Scott Gordon finally gets it

[_dartagnan]

I tried to express similar sentiments on the FAIR e-list five years ago, just before Gordon decided I was a "fundy" Mormon, and banned me.

This is an excerpt from his FAIR Journal message.

We get well over 100 questions each month. We had 150 sent to us just in the month of August alone. Typically the questions we get are from people who had an idea of what the Church was supposed to be like, and then didn't know how to handle it when their image didn't match something else they were told. The real question for us becomes how to respond.

In our recent, very successful FAIR conference one of the recurring themes was to treat people with kindness and to understand their pain. For example, we recently received this email from a member who is leaving the Church along with her family:

"I have studied Journal of Discourses, church history and am sad to say that the church is hiding so much information. They lie by omission. Deliberately lie. If people knew the truth they would not join. The church teachings aren't even the same as they were when I was growing up."

This was, of course, followed by the member claiming to have found the Church-hidden facts from studying books published by the Church. My first reaction was a strong temptation to respond that the Church was very clever to hide all of those disturbing facts in Church books where no one would read them. But then I started to ask myself what would really help this woman and her family. What would comfort her?

Should we compare the accessibility of information in our Church with other churches? Ours is amazingly accessible. There isn't much hidden for those who have the time and want to know. I have tried to get information from other church history libraries and find that while their historians are very nice, Mormons really are some of the best record keepers and they publish an incredible amount of historical information about the Church and its leaders. Should we point out that other churches have as much or more dirty laundry than ours? Just think of American history: the massacres, the injustices, the denial of rights, the lack of moral values, the racism, even the witch trials, all put forward in a mostly Protestant America.

But I really don't think any of these arguments will work. While these arguments might make us feel better, I doubt they would convince this member to stay in the Church and there is little to be gained by arguing that some things we have done may have been bad but some things others have done have been worse.

So, how should it be handled? What should we do? My answer is that I don't know. That's right, I am the president of the largest LDS apologetics organization, and I don't really know how to help her...

I know that the Church is filled with imperfect people who have extraordinary callings. These imperfect people rise to extraordinary heights and do amazing things. But, they also sometimes stumble and fall, even when acting within their calling.

So thinking of those things, the right answer is to try to listen. Before we start listing possible apologetics, we should try to discern what the person really wants and needs. Will this stop the woman from leaving the Church? Probably not. But, it may help her maintain a relationship with members of the Church. And it may help her maintain a relationship with God.

I received an email from an active member married to a man who has left the Church. She has remained married to him and tried to keep her family together. Unfortunately, some of her worst experiences came from members who would try to grill her on affiliating with individuals whose teachings are contrary to the Church. Some of the grilling was directly of her husband in front of her children. I have to ask myself how that less-active or non-member husband is now supposed to feel about the gospel. Would he feel it is a gospel of love?

I have read those allegedly "hidden" things that shock people out of the Church. Thinking of the miracle of the Church, those things don't shock me. Given the various personalities in the Church, I think it is a miracle that we get right the things that we do. But I know those things shock others. And I have to remember that they are not me. They are upset. They are hurt, and the hurting is real. I have to remember that in all of my conversations...

FAIR's mission is to provide well-documented answers to criticisms of LDS doctrine, belief, and practice. Most of those criticisms come from outside the Church, but they sometimes come from within. Sometimes we hear from people who claim the Church has been lead astray. We believe we are dealing with such an issue today. We have several different theories on Book of Mormon geography that are floating around. Even within our FAIR membership we have more than one theory. One brothernamed Rodney Meldrum has been promoting one such theory. RodneyMeldrum's activity came up on our radar screen not because he had a theory about Book of Mormon geography and not because he was claiming that other theories were wrong, but because of the accusation of not following Joseph Smith that was being lodged against faithful and sincere LDS scholars.

The review of Rodney Meldrum's material was difficult for us because it deals with the ideas of a fellow active member of the Church. To try to be fair with him, we provided him with a rough draft of the reviews on July 12 and asked him to get back to us by September 1. He agreed to tell us if there was anything in our critique with which he agreed, and if so what he was going to do to prevent the spread of bad information. He also agreed to tell us what he did not agree with, and why. We have received nothing back on either of those points.

It is the most genuine and sincere thing I have ever heard him say.

[_antishock8]

Q: What makes FAIR's Book of Mormon theory/theories any more legitimate than Mr. Meldrum's theory?

A: Nothing. Nada. Zippo. Zilch.

[_ScottLloyd]

I tried to express similar sentiments on the FAIR e-list five years ago, just before Gordon decided I was a "fundy" Mormon, and banned me.

This is an excerpt from his FAIR Journal message. . . It is the most genuine and sincere thing I have ever heard him say.

Though he acknowledges it probably wouldn't help much in discussions with the person who is leaving the church, Gordon does make a valid -- and rather obvious -- point: Claiming that the church is hiding things that one found while reading church books is, well, a tad self-contradictory.

[_truth dancer]

I think apologists are left trying to pick up the pieces of the church's dishonesty. Not an easy thing to do. I applaud Scott for acknowledging the problem.

My observation is that former believers are more upset with the dishonesty and misleading than they are about the actual issues, (not to diminish the seriousness of the many problematic historical events).

It is pretty difficult to realize (at least in the mind of the member), one has given ones life to a lie. :-(

What I think Scott still does not realize is that many members may not be interested in church history or in investigating something they do not know exists. Because he and other apologists may not have concerns they are the exception to the rule in my opinion.

And, some members (like myself) actually trusted the leaders of the church. I truly believed the negative comments or concerns were anti-mormon lies. I thought the leaders were honest and forthright; it did not occur to me to question for a minute their integrity and honesty.

OK, so if Scott wants to know how to help, I have one suggestion:

Ask the leaders to handle the problems rather than the group of self-proclaimed experts who are doing the dirty work.

The prophet and apostles are supposedly in communion with Christ... they are supposedly inspired and receiving revelation. They could answer all the questions in about one hour of General Conference but instead they are silent, asking (allowing ?) a small group of people to handle the difficulties. (A group of people some would say are not good representatives of the LDS church or its teachings).

While there are a few wonderful apologists, there are also quite a number who are really giving the LDS church a bad name. Many apologists proclaim beliefs that are far from anything the church actually teaches, and some are so off the wall that they make church doctrine and teachings even more confusing and complicated than they already are.

Again, why have self-proclaimed apologists answer the questions and concerns? Why isn't the leadership of the church coming forth to help members? Where is the prophet when members need guidance?

When will leaders understand that telling people to pray and obey is just not enough anymore? Ignoring the problems is not going to make them go away. Giving apologists the responsibility to help members is, in my opinion, not the answer when members believe they have a prophet who is guided/inspired by Jesus Christ.

~td~

[_harmony]

Why isn't the leadership of the church coming forth to help members? Where is the prophet when members need guidance?

In meetings deciding which block of downtown SLC to buy next.

[_bcspace]

I think apologists are left trying to pick up the pieces of the church's dishonesty.

What dishonesty?

Not an easy thing to do. I applaud Scott for acknowledging the problem.

Where did Scott acknowledge dishonesty?

[_Ray A]

Scott Gordon:

This was, of course, followed by the member claiming to have found the Church-hidden facts from studying books published by the Church. My first reaction was a strong temptation to respond that the Church was very clever to hide all of those disturbing facts in Church books where no one would read them. But then I started to ask myself what would really help this woman and her family. What would comfort her?

This is true, the JD and HC are are starting points for anyone to come away genuinely puzzled. If they have the patience to read through 26 volumes, and seven volumes. Most don't. I had finished the seven volume HC by about 1984, atter rising at 4am every morning to read before work. But I wouldn't say they're faith-destroyers. They initiate questions that can only be answered by further reading and commentary.

Signature Books began publishing these "alternative histories" and commentary, and they are not church-sponsored. SB was created to fill a need for interested persons to find out much more about "controversial subjects", which the Church wasn't publishing, but could be found to some degree in BYU Studies and the Journal of Mormon History. The MHA (Mormon History Association) produced a lot of good information, but again was not formally attached to the Church. I had to buy Signature titles "under the counter", from the local LDS bookstore. The owner was very co-operative and ordered them for me from the US, but said he'd never place them on his bookshelves.

There was no lack of information for those genuinely interested, but in the 1980s they were not available through the Church. Both Dialogue and Sunstone provided lots of controversial information, and both were run by Church members, some believers, some former believers. When Dialogue first started in 1966, it was described as a publication for "ruffled believers". So there have been "alternative voices" for a long time, but none were Church-approved. Members were even discouraged from attending Sunstone conferences.

Today it's different, because organisations like FAIR have been created to reply to critics, and defend Mormonism. You can't do that without exposing the initial criticisms. But it has been a response, not an initiation. In other words they were forced into it by the critics.

Scott Gordon:

We believe we are dealing with such an issue today. We have several different theories on Book of Mormon geography that are floating around. Even within our FAIR membership we have more than one theory. One brothernamed Rodney Meldrum has been promoting one such theory. RodneyMeldrum's activity came up on our radar screen not because he had a theory about Book of Mormon geography and not because he was claiming that other theories were wrong, but because of the accusation of not following Joseph Smith that was being lodged against faithful and sincere LDS scholars.

I don't see any solution to questions like this, and this is a basis of many people leaving the Church, unless they ignore or put such questions on hold, and hope that one day some convincing evidence will arise. David Wright and other such scholars, in my opinion, have shown much more reasonable and believable explanations, but that puts the Book of Mormon squarely in the genre of pseudepigrapha, a position unacceptable for literal believers. A number of even Mormon archaeologists have been saying for a very long time that the Book of Mormon simply "doesn't fit", but their voices have been drowned out by apologetics, and here is Scott still talking about "several theories". Are Mormon archaeologists still digging away in Mesoamerica? Not even Sorenson is doing that. Now it's just a "wait and hope for a solution" stand, and endless theories, and that's not even considering serious anachronisms in the Book of Mormon.

All FAIR can hope to do now is slow the avalanche in this regard, and sometimes it looks like Custer's last stand. That, of course, is my opinion. Those who insist on literalism do the cause no good. If someone doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is history, but can glean spiritual upliftment from it, continuing to insist on a literal belief is only going to leave many more estranged and alienated. Why go to a party where everyone insists that coke is the only true drink?

[_bcspace]

All FAIR can hope to do now is slow the avalanche in this regard, and sometimes it looks like Custer's last stand. That, of course, is my opinion.

I think you and most critics put too much on the apologist (strawman) and not the Church itself which easily bears the weight, then and now.

Those who insist on literalism do the cause no good. If someone doesn't believe the Book of Mormon is history, but can glean spiritual upliftment from it, continuing to insist on a literal belief is only going to leave many more estranged and alienated. Why go to a party where everyone insists that coke is the only true drink?

Where is the argument against the Church's own claim that the Book of Mormon is historical? None such exists that would carry any scientific weight.

[_Ray A]

I think you and most critics put too much on the apologist (strawman) and not the Church itself which easily bears the weight, then and now.

It may "easily bear the weight" for you, but for me it has been a case of having to ignore too much to sustain literal belief. There comes a point where you simply have to stop playing mind games with yourself.

[_Ray A]

Where is the argument against the Church's own claim that the Book of Mormon is historical? None such exists that would carry any scientific weight.

For me that's a bit like asking where is the argument against the geocentric model?