up to this point.

Thus, it’s really hard to write apologetics that won’t be dismissed / rejected by others who just see, read and interpret differently than we do. I agree with wayfarer totally about stuff I see as grasping at microscopic straws. It’s just that some people’s microscopic straw looks like a solid thread to other people – and sometimes it’s not obvious which it is.

[Anonymous]

Commenting on Wayfarer’s comments: If the point is DNA evidence debunks the possibility that ALL or even most native americans are descendents of Lehi — I think FAIR concedes that point. They hang onto the possibility that Lehi’s group could have come over and remained a relatively small group among the American natives so their DNA cannot be found.

The part of that argument that I initially found troubling was how it was such a different idea than what I grew up with. I thought “if FAIR has to twist the story to such a great extent just to leave a crack in the door of faith – are we ultimately trying to fool ourselves here?”

As far as the FAIR quote above (# regarding plural marriages I can’t help but think the author has no idea about the real challenges a woman faces in polygamy. To think she may prefer a “more righteous” man in polygamy over a “slacker” as a monogomous husband is naive in my opinion, to say the least. Not saying those women were able to make an informed decision, I’m just saying the Lord would have known, and I think His advice is found in Jacob 2.

Here are my most important comments, but I need to say I have developed a lot of respect for FAIR. I think they are much more objective and balanced than they get credit for. These comments are from reflecting on some of my initial gut reactions back in the heat of my crisis:

My main complaint with FAIR is what too often (even if it is not constant) comes across as a condescending attitude toward those who ask hard questions. I remember in the state of crisis thinking FAIR sounded like an angry (at times possibly rabid) little animal that shows through its reactions that it basically knows it is in a hopeless fight. A defensive and offended position displays an appearance of weakness. When I hear emotional counter attacks against the critics I lose a little faith in the voice that is speaking. A position of calm, loving assurance is a position of strength. Truth cannot be eroded, truth is more permanent than granite. Truth doesn’t have to fight. It simply allows itself to be fully revealed. In my opinion FAIR doesn’t have to worry about how to reach everyone. If they stand for truth all they have to do is put the facts out there as calmly and lovingly as humanly possible — forgiving their “attackers” all along the way. (Refusing to use terms such as “Anti-Mormon” and all forms of name calling or deragatory terms would be a given.)

I also found comments that “this is such an old argument” or “this question has been answered so many times” offensive to me in my searching. Nothing was old or hashed to me, it was all fresh and new. I didn’t want to be told I was “behind the times” I simply wanted a loving and understanding response to my questions. I wanted the apologetic response to acknowledge how difficult and emotionally charged this situation of discovery was. I wanted to know that I wasn’t being condemned for my desire to learn and understand. At the time (2007) I just didn’t find the level of this kind of emotional support from FAIR that I desperately needed. While I loved so many things about Davis Bitton’s article “I don’t have a testimony of Church history” I didn’t get this type of empathy there either. It told me my expectations were out of place (which I completely agree with) but it didn’t offer any understanding around why I found myself in that position, or how common that situation is for lifetime members of the church. A little bit of that type of empathy would have gone such a long way.

That’s my personal perspective, for what it’s worth. I must also say I have found many enlightening and helpful articles at FAIR.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

My main complaint with FAIR is what too often (even if it is not constant) comes across as a condescending attitude toward those who ask hard questions.

This. +1 – and, with that attitude, phrasing arguments as if that perspective should be obvious and accepted as indisputable fact. Again, ime, that’s more a function of author – since there are some authors who don’t take that stance.

[Anonymous]

mercyngrace wrote:

For those of you who read through apologetic material during your faith crises, were there any specific defensive arguments that you found offensive, incredible, or in direct contradiction to what you had been taught in the church?

Two members of FAIR have issued public requests for information in this regard as the claim was made by John Dehlin that his informal research shows apologetics as conducted by these and other LDS groups to have harmed struggling church members more than helped.

If you have examples and post them in this thread, I will send copy them and get them to the folks at FAIR, a couple of whom have been more than understanding and quick to correct errors when pointed out.

Thanks,

Cate

What I didn’t like about most Mormon apologetics I saw was the way they acted like there was something wrong with those that ask legitimate questions as if it should be easy to just have faith in the Church no matter what and not worry about these problems. Many members are struggling and upset by these issues and this general dismissive attitude will just drive more of them away.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I want to address one thing in wayfarer’s comment ONLY to illustrate how difficult it is to write apolgoetics – not to excuse FAIR or FARMS in any way, but just to show that there are legitimate differences of opinion that aren’t as black-and-white as we tend to think and influence some apologetic topics.

Quote:

Nothing, nothing mentioned in the book of mormon or by Joseph Smith would imply that the Lamanites inbred with native americans so as to completely eliminate any of their limited-geography DNA evidence.

I actually believe there is a solid argument from the Book of Mormon itself that supports both the Limited Geography model and Lamanite assimilation into and leadership of an indigenous population. In fact, I think that scenario is the only one that makes sense, given the basic population demographics described in the book itself.

…

I agree with wayfarer totally about stuff I see as grasping at microscopic straws. It’s just that some people’s microscopic straw looks like a solid thread to other people – and sometimes it’s not obvious which it is.

Sure, writing apologetics is very hard, because of trying to make logic out of pious fiction. It’s a fruitless endeavor.

So, sure, I used to think like you do that the lamanites became ‘dark’ by virtue of intermixing with the native population, and that because nephi said it wasn’t meant to be history, minor historical details were left out…like, for instance, the native population…. although i don’t think really that is a minor point.

But more importantly, we weren’t taught growing up about a limited geography model. Joseph Smith believed, as did all the prophets thereafter, that ‘native americans’ were lamanites. I was taught this in going to my mission in south america…and of course, to call someone from south america a lamanite was deeply insulting…because they liked to routinely deny that they had ‘indio’ blood in them… (sigh)…

I believe, with Spong, that to try to perform apologetics to make the bible, the book of mormon, or any religious stuff make sense is to try to bend the mind into a twisted pretzel. It’s just unhealthy for the mind.

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

mercyngrace wrote:

For those of you who read through apologetic material during your faith crises, were there any specific defensive arguments that you found offensive, incredible, or in direct contradiction to what you had been taught in the church?

they are too numerous to enumerate….

Yep. That is my answer. I will just leave it at that.

[Anonymous]

Orson wrote:

My main complaint with FAIR is what too often (even if it is not constant) comes across as a condescending attitude toward those who ask hard questions. I remember in the state of crisis thinking FAIR sounded like an angry (at times possibly rabid) little animal that shows through its reactions that it basically knows it is in a hopeless fight. A defensive and offended position displays an appearance of weakness. When I hear emotional counter attacks against the critics I lose a little faith in the voice that is speaking. A position of calm, loving assurance is a position of strength.

This.

I do not even go to FAIR because the first 5 or 6 articles I read had this angry, ultra-defensive tone, and because of that I have written off FAIR as complete garbage. It seems from the posts in this thread my write-off might be unwarranted, but even so, I’m in no hurry to go back there with my questions.

[Anonymous]

I get that, wayfarer, but I’ve stated multiple times here two things:

1) I choose to view the Book of Mormon as a divine transmission, and I include the possibility of it being historically legitimate. (Notice, I didn’t say historically accurate.)

2) Joseph didn’t understand the Book of Mormon very well. He thought it said quite a few things it just doesn’t say. I’m not invested at all in what others believe about what it says; I’m only invested in what I believe it says.

Therefore:

My statement about how I see the demographic descriptions in it is not meant to be an apologetic about its nature – really; it’s meant ONLY to be an explanation about what I think it actually says. There’s a big difference between those approaches. It’s the difference between apologetics and analytics. That difference is important to me.

[Anonymous]

scooter wrote:

I do not even go to FAIR because the first 5 or 6 articles I read had this angry, ultra-defensive tone, and because of that I have written off FAIR as complete garbage. It seems from the posts in this thread my write-off might be unwarranted, but even so, I’m in no hurry to go back there with my questions.

You certainly didn’t get that reaction from my post, i hope. (nor cwald’s). Apologetics are complete garbage, and FAIR is no exception.

It’s bad for your mind — worse than what my daughter calls “blackout in a can”:

[img]http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2010/fourloko%20blue.jpg[/img]

Old-Timer wrote:

I get that, wayfarer, but I’ve stated multiple times here two things:

1) I choose to view the Book of Mormon as a divine transmission, and I include the possibility of it being historically legitimate. (Notice, I didn’t say historically accurate.)

2) Joseph didn’t understand the Book of Mormon very well. He thought it said quite a few things it just doesn’t say. I’m not invested at all in what others believe about what it says; I’m only invested in what I believe it says.

Therefore:

My statement about how I see the demographic descriptions in it is not meant to be an apologetic about its nature – really; it’s meant ONLY to be an explanation about what I think it actually says. There’s a big difference between those approaches. It’s the difference between apologetics and analytics. That difference is important to me.

I have no issue with ‘analytics’ if that’s what you’re into. I’m supportive of your creative understanding of book of mormon transmission — fully willing to accept it. But the FAIR website doesn’t offer these possibilities.

[Anonymous]

To the question about specific apologetic teachings that may contradict what we learn “in church” I can think of several. But first I feel the need to point out that to individual members – the ideas that they grew up with are interpreted as what they learned “in church”, even though it may not be doctrinal or officially taught by “the church.” Though an important distinction for the apologist, emotionally it can be very hard to separate for the regular member’s worldview.

1. The idea of a limited BoM geography, it took some time to embrace that as a valid idea. It helped that the church has changed the intro to the BoM to support it, but a lifetime of assuming the traditional hemispherical concept can be difficult to dislodge. (Why didn’t Joseph understand where they lived?)

2. Piggybacks on #1 and many, many other issues: That a prophet may speak about some things in error. While this is a vital concept to understanding the reality of mortal life, it can be a HUGE hurtle for many members to get over. (Zelph, Kinderhook and Adam-God are prime examples. How far does it extend?)

3. That modern prophets are more human than I had understood and may not always be the best role models. Joseph drinking wine shortly before his death was a big shocker for me. Fistfights and other things were also difficult to reconcile with the image that I held. Some sticky situations where BY may not have made the best decisions, etc.

These types of emotional shocks to my image and expectations of “what modern prophets in the Lord’s true church should be and act like” widened the cracks that were developing in my faith foundation. The more these “little” questions or doubts could be authenticated the more I trusted “critical” sources and the less I trusted “faithful” sources. We all know about that tipping point where everything changes and you feel betrayed and deceived. Then the situation is compounded because everyone around you condemns and faults YOU, and you feel like your world has gone mad and you don’t know a soul who can think things through rationally and simply go to where the evidence takes you.

Today I am “good” with the church. I see myself as an active, faithful, worthy member in every way. In part this is because with time I have been able to digest many of the ideas that FAIR promotes, but I must say it was not an easy transition, and I know it COULD have been much easier if I felt more empathy coming from FAIR from the start. I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I don’t let the things that I don’t understand interfere with me being in the places and doing the things that I feel good about doing. There are many great mentors from our past (Bennion, Arrington, England, Eyring, etc.) that can help those who struggle transition and adapt. The biggest difficulty as I see it is a broad and overwhelming tendency to interpret “the iron rod” way with very narrow definitions (one pair of earrings) and exclude the rest from the subset of the “faithful.” It becomes divisive. if I cannot honestly support from my heart and internal motivations all the ideas that I see promoted as “faithful”, then I must not genuinely fit within the church. This is the struggle as I see it.

To return to the question above, some of the ideas that FAIR promotes – that I honestly believe can be vital and are needed to adapt to truths of doctrine and history – can feel foreign enough to make some members say “this is not the gospel as I know it, if we have to change our understanding to view the church as true, then it is not true as I understand it.” That ultimately is a core problem, based on individual perceptions and expectations, and there is no way that FAIR on its own can fix it. BUT they can add a healthy dose of empathy to their approach.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t read a whole lot of apologetics as my crisis was more philosophical than historical. But there was one posting that turned me off to the whole apologetic route:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Alleged_false_prophecies/Queens_to_pay_respect_to_Relief_Society_within_ten_years

JS said –

Quote:

This Society shall have power to command Queens in their midst– I now deliver it as a prophecy that before ten years shall roll around, the queens of the earth shall come and pay their respects to this Society– they shall come with their millions and shall contribute of their abundance for the relief of the poor– If you will be pure, nothing can hinder.

The apologist said –

Quote:

Fulfillment of the prophecy

There are several schools of thought regarding this prophecy:

1. That fulfillment has been delayed.

2. That it has already been fulfilled.

We do not take a position on this issue, but present the various arguments here.

If the prophecy remained unfilled, then it would be because the conditions set forth were not met. There is some evidence to support this position…..

in the case of the Relief Society prophecy, Joseph states, point blank, that “iniquity must be purged out,” which implies that it has to be there to begin with. There were certainly apostates among the Relief Society.

Brigham Young was not pleased about what the Relief Society leadership had done to oppose Joseph and to oppose plural marriage, and the associated difficulties which the Relief Society and their zeal to expunge impurity caused. (Joseph spoke to them about this; some of the difficulties are discussed in Newell and Avery.)

Following the death of Joseph Smith, the Relief Society as an organization went on “hiatus.” This “hiatus” had a lot to do with that, in historical context.

Brigham noted, one year after the martyrdom:

When I want Sisters or the Wives of the members of the church to get up Relief Society I will summon them to my aid, but until that time let them stay at home if you see Females huddling together, veto the concern, and if they say Joseph started it all tell them it is a damned lie for I know he never encouraged it. [4]

Note that Brigham’s issue is not with the existence of the Relief Society, but the “huddling together” to seek out iniquity. John Taylor gives us further background on why the organization was suspended,

The “reason why the Relief Society did not continue from the first organization was that Emma Smith the Pres. taught the Sisters that the principle of Celestial Marriage as taught and practiced by Joseph Smith was not of God.” [5]

It should be noted that Newell and Avery claim this is not true in the strict reading of the minutes, however, it is well known that Emma did everything she could to discourage people from following Joseph on this point, both in what she said privately and publicly. Newell and Avery provide evidence of this tendency themselves, but don’t draw the obvious conclusion.

Even Eliza R. Snow felt it necessary to correct the impression that the Relief Society in Nauvoo had done “more harm than good,” emphasizing that it “saved many lives.” But, the mere fact that she needed to correct this impression should tell us something about how the Relief Society under Emma’s tenure was seen—there were lives saved, but there was also a somewhat darker side that kept Brigham from reconstituting the organization for ten years, and made Eliza need to emphasize that it had been worth it, on balance, even with the problems.[6]

Apparently the “obvious conclusion” that Newell and Avery missed was that Emma and her cohorts single handedly delayed the second coming by at least 200 years by not being more submissive to the implementation of polygamy.

I find a third option that is more in line with Richard Bushman and that is conspicuously absent:

3. That Joseph was merely rephrasing Isaiah and doing so in such a way as to tie in the LDS with the ancient prophecies and to glorify the latter day movement. This was a particular talent of Joseph’s – to see in the restorationist latter day movement the fulfillment of ancient prophecy. This is also completely consistent with his millennial world view

Isaiah 49:

Quote:

19 “Even the most desolate parts of your abandoned land

will soon be crowded with your people.

Your enemies who enslaved you

will be far away.

20 The generations born in exile will return and say,

‘We need more room! It’s crowded here!’

21 Then you will think to yourself,

‘Who has given me all these descendants?

For most of my children were killed,

and the rest were carried away into exile.

I was left here all alone.

Where did all these people come from?

Who bore these children?

Who raised them for me?’”

22 This is what the Sovereign LORD says:

“See, I will give a signal to the godless nations.

They will carry your little sons back to you in their arms;

they will bring your daughters on their shoulders.

23 Kings and queens will serve you

and care for all your needs.

They will bow to the earth before you

and lick the dust from your feet.Then you will know that I am the LORD.

Those who trust in me will never be put to shame.”

Why do we need to argue that, in his role as the Prophet of the Restoration, JS could see the future?

Even if we were required to take that position, it strikes me as bad form to blame the non-fulfillment of prophecy on the failure of the hearers to be worthy of it.

Finally in reference to Hawkgrrrl’s reference that FAIR may be harmful to Mormons in the midst of a crisis, I certainly don’t envy their mandate.

Let’s say that FAIR says “Yeah, Roy from the internet is absolutely correct!” and they post my interpretation of this Queens/Relief Society prophecy. Then Peter Priesthood logs on and reads it and is then troubled by the implication that JS felt that the Millennium was imminent and may have even given some prophecies to warn of its closeness (10 years here – 40 years there). He may say to himself, shouldn’t the prophet have a better idea of when the final curtain call is going to be?

So the bigger problem seems to be that there is an expectation that we internalize through our years of indoctrination and socialization in the church. When these expectations come up against some contradictory evidence there are a few options: label the source of the information as anti-Mormon lies…propose dizzying logical conclusions to maintain the “shelf”….or to acknowledge the issue as a real issue. Depending on where the person is on their journey, each of these responses may be the “correct” one. The one that is successful in helping the person to dismiss the contradictory information, or explain it, or assimilate it into a more nuanced view and stay LDS.

I think the same can be said for this website “StayLDS” – that some may came here with a specific doubt and then be exposed to a whole new set of issues that they may not have discovered on their own for some time (if ever).

I have heard repeatedly that “Rough Stone Rolling” was a major eye opener for some people (myself included).

So in all fairness to FAIR (pun intended), they didn’t create the disconnect – they are just trying to deal with it the best way they know how…as are we.

P.S. Orson +1 (we seem to have been typing at the same time)

[Anonymous]

Re: Emma as Scribe Before Oliver ???

by Latterday Skeptic » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:30 pm

Gazelem wrote:

I find it interesting that FAIR gives this comment on the translation process …

Quote:

It is important to remember that what we do know for certain is that the translation of the Book of Mormon was carried out “by the gift and power of God.” We do not know the exact method of translation. Many have offered their own opinions, but it should be kept in mind that these opinions are given by people who never performed the translation process itself: They can only report on what they observed the Prophet doing at the time. Whether Joseph used the “original” Urim and Thummim or the seer stone to perform this sacred task is beside the point, and it does not diminish the power of the resulting work. One should read the Book of Mormon itself and evaluate its message rather than get wrapped up in the detail of its exact method of translation.

Typical FAIR argument.

1. First introduce the supernatural element that trumps everything else, and make sure they get to be the ones to say what “we” need to do, think or observe (i.e. control the discussion).

2. Introduce doubt in statements or other observations by other mormons that have been used to criticize them in the past (they’re not authoritative, they’re not first-hand experiences, they were done by people who later had agendas, they were ignorant, they were not voted on by the membership, etc….).

3. Talk down to and pooh pooh others who would dare use their own critical thinking skills to arrive at a different, but perfectly valid, conclusion other than the exact one the church or apologist (when the church one’s aren’t satisfactory) provides, regardless of how reasonable or rational those other conclusions might be. They can’t even acknowledge that it’s reasonable to even come to any other conclusion.

They simply won’t say, “We don’t know, really…” They need to adopt some of the NOM rules. Bushman comes closest to being an empathetic apologist. I’d rather listen to him than DCP any day.

Latterday Skeptic

[Anonymous]

I really didn’t like the apologetics who tried to defend the horses in the Book of Mormon by stating that the Nephites might have been riding on deer.

When I read that I thought ” Well these guys are really stretching here and it’s like they aren’t even trying anymore.”

There have been plenty of Archaeological evidence that supports Horses being in the Americas before the Spanish ever stepped foot on her lands. Why not just show that evidence instead of theorizing that people were riding deer like Santa Clause.

I feel their half attempts to defend the book of Abraham had too many theories and not enough evidence. Even if there were extra scrolls or pages this still doesn’t excuse the fact that what pages have been copied into the pearl of great price doesn’t say what JS claimed for them to be saying. I’ve known those pages to be part of a funeral ritual since I was in the 4th grade. Nobody told me this I came to my own conclusion when I saw something almost just like in a book on Egypt. In this book everything was labeled differently than it was in my scriptures. I honestly haven’t taken the Pearl of Great price as serious scriptures since Elementary school.

Stop trying to defend what really can’t be defended.

If members of the church want to believe that Joseph Smith used these scrolls as a catalyst to see a vision of Abraham they can. They can also believe that a Fairy God Mother will rescue them from a trashy wardrobe before a ball with Mr. or Miss right.

[Author]

Posts