Dorky cover to new FAIR book.

[_Boaz & Lidia]

Regarding this speaking as a man business. Would it be okay if I spoke as a man from Jersey?

Of course! ;)

(Actually, you are a Goddess, but that's beside the point!)

yeah but you two still have to sit to pee.

*snickers*

[_Dr. Shades]

It's aimed at the average Mormon. I try to deal with the feelings & reasons some people leave, how they handle cog dis & then get into concise responses to the most common arguments (with references to more detailed responses).

In order to prevent them from leaving the church, is your tactic to reinforce the viability of Chapel Mormonism, or is it to convert them to Internet Mormonism?

[_MAsh]

It's aimed at the average Mormon. I try to deal with the feelings & reasons some people leave, how they handle cog dis & then get into concise responses to the most common arguments (with references to more detailed responses).

In order to prevent them from leaving the church, is your tactic to reinforce the viability of Chapel Mormonism, or is it to convert them to Internet Mormonism?

:0

[_harmony]

Basic premise: I haven't read the book, and I likely never will. I have a few questions for the author, if he would be so kind as to read:

1. Why did you choose this topic as one worthy to devote the kind of time it took to write this book? Do you see this "syndrome" as significant enough for the Brethren to refer to it directly in conference, or is this a minor issue to them?

2. Have you observed this to a significant degree in the real world or is this simply something you've observed in the microscopic world of Internet Mormonism?

3. Do you have any foundation (statistics, surveys, etc) on which to base the idea that this syndrome even exists?

Thanks.

[_Mercury]

Regarding this speaking as a man business. Would it be okay if I spoke as a man from Jersey?

Of course! ;)

(Actually, you are a Goddess, but that's beside the point!)

yeah but you two still have to sit to pee.

*snickers*

don't worry girls, I have a fix for you. I think if you use it you are technically elligible for the priesthood.

http://www.biorelief.com/store/Lady-J-Female-Adapter.html

[_Droopy]

Somebody needs to invest in an art director, if you ask me. This looks like the cover to a B Sci Fi movie from the '50s.

http://store.fairlds.org/prod/p1893036081.html

Hardly.

Get serious.

[_MAsh]

Basic premise: I haven't read the book, and I likely never will. I have a few questions for the author, if he would be so kind as to read:

1. Why did you choose this topic as one worthy to devote the kind of time it took to write this book? Do you see this "syndrome" as significant enough for the Brethren to refer to it directly in conference, or is this a minor issue to them?

2. Have you observed this to a significant degree in the real world or is this simply something you've observed in the microscopic world of Internet Mormonism?

3. Do you have any foundation (statistics, surveys, etc) on which to base the idea that this syndrome even exists?

Thanks.

Over two decades ago I read one of Walter Martin's books and was disturbed by some of his claims. I began to study to see if his claims were accurate-- they typically were not (admittedly, Martin was on the low end of what today often consists of more sophisticated LDS-critical arguments). Sometime later I saw an ad in a local paper (I was living in Colorado at the time) for the movie, the God Makers (also low-end criticism). I attended, thinking I had the answers to whatever chargers were made. I did not. I left the movie feeling sick and wondering if at least some of the claims were true. I wanted to find to study the issues deeper.

It was about that time that I was first introduced to Hugh Nibley, BYU Studies, FARMS, Sunstone, & Dialouge. I read everything I could get my hands on. The arguments made by the God Makers seemed weak compared to the other studies I read. In the later 80s, while living in Utah I was given a computer by which I could access on-line discussion groups concerning LDS issues (I don't recall the exact year, but I remember it was either before the WWW, or at leas the WWW was in an infancy to which I didn't have access. I had a DOS command computer & there were no graphics or graphical inter-faces to the discussion lists).

I discovered then that there were others like me who were struggling with some of the issues presented in anti-Mormon literature (since the web as we know it was not then available, all of these people were "Chapel Mormons" <g>). Since I had studied some of these issues I began to communicate with those who struggled with the same difficulties. I also began to encounter more sophisticated contra-LDS arguments.

Through the years I've encountered many more members who have stumbled upon LDS-critical arguments and have not known what to make of the accusations. Some have lost their testimonies and have resigned from the Church; some have come to grips with the issues and have stayed; others are somewhere in between.

I started my own website MormonFortress.com years ago before I knew about FAIR. I created it to make a respository of the responses I had written to help others. About a year after FAIR was organized I discovered them & joined like-minded individuals-- apologists.

I've always enjoyed writing and so I contributed articles to FAIR & kept writing some for MormonFortress.

Realizing that not everyone surfs the Internet as much as we do (not everyone is a "internet" Mormon or critic [and I use this term, tongue planted firmly in cheek], and that many people are unfamiliar with FAIR, I thought it might be helpful to produce a book.

I began writing my book about 3 years ago-- relying to some degree on the articles I had already written as well as doing research on new information.

That's the background & probably more than you wanted to know. As to your specific questions.

1. I think the brethren are aware that at least some members leave because of LDS-critical material-- much of which is easily available on the Internet. Like the problem of pornography (and please don't take this to mean that I'm equating all critics with porn-makers), some things invade us regardless if we're really searching for it. Someone preparing for an EQ lesson can easily stumble upon LDS-critical material that could damage a testimony.

I don't know if the Brethren think it's a big problem, but I'm sure they know it exists and I think they are trying to find ways to help those who struggle. I would bet $ that you'll never hear my book's title mentioned in Conference.

2. Both- see my background above. I don't see it very often in the real world, but I do know people (sometimes close people) who have either struggled or left the Church because of contra-LDS claims. I simply want to give my reasons for not accepting those claims.

3. No statistics or surveys. My information is strictly ancedotal-- either from experience with those direcltly who have struggled (sometimes people I've known in my persona life, or those who have emailed me, etc.) The problem definately exists (and can certainly be found on this board, MA&D, RFM, etc.) but I have no idea as to the actual degree.

I hope I've answered your questions satisfactorily.

Mike

[_harmony]

That's the background & probably more than you wanted to know.

Thank you for the background. It's always interesting to know more about the posters here.

1. I think the brethren are aware that at least some members leave because of LDS-critical material-- much of which is easily available on the Internet. Like the problem of pornography (and please don't take this to mean that I'm equating all critics with porn-makers), some things invade us regardless if we're really searching for it. Someone preparing for an EQ lesson can easily stumble upon LDS-critical material that could damage a testimony.

Sometimes it's best to resist the temptation to bring a controversial subject into an analogy.

If the member in question had a testimony of sufficient strength to be a ward leader, why would anything shake it? (I'm one of those people who thinks the Vault should be open, the Brethren should shout our history from the mountain tops, and the books should be open. Then all the weapons our leaders fear would be disarmed.) If we have nothing to hide, why are we hiding things?

I don't know if the Brethren think it's a big problem, but I'm sure they know it exists and I think they are trying to find ways to help those who struggle. I would bet $ that you'll never hear my book's title mentioned in Conference.

How do you think the Brethren are addressing the problem? Do you ever foresee a time of complete disclosure, where nothing is hidden, and therefore the church's attackers would have no ammunition?

Because I see the current policy as completely wrong-headed.

2. Both- see my background above. I don't see it very often in the real world, but I do know people (sometimes close people) who have either struggled or left the Church because of contra-LDS claims. I simply want to give my reasons for not accepting those claims.

So not often. You have no idea how that disappoints me.

3. No statistics or surveys. My information is strictly ancedotal-- either from experience with those direcltly who have struggled (sometimes people I've known in my persona life, or those who have emailed me, etc.) The problem definitely exists (and can certainly be found on this board, MA&D, RFM, etc.) but I have no idea as to the actual degree.

Do you think these boards are in any way representative of a larger group of people in the real world? The church has 12+ million members, of which probably 1/3 are actually active. This seems like a pretty small community, in comparision. I know few of my ward members would even be interested in participating on a board such as these.

I hope I've answered your questions satisfactorily.

Mike

Thanks for your respectful reply. I am seldom treated thusly. (strangely enough, I've found that members like me are almost universally despised by both sides. Not TBM enough for the LDS, not anti enough for the nonbelievers.)

harmony

[Guest]

1. I think the brethren are aware that at least some members leave because of LDS-critical material-- much of which is easily available on the Internet. Like the problem of pornography (and please don't take this to mean that I'm equating all critics with porn-makers), some things invade us regardless if we're really searching for it. Someone preparing for an EQ lesson can easily stumble upon LDS-critical material that could damage a testimony.

Sometimes it's best to resist the temptation to bring a controversial subject into an analogy.

But there are similarities which makes the analogy work. With the internet, more people are exposed to anti-Mormon arguments then ever before-- same with pornography. Both can have detrimental results. In both instances, people can stumble across it without looking. For both, many Mormons would never had gone out to purchase and bring the material in their home before-- now, because of easy access, it's right there in front of them.

If the member in question had a testimony of sufficient strength to be a ward leader, why would anything shake it?

That's a complicated one for which I attempt to provide some possibilities in my book.

(I'm one of those people who thinks the Vault should be open, the Brethren should shout our history from the mountain tops, and the books should be open. Then all the weapons our leaders fear would be disarmed.) If we have nothing to hide, why are we hiding things?

The records are more open than you may suppose. Did you attend last year's FAIR Conference?

I don't know if the Brethren think it's a big problem, but I'm sure they know it exists and I think they are trying to find ways to help those who struggle. I would bet $ that you'll never hear my book's title mentioned in Conference.

How do you think the Brethren are addressing the problem?

There have been more apologetic-related articles in the Church News & the LDS.org web site has had some apologetic reponses or links (such as to the DNA issue). There's much more that could be done.

Do you ever foresee a time of complete disclosure, where nothing is hidden, and therefore the church's attackers would have no ammunition?

See above as to last year's FAIR Conference (I also address this to some degree in my book).

2. Both- see my background above. I don't see it very often in the real world, but I do know people (sometimes close people) who have either struggled or left the Church because of contra-LDS claims. I simply want to give my reasons for not accepting those claims.

So not often. You have no idea how that disappoints me.

I'm not sure why this disappoints you. By "real world" I assumed you meant in my physical surroundings. I've personally known less than a ten people in the past five years who have left the Church because of LDS-critical claims (several more have struggled with issues). I've had many, many more emails from people who have either left, have contemplated leaving, or were struggling with issues. Obviously, those who sent emails are still in the "real world" but they are not people who I know face to face. I recognize that my book addresses a limited audience, but it is an audience who have real struggles nevertheless. As an imperfect analogy, I know of less than 10 people who have been sexually abused as children (and I don't know what the percentage of such people are, but I'm sure it's less than the number of people who die in car crashes daily or contract health problems due to smoking), yet they are people who are in need of help and books (etc.) are written to help them. In both case of struggling Mormons and sexually abused children, there are many more who never share their concerns-- so they are out there, but we generally don't know their stories.

3. No statistics or surveys. My information is strictly ancedotal-- either from experience with those direcltly who have struggled (sometimes people I've known in my persona life, or those who have emailed me, etc.) The problem definitely exists (and can certainly be found on this board, MA&D, RFM, etc.) but I have no idea as to the actual degree.

Do you think these boards are in any way representative of a larger group of people in the real world? The church has 12+ million members, of which probably 1/3 are actually active. This seems like a pretty small community, in comparision. I know few of my ward members would even be interested in participating on a board such as these.

My gut and experience on the Internet and physical members who have struggled suggests that there is a larger group-- although not huge. You're right about few members wanted to participate on boards such as this-- this is true of my ward as well. Nevertheless, we seek after the one lost sheep.

FAIR won't make a fortune on my book. We hope we break even. Any profits would be a bonus to help finance future conferences, etc. I won't make any money on this book unless we see a profit (and even then, I can't image I'd make more than a few hundred dollars at best). I didn't write it to make money & FAIR didn't publish it to make money. We know the audience is small. As believers in the LDS faith and in Christ's New Testament directives, however, we feel a need to reach out to those who we consider to be confused or lost. [/quote]

I hope I've answered your questions satisfactorily.

Mike

Thanks for your respectful reply. I am seldom treated thusly. (strangely enough, I've found that members like me are almost universally despised by both sides. Not TBM enough for the LDS, not anti enough for the nonbelievers.)

harmony

Thanks for your thoughtful questions. As I mentioned before, faith is a personal thing. We're all on our own journeys & and we all have to choose our own paths and determine what's right for us. I harbor no ill will to those who disagree. Because I believe in the basic teachings of the Church, I feel obligated to help-- by providing my thoughts-- to those who question.

Mike

[_Gadianton]

With the internet, more people are exposed to anti-Mormon arguments then ever before-- same with pornography. Both can have detrimental results

Funny, my results with both have only been positive. LOL!