Again Mr. Gordon. Its on your own site. Answer the charge. If you do not, then we know you have no concern for fairness, and you don’t give a damn for representing the issue in any other way than to have you “win.”

Mormon Matters is not in any way affiliated with FAIR or FARMS. It is not our responsibility to act as a go-between for individuals who have a beef with FAIR or FARMS. Seriously, there is no reason why we need a full transcript of Meldrum’s response posted here; understanding your concern is fine for the purpose of this post, I believe. I think you have made that concern plain for everyone who reads and comments here. Anything more would be excessive beating of an already dead horse. (That is not to disparage your concern in any way; it just is saying that no more whipping is required here.)

You make a lot of very good points.

For example:

1. Mormons are violent–as is put forward in a best selling book.

2. Mormons are racist–Very true, as was most of America. But, certainly a somewhat unfair characterization if compared with many other very large evangelical Christian groups. I don’t believe I have ever heard that the US government had to call out the 101st Airborne division to protect a minority group from Mormons in this century as they did in Little Rock. Again, I am not discounting that Mormons were and are racist. Just that the claim can certainly be seen as a double standard.

3. The LDS Church is dishonest and hides things–Most has been hidden in the Ensign or in Gospel Link CDs. So, it is hidden from non-readers and non-researchers.

4. Some historical fact proves that Joseph Smith was a false prophet and therefore the Church is false.–Not a problem, so long as the source is examined, taken in context, taken in historical context and in light of other things said during the same time period. After all of that, we may simply have a difference of opinion in our conclusions.

I can understand when it appears that people are mean when they react negatively to these characterizations and mischaracterizations. There is a lot of emotional baggage that can be pulled into the conversation. It is difficult to overcome human nature. Sometimes the claims are taken as fact, so the apologists are starting in a hole from the get-go. But, the main point is to educate people as to all of the facts involved. I really like Kevin Barney’s comments above.

FAIR has been working hard to define its true audience and not be personally negative in any of its responses. But, since we are talking about topics that are close to the heart, it is easy to see why some things can be perceived to be personal and negative. The Meldrum article is a good example. We were in communication with him before any article was published, and we have given him a rough draft of all of our thoughts on his presentation. If giving him advance copies makes us mean, then I plead guilty.

Some of the attacks on Apologists, FAIR (and FARMS) appear to be well-poisoning. Well-poisoning is a tactic sometimes used in debate and discussion when people believe the stakes are high. I hope that we all are mature enough to try to grow beyond that.

You are right to some degree, but I submit to you that most Mormons are not mature enough in their faith to weather a search for truth beyond simple testimony. They cannot fathom the complexities of a complex faith. They have not grown a thick skin to be able to deal with a complex faith. A complex faith is what I have, above and beyond my simple testimony. For me, it was because my faith was shaken but somehow didn’t wither and die entirely. It doesn’t have to be that way with people who are inoculated so that they eventually develop a complex faith.

This is why so many people end up losing faith, because they are simply not mature enough in faith to move on to a complex faith.

If you make the topic narrower enough then broad questions about the existence of Nephites or God isn’t really an issue.

Now if by objective we mean “fit to the best explanation” I think that’s also problematic since typically there are many plausible explanations for given data. So I think apologists can frequently be objective there as well.

If by objective we mean “merely confirming a belief” rather than being exploratory I think that most apologists are objective there too. Most I know earnestly are looking for answers. However obviously if one has what one believes is an answer when you present or defend it your are going to give arguments for it. We wouldn’t expect a biologist to be disqualified when talking of evolution simply because he believes it strongly and will argue for what he already believes.

So I think we have to be careful here.

Apologetics done properly provides evidence to support a belief and then we are able to make up our own minds.

Truth is never impotent.

My problem with apologetics is that it is not about truth but about preservation of belief. Have you ever believed in something that was not true? What then becomes the greater goal; preservation of that belief or the search for truth?

A strongly held belief can be the greatest impediment to truth. In that regard I consider apologetics a dangerous art. Mormon or otherwise.

What do you think? Anything with which you disagree? Anything you would add?

I would say yes, apparently you don’t know what I’m talking about, as you didn’t live it. I’m saying that there is a lot of frustration out there among independents that feel like there is a domineering type attitude among these groups that have a lot of prestige. Some of us feel mistreated and a bit resentful about it.

I’m sure, as those who have read my postings from the past would know, I cannot bring myself to align with Sunstone or Signature Books. I’m a man without a “home” so to speak.

I have moved on, and am working on new things. But I still struggle to not feel negative towards them, and I’m still trying to “forgive” and move on. Often in my writings, I find myself trying not to rip on these people, and have to pull myself out of it and go back and rewrite it so as not to manifest my lingering feelings about them. They are not interested in feedback, or answering real questions about their positions. Many of them just want to “win” and be “right” and maintain their dogmatism.

I suppose I never saw this as mistreatment, however, just as standard scholarly debate. They were only interested in answers that fit their ideas and theories. But doesn’t that make sense?

Also, this story suggests that FAIR is some sort of unified club, but I found that was not true. They were pretty disorganized, actually. (I don’t mean that as a knock, we’re talking about very busy people doing this out of a labor of love on the side.) And when I did finally solicit feedback from them on my ideas, they didn’t agree with each other either.

Again, I saw it all as standard scholarly debate. I didn’t feel slighted by this.

But I’m afraid this is the extend of my association with FAIR and so I’m not speaking from much first hand experience.

I think you are right that LDS apologists overwhelming believe what they are saying to the best of their knowledge. Of course I feel that way about apologist for non-believing points of view also as well as for every religion.

I think this is exactly why we need to cut each other some slack here. I would hate to be labeled dishonest just because I happen to not know everything and I suspect those labeling others that way would feel the same.

If we know there is real dishonesty going on, say the real facts are brought up and ignored and the false version still spread, then I think we have a real tolerance issue. (We’ve had several examples of that, particularly from the Evangelical Christian’s counter cult movement community.) But before that, we probably ought to generally assume statements are made in good faith and will be changed if more facts are brought out.

That being said, I think we have a human tendency to mistake fact and opinion and I think this is the primary basis for calling “apologists” deceptive. We figure our opinions are truth and only an idiot would disagree with us, thus the apologist (who isn’t an idiot) must be lying. It’s solid logic built on a false assumption.