Perhaps the most noteworthy offspring of FAIR is the rarely mentioned organization known as SHIELDS, which is an acronym for "Scholarly & Historical Information Exchange for Latter-Day Saints." The website claims that the aim of this organization is to inform Latter-day Saints about various issues. As usual, however, the site is rife with contradiction---a fact which none of the site operators seems to have noticed. For example, the site claims that "Those individuals who constitute SHIELDS are members of the church and have an interest in defending and promoting it for the benefit of mankind", and yet, in the same breath, the site warns members, "We encourage LDS members to not argue with our critics and it is not the purpose of this web site to do so." Huh? How can the folks at SHIELDS claim to be mounting a "defense" against "anti-Mormon criticisms" on the one hand, and yet advise members against "arguing" on the other? It seems that this is merely symptomatic of the often schizophrenic nature of Mopologetics writ large.
Another intriguing aspect of SHIELDS is the story of its inception. The website gives the following account:
The original SHIELDS was founded by Doug Marshall & Doug Yancey, church members in Georgia who have a history of strongly defending the faith. They decided it would be more effective to organize and coordinate their efforts with others. Their initial thrust focused on Utah Missions Incorporated (UMI) of Marlow, Oklahoma where they were very effective. Doug Marshall joined conversations on the FidoNet Mormon echo, accessed on BBSs throughout the world. Founders of this Web site became acquainted with the two Dougs who gave permission to use the SHIELDS name. No formal organization ever existed nor does at this time. The SHIELDS web site was originally placed on the Internet in February of 1997 in a subdomain site. In May of 1997 SHIELDS obtained its current domain name.
A bit further on down, we are given this rather bizarro piece of information about one of SHIELDS's founding members:
Doug Marshall
Doug is no longer associated with the LDS Church.
Why, I ask, did the folks at SHIELDS feel that this would be a faith-promoting piece of information to relate? I am glad that they did, but still. This seems grievously ill-advised.
Elsewhere in the site (which is somewhat difficult to navigate), under the heading of "Information/Articles," one can access the bulk of SHIELDS's intellectual content. Especially interesting is a piece entitled "42 Questions", which is apparently a response to an appendix of a book entitled The Maze of Mormonism. On the webpage, a heading at the top helpfully explains that "Colored "General Topics" and "Issues" indicate that the question has been answered." Sadly, the bulk of the questions, including especially juicy ones on topics like "Negroes and the priesthood", have not been answered. In fact, only about half of the questions have actually been addressed. The person responsible for this, a character named Stan Barker, has apparently not found either the time or the energy to complete this project. Nevertheless, what work has been completed is seen fit for thanks by the administrators of the site, i.e., "Most importantly we wish to thank a kind and loving Heavenly Father for His timely blessings during the course of this work."
As for the actual content of these "42 Questions," Barker and et. al. produce wild, vaguely racist apologetics such as this (from the "White and Delightsome" question), which calls to mind Spencer Kimball's comments on the lightning skin color of Native Americans:
The critic fails to mention that Nephi, prophesying about the latter days and the events to take place among "the remnant of his seed," says that "many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people."10 Nephi makes it clear that while God removed the curse of a "skin of blackness" from the repentant Lamanites of 14 A.D., in the latter days, if such a skin color change occurs at all, it might take much longer -- possibly generations.
Well, at least the LDS (or Mopologetic?) programme of praying for a totalistic race of "white and delightsome" members will come about after all! It will just take "generations."
Another intriguing feature of SHIELDS is their treatment of critics. In fact, this takes up a substantial amount of the site. One portion of this is entitled "Worst of the Anti-Mormon Web." Another is the so-called "Critics Corner," which is worth a more in-depth look. The Critics Corner at SHIELDS goes through the various critics of the LDS Church in a manner that is perhaps best elucidated via example. Here is their entry for CARM/Matt Slick:
(colored font ibid)Having been rejected for ordination to the Presbyterian ministry because of his ideas, Matthew J. Slick created a web site to promote himself. He says:
I am Reformed in theology and believe in the continuation of the spiritual gifts which is why my denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, has refused my ordination; they are cessationist.
Mr. Slick has placed his views of Mormonism on the Internet. He has challenged:
[emphasis mine - SDB]Now, before you go slamming me with some irate e-mail telling me I don’t know what I am talking about, first read my material on my site, and if I am wrong, correct me by showing precisely where I am wrong. Document the sources you want to quote to prove me wrong. If you do, I’ll change my page.
He also tells us "The web site is very well documented...." Yet all we find there are rehashes of old anti-Mormon material. Mr. Slick has fallen into the same unethical sloppiness that can be found among most critics of the LDS Church, i.e., he quotes word for word from some other anti-Mormon, but fails to give credit to the original source. (We'll concede the possibility that he simply doesn't know the origin of some of these statements and merely chooses to repeat them.) An excellent example of this practice can be found in the final question responded to by John A. Tvedtnes, in the article listed below. This question came, word for word, from Bob Witte and can be found on our 42 Questions section, Question 36.
Whether or not Mr. Slick will "change [his] page" as he claims, remains to be seen. We suspect that, as with most critics who have made this claim, nothing will happen. We hope we are proven wrong. It would be a nice change. Other issues raised by Mr. Slick will be addressed further at a later date.
It is intriguing that A) Stan Barker decided to emphasize parts of the text by highlighting it in purple, and B) that he is apparently advocating a form of censorship. Elsewhere in the Critics Corner, folks such as Infymus are bashed:
"The Mormon Curtain" is an anti-Mormon blog site. The curator of the site calls himself "Infymus." His real name is Michael Hoenie. The site seems to be a location where critics of the LDS Church can toot their own horn and speak in demeaning and sarcastic ways, both to garner attention to themselves and to draw feigned sympathy. Intelligent readers can discern such nonsense for exactly what it is, but unfortunately there are those who do not understand the whole picture and can be deceived by these folks. Trying to keep up with a blog is a full time job in itself. We shall not attempt to do so, but will post items from time to time that may demonstrate the base prejudices and insecurities of these folks. Some are college professors and professionals in the media, but speak in taunting and demeaning terms as if they were still were still in grade school. This alone should demonstrate the level of their abilities.
They helpfully provide a link to dialog between DCP and Infymus in the form of several back-and-forth emails. Another Critics Corner entry features the RfM poster known as SusieQ:
On the Internet there is a message board named Recovery from Mormonism. On it can be found some of the most bitter language about the LDS Church, its leaders and even just plain members. "SusieQ." is a participant on this board and has occasionally vented her feelings about Dr. Daniel C. Peterson. One such venting occurred after an article written by Dr. Peterson and Dr. William Hamblin appeared in the online Internet periodical named "Meridian Magazine." After several exchanges with Dr. Peterson, SusieQ. denied him permission to pass on her correspondence to other interested parties. In the months that followed, SusieQ. publicly claimed, many times, that Dr. Peterson had treated her with brutal contempt in their exchange. However, she never furnished any actual specimens of his supposed viciousness so that readers could judge her claims for themselves. As the correspondence is Dr. Peterson's to do with as he pleases, he has requested that SHIELDS make it available. We do so without editorial comment. The readers can evaluate for themselves SusieQ's attitude about the church and her accusations of cruel treatment by Dr. Peterson.
This entry, too, contains a list of correspondence between and critic and DCP. SHIELDS is apparently a kind of repository for this sort of thing.
In any case, perhaps the most classic element on the entire SHIELDS website is the "Correspondence." My personal favorite is this exchange with a reader named Jon Steed:
Name: Jon Steed
Website:
Referred by: Just Surfed On In
From: SLC, UT
Time: 1998-06-19 11:20:38
Comments: I looked around on the site for quite a while, but couldn't seem to find any real substance; I was particularly amused at how few of the 42 questions had been answered (I use answered lightly). I can imagine how difficult your position must be; I too would be at a loss if someone demanded that I try to dispell [sic] myths about the earth not being flat, the moon not being green cheese, or the Mormon [sic] church not being false hope for a modest 10% membership fee.
Our response:
Mr. Steed,
Jon, thank you for visiting the SHIELDS web site and for your comments. Since you chose to comment publicly and left no e-mail address, we are responding publicly.
"I looked around on the site for quite a while, but couldn't seem to find any real substance;"
We are often amused by the critics who visit our site and make silly comments like yours. We have challenged each of them to demonstrate where any answer we have provided is either in error or does not substantially answer the issue. We extend the same challenge to you. It is easy to go on a web site and "blow smoke" in a guest book, it is a whole different matter to back up your words. Either you didn't search very carefully, don't understand the issues, or don't understand what you are reading. If you care to demonstrate otherwise, we will post your comments and our reply on our web site. As of the date of this response there are 47 articles on our web site. Most of these have enough substance that to date only one critic has made any attempt to refute any article, and it was a pathetic attempt. In addition we have links to numerous articles on specific issues on a number of other web sites. Also, this does not count materials on our web site that were written by LDS Church critics.
"I was particularly amused at how few of the 42 questions had been answered (I use answered lightly)."
Why does that amuse you? We may not have posted many responses yet, but remember, we are not a "paid ministry." We do what we can in our spare time.
"(I use answered lightly)."
Instead of blowing smoke, please demonstrate where we are wrong or where the question is not adequately answered. According to you it should be easy. Since you think the responses are inadequate, please demonstrate their errors. We would then put your scholarship on our site for the world to see.
"I can imagine how difficult your position must be;"
The only reason our position is "difficult" is that we don't have people paying us to spend our full time doing this. Despite this limitation we have been averaging roughly one new item a day on our web site. That is far above the average for a small, unsupported, religious web site.
"I too would be at a loss if someone demanded that I try to dispell myths about the earth not being flat, the moon not being green cheese, or the Mormon church not being false hope for a modest 10% membership fee."
Based on your comments and since you are from SLC, we wonder if some of the "kindly" Baptist Convention "Christian" information has rubbed off on to you.
1. We are very curious to find out who you think "demanded" anything from us?
2. Based on the articles that appear on the SHIELDS web site, we have certainly demonstrated that we are not at a loss. It also seems to be a rather paradoxical position for you to take when there are so many contradictory positions within the "Christian" church. Examples of difficult things to explain might include, among many others, the 35+ interpretations of 1 Cor. 15:29 or the idea of needing to formulate the Nicene Creed instead of merely letting the Bible speak for itself.
Certainly by using weird analogies in a weak attempt to create some kind of false association, you only demonstrate your lack of knowledge concerning the state of evidence for the LDS Church.
We think you get the point, at least we hope you do. You live in a glass house, so you might profit from asking instead of making wild accusations that are obviously meant to demean and injure. That way you might learn.
Here's hoping to hear from you,
Stan Barker
Malin Jacobs
Gene Humbert
A few thoughts. It is interesting that Barker & et. al. respond in the way that they do. They first express their mirth and amusement at this "silly" critic, then they go on to berate him for being lazy and a poor reader. Next, they go on about how what they are doing is somehow noble because they are not being payed to do it. Then, they accuse Mr. Steed of being "tainted" by various other Christian organizations in SLC. After this, the go on to attack the '"Christian" church'!. Somebody apparently has an itchy trigger finger.
Of course, the above letter and response date from the late 1990s. Since that time, it appears that SHIELDS's steam has dwindled away even further. Whereas in 1998 they were able to boast about "averaging roughly one new item a day on our web site", now they do little more than link to FAIR articles, or make announcements about upcoming conferences. (The last four updates to the site were added in January and March of this year. Now Barker and et. al. are averaging less that one new item a month.) What new material is added is along the lines of the very silly debate between Professor Bill Hamblin and James White about who had read such-and-such a book at which time, or DCP's spin doctoring to the SL Trib regarding his involvement with the More Good Foundation.
In summary: it seems that SHIELDS exists these days primarily as a way for these fringe Mopologists to broadcast email exchanges in which bigger figures from Mopologetics have participated. Does the waning activity on SHIELDS point to a larger problem within LDS Apologetics? Was Jon Steed's assessment correct? Does the slowing down of Barker and et. al's maintenance of the site signal a system in distress? Was co-founder of SHIELDS Doug Marshall's departure from the LDS Church somehow indicative of a larger, Internet-related trend? Only time will tell!