FairLDS.org - Lets use this site as a resource

[Heather]

It's becoming very common these days for LDS.net members to post questions about The Church of Jesus Christ or Latter-day Saints. I wanted to post a reminder to everyone about the first rule of LDS.Net

Do not post, upload, or otherwise submit anything to the site that is contrary to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do not post anything that is derogatory towards The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachers, or its leaders. Anti-LDS Propaganda will not be tolerated anywhere.

As this site grows and as curiosity in the Church continues to grow, we're going to see more and more questions from people who want to know more about the Church. Lets not to let ourselves get caught up in any arguments. There are a lot of people posting here who really do have good intentions. Our response to one person's post could give a lot of insight to an outsider wondering what Mormons are really like and what they really believe in.

There is a great resource on the web: LDS FAIR Apologetics. They have pages and pages of information on numerous topics with answers to questions that are often posted here. They have a really good Wiki too.

I encourage everyone who is answering questions about the Church to link to outside sources, such as LDS.org, Mormon.org, and FairLDS.org. Link to the specific page that is relevant to the topic at hand.

[Ray A]

The full Encyclopedia of Mormonism is now also online:

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

[Heather]

Ray,

That is a great reference! Thanks so much for posting it.

[skalenfehl]

Heather with these new reference sites being collected including those in your signature, may I recommend a sticky thread somewhere for posting such "online resources" for quick and easy access?

Kinda like this one that has a sticky of the online scriptures. Just a thought. :)

[VisionOfLehi]

FARMS is a good one to use, too.

The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship

[WillowTheWhisp]

Heather is it still OK to post personal experiences and insights?

[Heather]

WillowTheWhisp, Oh yes that's totally fine. I think we have a great opportunity to be able to state our beliefs, and then also back them up with scholarly sources. Combining these together could really make these forums a great resource to so many people on many different levels.

skalenfehl, great idea. I think it would be better to make it even more prominent, and place it throughout the entire site, so it's accessible outside of the forums too. I see I took the "bookmark" link off the forum side, but on the main site, if you click on "bookmark" you get a drop down of all these bookmarking sites. I like the idea of replacing that with links to great resources like the ones everyone has been suggesting in this thread. I'll work on that.

[Maya]

I also use Shields and all about mormons and Anicent America Foundation and antiantimormon.com and mormon fortress and Jeff Lindsay and Brant Gardners page, Poulsens page, Book of mormon evidence, mormonantropoleticsite, mormon sites, and ofcourse FAIR, Farms, BYU, blacklds, LDSorgand mormon.org

[Heather]

I've added the Resources link at the top of the page. Please everyone try your best to site a source with your responses, if so fitting. Thanks! :)

[LdsNana]

WillowTheWhisp, Oh yes that's totally fine. I think we have a great opportunity to be able to state our beliefs, and then also back them up with scholarly sources. Combining these together could really make these forums a great resource to so many people on many different levels.

skalenfehl, great idea. I think it would be better to make it even more prominent, and place it throughout the entire site, so it's accessible outside of the forums too. I see I took the "bookmark" link off the forum side, but on the main site, if you click on "bookmark" you get a drop down of all these bookmarking sites. I like the idea of replacing that with links to great resources like the ones everyone has been suggesting in this thread. I'll work on that.

Heather,

Please do not mis-understand my voice here on this comment. But I am concerned that a "good" answer requires a "scholarly" person's back-up in order to be credible.

Does this mean unless a poster here on Lds.Net accompanies their comments with a "credible" comment from a "scholarly" work, then it is not then credible?

Could we not say, that the very best response that could be given, is one that is doctrinally sound, and perhaps uses the "scriptures" themselves as the credible source and not necessarily a "scholars" interpretation of the scriptures or our doctrines?

What about quotes from our general authorities and prophets? How do these fit in with a credible post when responding online?

Is there any concern, with placing too much emphasis on "credible" resources to back up our posts, that we will lose focus on allowing the Spirit to teach those who may be investigating the Church?

Many people today, are very turned off by this whole scholar as experts idea. Is this being considered at all here on LdsNet? And please, I am not being derogatory.

Delete this post, if it is uncomfortable that I have questioned these thoughts. I am just a bit concerned at the balance?

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon

P.S. How do we see Lds.Net so different, other than with a bit more censorship, than say a forum like MADB?

[Ray A]

Is there any concern, with placing too much emphasis on "credible" resources to back up our posts, that we will lose focus on allowing the Spirit to teach those who may be investigating the Church?

Many people today, are very turned off by this whole scholar as experts idea. Is this being considered at all here on LdsNet? And please, I am not being derogatory.

I know this question was directed to Heather, but I'd like to give my opinion, if you don't mind.

Mormon scholars like Professor Daniel C. Peterson have hugely influenced my opinion of Mormonism. It may surprise you to learn that one of the main reasons I was re-baptised into the Church, a skeptic like me, was because of Professor Peterson's writings. I was once his fierce critic, too, but his intelligence swayed me back to his opinion, and I retain a certain open-mindedness because of that.

I am not a critic of "feeling", nor testimony, but a testimony, or feeling, is simply, alone, not good enough to gauge truth. If a testimony is valid, it will be backed by "evidential fruits". Orson Pratt fervently argued this.

I fully realise that Mormon scholars are subjected to criticism within the Church itself, by those who feel they know absolute truth through feeling alone. On this basis, you open yourself to all sorts of charges, such as you are no different to other denominations who rely solely on "feeling". Do you take out an insurance policy only on feeling? Do you make an investiment only on feeling? Do you buy a car only on feeling? Or do you check the car's history? Why should these criteria be any different in the search for religious and spiritual truth? Is there some kind of exception here? And why should I believe you over Muslims, who "feel" the Qur'an is the absolute "word of God"?

There are some valid tests that can be made here, which do not denigrate testimony, but which in fact add to conviction. I could accept Islam, but my faculties persuade me to go beyond "feeling" in that regard. So there must be a healthy mix of opposites. "Study it out in your mind", and gain knowledge. Did Joseph ask his followers to rely solely on feeling? I don't for one minute believe that. If Mormonism is to "add up", it must appeal to both intellectual and spiritual faculties. If it doesn't, you're going to have mass apostasy on your hands.

P.S. How do we see Lds.Net so different, other than with a bit more censorship, than say a forum like MADB?

Censorship, in any form, will alienate the best minds on forums, including those who have no beef with Mormonism, but valid criticisms, which should be able to stand the test. And I believe they can. But if you want to go on 'feeling" alone - you can count me out.

[LdsNana]

Ray -

Thank you very much for your intelligent reply.

I hope you do not get the idea, that I feel that Mormon scholars and their works do not have their place in not only missionary work, but also in building faith... because I do.

I speak out, on this concern, because I have spent over a year online doing "missionary" work, so to speak. I have spent much time over at On Faith, MADB, and various other LDS related blogs. I have used other user names in doing so...

I have rarely, if ever... to my knowlegde, seen hearts change to a point of conversion, when utilizing facts, evidences and proofs.

I have had wonderful conversations, with many who are oppositional to the LDS faith in using these resources unto reasoning and finding some understanding. But over the course of an entire year+... it has been my personal experience that most often, when we attempt to share the Gospel using these resources too strongly... we end up becoming entwined.

I personally, love the study of The gospel of Jesus Christ from many different angles. I agree, that many scholarly works of credible LDS men and women are powerful.

I have an LDS personal library in the hundreds.

I am most interested in these resources as applied to missionary work... I believe that there must be a balance of scholarly research, personal study and understanding - coupled and led by the Spirit when we "teach" online.

I have a firm belief, that when members of the Church, speak themselves authoritatively by the power of the Spirit - that there is no greater witness that another who is listening to one of such... could be blessed enough be a recipient of... and you can quote me on that:-)

I hope that "our" conversation, is considered positive and healthy here on LdsNet and will be considered by all those who go about to share the gospel.

Sharing the Gospel online (IMHO) is teaching that which "we" of ourselves have come to know by and through, the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

(perhaps I will write of an experience told, of a recent returned missionary who bears this powerful witness over in the "Share the Gospel" group...)

May we all go about, armed with that truth which we have received, because we have sought to know it for ourselves... and can now go forth with personal power accompanied by the Spirit of the Lord.

Again, thank you for taking the time to enter this discussion with me.

tDMg

LdsNana:)

(p.s. with all the available resources LdsNet is making available for users... , and so kindly... perhaps we could have some basic commentary for the "scriptures" made just as easily available... I am not sure which they would choose to break down the scriptures a bit more for general consumption, but perhaps their own LdsBlogs website, which phenomenal group of LDS authors teaching on all things LDS - could somehow be zeroed in on.... )

[prisonchaplain]

One of the main purposes in using pro-LDS articles or sites as references in responses, is to provide a short answer, with the offering of a much lengthier one to those who bring up Frequently Asked Questions.

Come to think of it, maybe there should be a section on the site for FAQs nonmembers ask. Some might contain particularly well done posts by site members, and others links to pro-LDS articles from other reputable sites.

Hmmm...who will Heather give this homework too???

[Ray A]

Hi LdsNana,

I have read your posts on MADB (I think), and although I no longer post there I still read the board often. And yes, I'm inclined to agree with you that change seldom if ever occurs. If anything some members become skeptical, or even lose faith, because there's so much negativity, and I believe it's this cynicism and negativity towards the Church or the gospel which can taint views (really, there's not much new they can tell me to change my views). For the mods there it must be like swatting flies all day. LOL. I'm sure my critics will appreciate that description, as I'm very much loved by exmos (insert sarcasm here).

I can, however, document one change with 100 per cent accuracy - mine. I was rather negative, sometimes angry, before I started posting on FAIR (later to become MAD ) in mid-2004. It didn't take long for me to change and become more positive, and actually see (once again) the LDS side very clearly, and eventually to become very sympathetic with it (I'm not suggesting I agree in toto). Being surrounded by so many informed and positive LDS posters facilitated this, not the least being Professor Peterson himself, whom I later met in person. I am convinced that the atmosphere of a board can in large measure determine how one views Mormonism. You can look for mud, or you can look at the stars, basically it's an individual choice. The glass is either half-empty, or half-full. You decide. Hopefully the posters who come here, and also read your webpages, will be positively influenced. I'm working on a blog myself, but I'm not opening it publicly yet, until more work is done, and I want that emphasis to be positive too (unlike the last deleted one which was too negative, and anti-anti-Mormon). In further agreeing with you, I have quit posting on boards dominated by negative critics who only want to pick at the Church or Mormonism. That, truly, is a waste of time. More often than not it ends up in a dogfight, with the mods having to spend lots of time pulling the dogs apart. I wouldn't like to see this BB become like that.

I know that the Spirit is the ultimate converter and sustainer, but this mostly occurs in real life, or by viewing online videos. When people post on a forum they can't get the full effect all the time, and they're going to look at the quality of written debate, and information. So barring some Brother-of-Jared-like writer who can persuade through the written word, relevant information is important - facts. Reason. And importantly, scriptural knowledge.

Section 88:

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom. 78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you.

History (including LDS history), politics, astronomy, current affairs, geology, biology, science in general, and so forth. Remember, this is a commandment , "That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you".

This is why I've said simply bearing testimony, although very effective and powerful, is not enough. Do you think the Lord knows better? Do you think He knows what the Saints need to fulfill the mission assigned? I think it was Brigham Young who said if a man (or woman) only read the scriptures, they'd be very narrowminded people. Hugh Nibley said similar, and I refer you to his great essay, "Zeal Without Knowledge".

http://www.thereasonableman.com/wp-content/Nibley_Zeal_Without_Knowledge.pdf (PDF)

Extract:

Some years ago, when it was pointed out that BYU graduates were the lowest in the nation in all categories of

the Graduate Record Examination, the institution characteristically met the challenge by abolishing the

examination. It was done on the grounds that the test did not sufficiently measure our unique "spirituality." We

talked extensively about "the education of the whole man" and deplored that educational imbalance that comes

when students' heads are merely stuffed with facts—as if there was any danger of that here! But actually,

serious imbalance is impossible if one plays the game honestly: true zeal feeds on knowledge, true knowledge

cannot exist without zeal. Both are "spiritual" qualities. All knowledge is the gospel, but there must be a priority,

"proper degrees," as the Prophet says, in the timing and emphasis of our learning, lest like the doctors of the

Jews, we "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" (Matthew 23:24). Furthermore, since one person does not

receive revelation for another, if we would exchange or convey knowledge, we must be willing to have our

knowledge

tested......

True knowledge never shuts the door on more knowledge, but zeal often does. One thinks of the dictum, "We

are not seeking for truth at the BYU, we have the truth!" So did Adam and Abraham have the truth, far greater

and more truth than what we have, and yet the particular genius of each was that he was constantly "seeking

for

greater light and knowledge" (cf. Abraham 1:2). (Emphasis added)

So what is missionary work? Missionary work is all encompassing! We are not in the days of Noah where one had to preach standing on a rock, we have the Internet, endless resources of knowledge, both of the gospel and the world, and Mormons will also have challenges from critics and the critical who are informed.

As Neal A. Maxwell quote C.S. Lewis:

"Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." (Austin Farrer on C. S. Lewis.)

There is no need to become contentious, an argument is a reply to a criticism, or a proposition made for a certain position. I realise that this is not want many want in following Elder Ballard's call to blog, and perhaps Elder Ballard didn't envision this either, and simply providing resources for non-members to examine the Church is fine. But, many of these investigators will go to the critics, and to their forums. I'm not suggesting you engage them on their forums, or this one, in fact I advise against it, because as you noted it's mostly fruitless. What I am suggesting is that missionary work has to go beyond simply placing facts on websites, and simply bearing testimony, which is difficult online. Not quite the same effect as someone actually attending a Fast and Testimony meeting. If an investigator senses a certain smugness about one's testimony, and an attitude of "we have all the truth, we need no more" (see Nibley above), they will turn off.

That's all I have time for today. And I've put aside my plan to only to domestics today, and avoid addictive boards, so that I can reply to LdsNana. I hope it has been helpful.

Ray.

[LdsNana]

Nice work Ray... a great discussion has been had here:-) I am so glad that "mine" has been your experience with this type of investigation.

Once again, my only concern in bringing my point into the discussion, was to ensure a balance here on LdsNet for all who are givers and receivers of what is offered here...

If we are hopeful to engage with both the scholar and the lay-members, we must make sure all feel at home sharing the Gospel with the best of their abilities and intentions.

The bar is raised right now for missionary work, and we want to maintain a balance on the horizon... that we all may see together what is in the distance...

tDMg

LdsNana

[Elphaba]

I'm sure my critics will appreciate that description, as I'm very much loved by exmos (insert sarcasm here).

Hey Ray!

I am one of those exmos, and I like you very much!

I can, however, document one change with 100 per cent accuracy - mine. I was rather negative, sometimes angry, before I started posting on FAIR (later to become MAD ) in mid-2004. It didn't take long for me to change and become more positive, and actually see (once again) the LDS side very clearly, and eventually to become very sympathetic with it (I'm not suggesting I agree in toto). Being surrounded by so many informed and positive LDS posters facilitated this, not the least being Professor Peterson himself, whom I later met in person.

You know, this is very interesting to me.

I almost wrote Heather a PM, warning her of sending some of the more "naive" posters to FAIR, who might wend their way to MADD, specifically because of posters like Dr. Peterson. I understand you respect him and I am truly very happy for your reconversion. All I am going to say is that it is obvious in your posts that your life has taken on a sense of beauty and peace. I am moved by it.

However, I could not disagree with you more about Dr. Peterson. His arrogance, his endless inside jokes which were never funny to me, (and yes, I got the joke), his always getting the last post in after the thread was locked, his getting away with writing things that were not true (this happened with me twice), just in general the fact that he could do nothing wrong and get away with it over and over and over, just was too much for me.

And then you combine Pahoran, and a few other people I won't name to keep their identities quiet, and MADD became to me the nastiest, meanest board I'd ever been to. I doubt anyone here will believe me, but I posted at the most maybe 60 posts there the entire five years I visited it. And by the end of that five years, I despised that board. Much of that was due to Peterson. I could not stand his cockiness one more day.

I know you and I discussed another board that you disliked and I am okay with. All boards are going to be seen different by the member. Just as you said, you can look for mud or you can look at the stars.

The reason I mention it now is I am still a little concerned about sending people to FAIR who might end up at MADD who know very little about the Church. Time and time again I'd see someone with very little knowledge get trounced and accused of being a troll by all of the self-ascribed academics. And yes, I am aware of all of the Phds. So what? They were all Phduhs to me.

Some of the people .net is going to send to FAIR, and maybe MADD, are going to be so uninformed about the Church they are going to appear like a troll to the "team." So I'm writing this missive hoping you may have some idea how to let them know they will be getting some people from .net, and to BE NICE!

I realize you won't agree with me on much of this, especially Dr. Peterson, and frankly, I am having a giggle about that right now. So, no hard feelings.

Elphaba

[Ray A]

I realize you won't agree with me on much of this, especially Dr. Peterson, and frankly, I am having a giggle about that right now. So, no hard feelings.

Elphaba

LdsNana and Elphaba, thanks for your posts. To Nana, different strokes, different approaches. I'm not trying to dominate anything here, just giving my opinions, in the hope of being helpful to LDS in taking a wise approach to all of this. In the end it is LDS who make the calls here - not me.

Elphaba, your opinion of Dr. Peterson seems quite dominant among the exmo community. I have had my own very well documented verbal battles with Dan which go back to five years ago. The striking thing I noticed is that in the flesh he's very different to the board image, and many have also said this. I have to admit that coming from you I did take a bit more notice, but my experience is that Dr. Peterson is quite sensitive to crass, and uninformed, criticisms of Mormonism, especially those who seek to denigrate his religion, or attack it, sometimes out of spite. He has, after all, been sometimes described as the "chief apologist" for the Church (a description he himself does not claim). I admit he's not very tactful at times (neither am I, for that matter), and I too have been very critical of this in the past. He has, too, in case you don't realise, a few LDS critics as well. In fact some LDS criticism of his approach goes back to the early 1990s during his early editorship of the FARMS Review. Some felt he was being too forward in criticising anti-Mormons and critics. So, that is simply his nature in the apologetic/counter-apologetic world. It should also be noted that in spite of many criticisms, his critics also recognise his well-noted humour, and the fact that he doesn't go into the gutter, or below the belt, in responding, even if his replies often have a nasty sting through the sheer force of the use of irony and self-deprecating wit. I also noted this when I was his critic five years ago. He may be blunt, and sometimes irritating to critics, but he's never nasty, something that unfortunately cannot be said of some of his critics, among the more malicious ones. I view their malicious obsession with him as worse than anything I've ever seen coming from his keyboard.

In regard to the MADB/LDSTalk comparisons, I noted yesterday that this board has nearly twice the membership of MADB. And I believe more active members. So something here obviously appeals to "mainstream" Mormons (of all backgrounds, not just "scholarly" ones), which they don't see on MADB. I am interested in discussions about Mormonism as a Church, as a people, and as a culture, and it's a culture I still associate with to some degree, and that culture is formed by the beliefs to some extent. One thing I'd like to see is tolerance for all viewpoints, not "TBMs" seeing Satan at work in every corner or in every post of a critic, nor exmos/critics lambasting or insulting Mormons. I am heartened that a Christian is among the moderators (PC), one who can express his own difference of opinion with Mormons, without resorting to denigration, and I'm also heartened by a wide variety of opinions among Mormons themselves.

Unfortunately, that's all I have time for today as I'm rather busy during my working days/nights, but I hope the discussion continues.