|
|
| (40 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{FairMormon}} | + | {{Main Page}} |
| | + | {{To learn more box:Apologetics}} |
| | + | |
| | <onlyinclude> | | <onlyinclude> |
| − | ==Question: What are some common ways that critics attempt to dismiss the work of FairMormon?== | + | ==Question: What are some common ways that critics attempt to dismiss the work of FAIR?== |
| − | | |
| − | ===There are a few common ways that critics dismiss the work of FairMormon===
| |
| | | | |
| − | Critics have a few common ways of dismissing the work of FairMormon. As these have come to the point that they mislead people easily about FairMormon, a response is necessary | + | Critics often seek to dismiss the work of FAIR and tell their audience that there are no good answers to their questions. It is probably much easier to encourage their audience to ignore us, rather than engage with what we present. |
| | | | |
| − | ==== “Truth needs no defense”; “Just seeing the table of contents for FairMormon will show you how many problems the Church has”.==== | + | ==== Claim: 'Truth needs no defense'; 'Just seeing the table of contents for FAIR will show you how many problems the Church has'.==== |
| | | | |
| − | Some people assume that the amount of work that has gone into Latter-day Saint apologetics through the FairMormon organization suggests that there are a lot of issues that the Church has to deal with. Others have claimed that “Truth needs no defense. It will fight for itself.” This is utter nonsense for at least four reasons: | + | Some people assume that the amount of work that has gone into Latter-day Saint apologetics through FAIR suggests that there are a lot of issues that the Church has to deal with. Others have claimed that ''Truth needs no defense. It will fight for itself.'' This is clearly false, for a number of reasons: |
| | | | |
| − | # Some people are ignorant of the truth
| + | * Some people are ignorant of the truth |
| − | # Some people know the truth but don’t understand it and/or don’t have the necessary expertise to understand it.
| + | * Some people are aware of the truth, but don’t have the expertise to appreciate all its nuances. |
| − | # Some critics misrepresent the truth
| + | * Some critics misrepresent the truth |
| − | # Some critics understand the truth but purposefully lie in order to win influence.
| + | * Some critics understand the truth but purposefully lie in order to win influence. |
| − | # Sometimes our knowledge of the ancient world or history has changed and we thus need an updated article.
| + | * Knowledge is always increasing; what might have seemed like a good criticism in the past may now be shown to be incorrect because of new information. |
| − | # Latter-day Saint apologetics are a different animal from other faith's for at least two reasons:
| |
| − | **The theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is inextricably tied to its history. Thus, because the founding, core events of the Church are many and are well documented, and because the credibility of those events is tied to the founding leaders of the faith, the critics of the Church have more material to scrutinize and attack. This is different from Chrisitian faiths (for example) where the only history they need to defend is that of the Bible. | |
| − | **The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts more books of scripture as guiding revelation for the Church. Thus, critics have more claims to attack and apologists more claims to verify. This is in contrast to most other faiths that only accept one sacred text as authoritative.
| |
| | | | |
| − | FairMormon has had to respond to every type of criticism and/or adjust to such advancement. This is why we get so many articles.
| + | If you were accused of a serious crime, would you listen to a lawyer who told you that "truth needs no defense"? In court, we understand that the truth ''especially'' needs a defense, since people can misunderstand or misrepresent evidence. |
| | | | |
| − | ====FairMormon doesn’t acknowledge the issue fully; FairMormon has created a lot of answers out of confirmation bias and isn’t reliable; FairMormon is dishonest and doesn’t include both sides of an argument fairly==== | + | ====Claim: FAIR doesn’t acknowledge the issue fully; FAIR has created a lot of answers out of confirmation bias and isn’t reliable; FAIR is dishonest and doesn’t include both sides of an argument fairly==== |
| − | Some have claimed that FairMormon, in their responses, aren’t fully honest about issues. It is claimed that FairMormon does not recognize the full extent of problems when they respond, that we create answers full of confirmation bias [citation], and that we purposefully lie about an issue being solved. | + | Some have claimed that FAIR is not fully honest. Some claim that FAIR |
| − | # FairMormon gives the reader both the criticism and the answer to it inherent in the article that the reader is perusing. To claim that FM does not acknowledge the issue, or does not deal with it in full is, generally, utter nonsense. When someone reads an article from us, they are both understanding what the criticism is and the way to respond.
| + | * does not acknowledge the complexity of a problem |
| − | # FairMormon may make mistakes in the apologetic process because of confirmation bias. But confirmation bias should be recognized in everyone. Parties should simply study the articles for themselves. If there are any errors then we ask that we be helped in correcting them. That said, the general reliability of articles may be counted on since the authors had to deal with the problem in full at one point in their lives and come up with ways to resolve their questions/concerns. They would generally not feel satisfied if it didn’t completely or mostly help them. These counterbiases should be taken into consideration when evaluating the work of FairMormon.
| + | * produces answers that are subject to ''confirmation bias'' |
| − | # FairMormon does not encourage nor tolerate being purposefully deceitful about issues. All articles are written in the best interest of the author, the author’s family and friends, other leaders/members of the Church, and scholars. We have a lot of people to help and we can’t help them nor ourselves with being purposefully dishonest about an issue or allowing our confirmation bias to get in the way of acknowledging and dealing with something.
| + | * is dishonest about whether an issue has a good answer. |
| − | # To say that FairMormon does not “fully acknowledge the issue” also assumes a lot. Faith is the combination of expectations that we have for something and the data that fills those expectations. Sometimes our expectations for something need to be adjusted. Critics may use this as an excuse for intellectual ignorance or not having to work to understand the faith or achieve a nuanced perspective.
| |
| − | # To make a claim that FairMormon is dishonest in any given response, the critic must assume that A) The apologist who wrote the response was aware of information or logic that contradicted his response B) that they deliberately decided to ignore that information. FairMormon may make mistakes in the apologetic process, but claims of dishonesty are usually just smokescreens that try and divert trust from FairMormon in (ironically) ''dishonest'' ways.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====FairMormon's responses are full of logical fallacies and especially adhominem attacks====
| + | In response, we would suggest the reader consider these points: |
| − | It has been claimed by a few critics that FairMormon's answers are "full of logical fallacies" and that apologists in general "attack with ad hominem more than anyone." FairMormon's answers are not "riddled with fallacies" as the critics might think through caricature. There may be fallacies in arguments that we hope will be pointed out to us so that we can improve. It should be noted that just having a fallacy in an argument does not invalidate it completely. This is known as the "fallacy fallacy". Fallacies generally point out some weaknesses in arguments. Some invalidate the argument completely. The answers should be evaluated carefully. If there is room for improvement, we gladly welcome recommendations at the link provided below. But fallacies don't invalidate the argument automatically.
| |
| | | | |
| − | Regarding ad-hominem specifically. Some assume that an ad-hominem is an applicable fallacy when it is often not. Additionally, everyone may be guilty of ad-hominem. A common ad-hominem attack from critics is: "The BYU professors that FairMormon cites are just paid apologists and have to defend the Church to keep their paychecks." That is trying to poison the well and not address the actual argument made. It is a common hand-waving tactic of critics.
| + | # FAIR provides its reader with the actual criticisms (usually with direct citation from critics) and our answers. We have worked with hundreds of people with questions, and so are usually well-acquainted with the issues at stake. If we have omitted an area of concern to you, please [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact let us know]. |
| | + | # Like everyone, FAIR authors have biases. By putting our work on an apologetic website, we are making our biases clear. Readers can account for those biases. Critics often portray themselves as just helpful, disinterested seekers of truth. Readers troubled by something from a critic should likewise consider the critics’ biases—and ask whether they received all the information provided by FAIR from the critic. |
| | + | # FAIR strives for accuracy, truthfulness, and transparency. If readers encounter a statement or citation that is false or mistaken, we appreciate having it drawn to our attention. FAIR has many authors and volunteers, and we do make mistakes. These mistakes are unintentional. |
| | + | # Readers should remember that it is not in FAIR’s interest to be dishonest. We know that our material will be scrutinized heavily. Critics are often gleeful when they find an error (but this provides us with valuable ''peer review''!) We also know that if we are dishonest in one article, that will reduce readers’ trust. |
| | + | # Even when mistakes are found, this does not mean that the author was dishonest: an accusation of dishonesty presumes intent to deceive and knowledge that one was deceiving. |
| | | | |
| − | Readers should be careful to watch out for these dismissals in others and themselves. FairMormon does acknowledge the humanity of each of its volunteers and, again asks, that any questions or concerns be directed to FairMormon volunteers at [https://www.fairmormon.org/contact this link.]
| + | ====Claim: FAIR's responses are full of logical fallacies and especially ad hominem attacks==== |
| | + | In an attempt to dismiss FAIR’s work, critics will often claim that we commit ''[[Logical_fallacies/Page_1|logical fallacies]]'', especially ''ad hominem'' attacks. |
| | + | An accusation of a fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy unless the critic can provide examples. This they rarely, if ever, attempt. Readers should ask themselves if claims of fallacy are more of an effort to discredit us before our arguments have been heard. |
| | | | |
| − | ====FairMormon simply obfuscates the issues.====
| + | ''[[Mormonism_and_apologetics/"ad_hominem"|Ad hominem'']]'' means ''to the man''—it is a type of bad reasoning in which the person making the argument is attacked, rather than the argument itself. |
| − | It is frequently claimed that FairMormon simply "obfuscates" the issues. This happens nearly every time FairMormon provides evidence that refutes the criticism of tries to ''at least'' add nuance to the critical belief. Every answer should have hard data and solid documentation to back up claims which people can evaluate. People are free to disagree with our responses but they shouldn't simply dismiss our work through hand-waving exercises such as these.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====FairMormon gaslights====
| + | FAIR does not attack individuals, or encourage readers to dismiss their arguments unheard. We have often told critics making this claim that if they can point to any examples, we will correct the problem. No one has done so yet, so if you spot one, [https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/contact let us know]! |
| − | The act of gaslighting is to manipulate someone through psychological means so that they question everything including their own existence. This is usually used in an emotionally manipulative way in order to paint FairMormon in the most negative light possible and has virtually no truth to it.
| + | Ad hominem attacks encourage the audience to ignore someone’s argument by painting the person making the argument in a bad light. Readers should realize that accusing someone of ''ad hominem'' without providing specific evidence is ‘’itself’’ a form of ''ad hominem''. |
| | | | |
| − | Critics may claim this when we deny an accusation that seems ''so'' obvious to them but we apparently don’t see. The problem may be in the critics’ faulty expectations for the data. This should be considered before accusations of gaslighting are leveled.
| + | [[Mormonism_and_apologetics/"ad_hominem"/Case_study|Many critics]] who are quick to blame FAIR for this have egregious examples of their own. |
| | | | |
| − | ====FairMormon simply is trying to justify a pre-existing position—being unable to see the forest from the trees.==== | + | {{Main|Mormonism and apologetics/"ad hominem"|l1=What is an "ad hominem" attack?}} |
| − | This accusation is sometimes heard from critics who are trying to make emotionally swaying points. They make dramatic statements in order to distract people. Ironically, the critics are often doing the same thing they accuse FairMormon of—trying to justify a pre-determined conclusion. If any paradigm is true, then there should be meaningful ways to defend it. Critics who try to use this are doing so hypocritically. Everyone has a bias.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====FairMormon uses biased scholarship to substantiate their views. Unbiased scholars don't accept the Book of Mormon nor Book of Abraham as factual or historical. Unbiased historians acknowledge Joseph Smith's history as deeply problematic. You can't trust any of FairMormon's apologetic scholarship==== | + | ====Claim: FAIR simply tries to cloud the issues==== |
| − | Some people try to dismiss the scholarship we cite as biased and thus likely to be false. They have done this with regards to all scholarship done on the history of the Church or the historicity of the scriptures. It is a common way of handwaving some of the amazing, positive, and fully substantiated claims of faithful scholarship. A few points need to be made:
| + | FAIR aims to provide context and further information—only someone with significant bias would claim that these are of no importance. Readers will have to decide for themselves whether the information we provide is helpful. (If you realized that claiming someone just ''clouds the issues'' without providing specific examples and counterarguments, congratulations—you’ve spotting another example of the ''ad hominem'' fallacy!) |
| | | | |
| − | #All scholarship is biased. No one is absolutely free of bias. All of us want to substantiate the positions we already hold. This is called Confirmation Bias--the tendency to look for, interpret, and recall information in a way that already confirms our current position. Interest in anything is a form of bias since one usually has questions that they want to answer in a particular way. Anyone who becomes interested in Mormon Studies is someone who does so because they want to answer questions in a way that confirms what they already believe. Scholars have set up tools such as speaking in "evidence" instead of "proof", "explanatory power" instead of "proof", and so on. They have set up things like peer-review which allows their work to be reviewed by someone of the same scholarly plane that will be critical of assertions that don't stand up to scrutiny and provide helpful feedback for improvement or be honest enough to suggest scrapping a project all together. Even then we have to be sure that scholars have all the evidence that is necessary to make a fully qualified judgement as to the truthfulness of falsity of a claim or set of claims. People who claim that faithful scholars are the only ones who are biased are guilty of wishful thinking.
| + | ====Claim: FAIR gaslights its readers==== |
| − | #The faithful scholars working in Gospel scholarship generally are familiar with both positive and negative claims and try to make the best arguments by first evaluating both sides and arguing in favor of their position. They do this by offering responses to potential critical claims of their positions. Good academic work will seek to address counterclaims as thoroughly as possible. Faithful scholars are also good to cite non-LDS sources when making an assertion of fact. Readers should seek this out in the work they decide to browse.
| + | The act of gaslighting is to manipulate someone through psychological means so that they question reality. |
| − | #Just because someone has a bias, it does not mean that someone is incapable of making a true claim. Scholars cite the documentation that substantiates their position. To claim that Latter-day Saint scholars are so biased and so fallible that they simply cannot state a true claim is simply ludicrous. They have their academic reputations to uphold, their faith and the faith of their coreligionists to sustain, and they can't do that by doing shoddy work. They may make a mistake from time to time but it does nothing to invalidate the rest of their work. The entire body of their work has to be evaluated before making any claims of dishonesty or unreliability.
| + | It is not ''gaslighting'' to argue that there is another way of seeing matters in light of different evidence or presuppositions. |
| − | #Latter-day Saint scholars that FairMormon cites on here generally all have academic training in the field that they utilize to substantiate claims. For instance, [https://www.fairmormon.org/testimonies/scholars/john-gee Dr. John Gee] has his PhD in Egyptology from Yale. John Gee wrote:
| |
| − | <blockquote>According to Oxford University’s and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München’s Online Egyptological Bibliography, I am already in the top 4 percent of Egyptologists historically in terms of number of Egyptological publications.[. . .] In 2018 I served as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.<ref>John Gee, "John Gee - WILLIAM (BILL) GAY RESEARCH CHAIR, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW" in ''2018 Annual Report for the BYU Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship'' <https://mi.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018-Maxwell-Institute-Annual-Report-small.pdf> pg. 47-8 (accessed 30 May 2019)</ref></blockquote>
| |
| | | | |
| − | 5. The scholars that FairMormon cites generally have been studying apologetic issues for years. Brian Hales began work on early Mormon polygamy back in the early 1990's. Ugo Perego has been studying issues surrounding DNA since the mid 2000's. John Gee has researched issues surrounding the Book of Abraham since the 80s. Their research has seen a lot of refinement and will continue to be refined as scholars studying various issues will continue to find data that will need to be accounted for.
| + | ====Claim: FAIR uses biased scholarship to substantiate their views. Unbiased scholars don't accept the Book of Mormon nor Book of Abraham as factual or historical. Unbiased historians acknowledge Joseph Smith's history as deeply problematic. You can't trust any of FAIR's apologetic scholarship==== |
| | + | As noted above, ''everyone'' has biases. This is why we must explore the evidence that people offer, and not just claim that they "have biases". (Every critic of the Church has their own biases—often very deep-seated ones. But, they don’t tell us that we should ignore them because of their biases. |
| | + | Bias does not mean that one cannot do good scholarly or scientific or historical work—if it did, there would be no such work done at all. |
| | | | |
| − | Thus, this criticism rings generally shallow. It is of course the case that faithful scholars are biased, but critics who wish to use this as some springboard to state ipso facto their scholarship can't be trusted at all are risibly hypocritical.
| + | Many of the authors cited by FAIR have significant academic credentials. For instance, [https://www.FAIR.org/testimonies/scholars/john-gee Dr. John Gee] has his PhD in Egyptology from Yale. For example, Dr. John Gee wrote: |
| | + | :::According to Oxford University’s and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München’s Online Egyptological Bibliography, I am already in the top 4 percent of Egyptologists historically in terms of number of Egyptological publications.[. . .] In 2018 I served as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.<ref>John Gee, in ''2018 Annual Report for the BYU Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship'' {{pdflink|url=https://mi.byu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2018-Maxwell-Institute-Annual-Report-small.pdf}} pg. 47-8 (accessed 30 May 2019)</ref> |
| | + | This does not mean that Gee should be accepted uncritically—but it is also not fair to claim that because he has a bias, he cannot have something worthwhile to say. The only way to know is to read him—and if you’ve been following along, you’ll know that critics seem desperate to get you to ''not'' read what we have to offer. Why might that be? |
| | </onlyinclude> | | </onlyinclude> |
| | {{endnotes sources}} | | {{endnotes sources}} |
| | + | [[Category:Questions]] |
Learn more about apologetics and defending the faith
Key sources |
- Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Maxwell Legacy in the 21st Century,” on pages 8-21 of the “2018 Annual Report” of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship off-site Youtube
- Daniel C. Peterson, "The Interpreter Foundation and an Apostolic Charge," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/0 (28 December 2018). [vii–xviii] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Elder Neal A. Maxwell on Consecration, Scholarship, and the Defense of the Kingdom," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 7/0 (8 November 2013). [vii–xx] link
- Michael R. Otterson, "On the Record," Proceedings of the 2015 FAIR Conference (August 2015). link
- Elder Kevin W. Pearson, "A Sacred and Imperative Duty," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link
|
FAIR links |
- Apologetics—defending the faith
- Mentions of FAIR in various media
- If FAIR is not officially representing the church, why not?
- FAIR FAQ
- Wayne Arnett, "Apologetics 101," Proceedings of the 2006 FAIR Conference (August 2006). link
- Michael Ash, "Shaken Faith Syndrome," Proceedings of the 2008 FAIR Conference (August 2008). link
- Michael R. Ash, "'Shaken Faith Syndrome, Part Deux'," Proceedings of the 2013 FAIR Conference (August 2013). link
- Michael Ash and Kevin Barney, "LDS Apologetics 101," Proceedings of the 2003 FAIR Conference (August 2003). link
- Roger Ekins, "Defending Zion," Proceedings of the 2003 FAIR Conference (August 2003). link
- Scott Gordon, "Survey Says!," Proceedings of the 2000 FAIR Conference (August 2000). link
- Grant Hardy, "More Effective Apologetics," Proceedings of the 2016 FAIR Conference (August 2016). link
- Roger Keller, "The Grace of Apologetics," Proceedings of the 2003 FAIR Conference (August 2003). link
- John Lynch, "'Uh oh!' to 'Ah ha!' in Apologetics: 20/20 Foresight for a Faithful Future in Defending the Church," Proceedings of the 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009). link
- David Paulsen, "'The God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph Smith: Defending the Faith'," Proceedings of the 2004 FAIR Conference (August 2004). link
- Daniel Peterson, "'Apologetics: What, Why and How?'," Proceedings of the 2018 FAIR Conference (August 2018). link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Humble Apologetics," Proceedings of the 2008 FAIR Conference (August 2008). link
- Dan Peterson, "Of ‘Mormon Studies’ and Apologetics," Proceedings of the 2012 FAIR Conference (August 2012). link
- Dan Peterson, "Random Reflections on the Passing Scene," Proceedings of the 2003 FAIR Conference (August 2003). link
- Dan Peterson, "'The Logic-Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve'," Proceedings of the 2016 FAIR Conference (August 2016). link
- Daniel Peterson, "The Obligation to Do Apologetics," Proceedings of the 2010 FAIR Conference (August 2010). link
- Dan Peterson, "The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel," Proceedings of the 2015 FAIR Conference (August 2015). link
- Dan Peterson, "Toward a More Effective Apologetics," Proceedings of the 2013 FAIR Conference (August 2013). link
- Daniel Peterson, "What Difference Does It Make?," Proceedings of the 2017 FAIR Conference (August 2017). link
- Ed Pinegar, "How to help young Latter-day Saints deal with criticisms against the Church and the doubts they cause while remaining faithful," Proceedings of the 2015 FAIR Conference (August 2015). link
- Robert White, "'On Being an Apologist: Imperatives, Predicaments, Perils and Blessings'," Proceedings of the 2009 FAIR Conference (August 2009). link
- Hartt Wixam, "Perception and Reality: Then and Now," Proceedings of the 2012 FAIR Conference (August 2012). link
- FAIR FAQ FAIR link
- Wayne Arnett, "Apologetics 101," FAIR Conference 2006. FAIR link
|
Online |
- Gary Bowler, "What is FAIR, and Why Are You Apologizing?" PDF link
- Gilbert W. Scharffs, "Some people say it is best to leave alone materials that claim to 'expose' the Church and its teachings. What counsel has been given on this? How do we respond when a friend comes to us with questions found in such materials?," Ensign (January 1995), 60 (scroll half-way down).off-site
- Rick Anderson, "Addressing Prickly Issues," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 23/10 (27 January 2017). [253–262] link
- Steven T. Densley, Jr., "Should We Apologize for Apologetics?," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 27/7 (20 October 2017). [107–142] link}
- Terryl L. Givens, "Letter to a Doubter," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 4/6 (5 April 2013). [131–146] link
- Louis C. Midgley, "Defending the King and His Kingdom," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 2/9 (30 November 2012). [127–144] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "An Exhortation to Study God's Two 'Books'," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 13/0 (2 January 2015). [vii–xvi] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Charity in Defending the Kingdom," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 1/0 (28 September 2012). [i–xvi] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Credo," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 57/0 (4 August 2023). [vii–xiv] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "How Things Look from Here," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 55/0 (31 March 2023). [vii–xiv] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "'In This Batter'd Caravanserai'," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 56/0 (26 May 2023). [vii–xxviii] link}
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Introduction, Volume 6: The Modest But Important End of Apologetics," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 6/0 (6 September 2013). [vii–xxvi] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Is Faith Compatible with Reason?," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 29/0 (24 August 2018). [vii–xvi] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Making Visible the Beauty and Goodness of the Gospel," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 17/0 (4 December 2015). [vii–xxii] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "On Being a Tool," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 19/0 (6 May 2016). [vii–xvi] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Questioning: The Divine Plan," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 15/0 (19 June 2015). [vii–xvi] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Reflections on the Mission of The Interpreter Foundation," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 9/0 (11 April 2014). [vii–xx] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Notes on Faith and Reason," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 10/0 (27 June 2014). [vii–xx] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Standing on the Shoulders of Giants," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 4/0 (10 May 2013). [vii–xiv] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "The Power is In Them," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 26/0 (8 September 2017). [vii–xii] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "The Role of Apologetics in Mormon Studies," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 2/0 (14 December 2012). [vii–xlii] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "The Word and the Kingdom," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 28/0 (4 May 2018). [vii–xiv] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Three Degrees of Gospel Understanding," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 21/0 (9 September 2016). [vii–xii] link
- Paul C. Peterson, "To Be Learned Is Good, If One Stays on the Rails," Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 30/7 (5 October 2018). [77–90] link [To be Learned Is Good – bad book]
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Toward Ever More Intelligent Discipleship," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 16/0 (11 September 2015). [vii–xvi] link
- Stephen O. Smoot, "Shaken Faith Syndrome and the Case for Faith," Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture 2/8 (23 November 2012). [105–126] link
- Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction—The Witchcraft Paradigm: On Claims to 'Second Sight' by People Who Say It Doesn't Exist," FARMS Review 18/2 (2006). [ix–lxiv] link
- Marianne Holman Prescott, "Be Faithful Disciple-Scholars Even in Difficulty, Elder Holland Says at Maxwell Institute," Church News (13 November 2018), off-site
|
Video |
- Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, "The Maxwell Legacy in the 21st Century" (2018 Neal A. Maxwell Lecture), Provo, Utah, 10 November 2018. Youtube
|
Print |
- Neal A. Maxwell, “The Disciple-Scholar,” in Henry B. Eyring, ed., On Becoming a Disciple-Scholar: Lectures Presented at the Brigham Young University Honors Program Discipline and Discipleship Lecture Series (Salt Lake City, Bookcraft: 1995), 1–23.
|
Navigators |
|
Question: What are some common ways that critics attempt to dismiss the work of FAIR?
Critics often seek to dismiss the work of FAIR and tell their audience that there are no good answers to their questions. It is probably much easier to encourage their audience to ignore us, rather than engage with what we present.
Claim: 'Truth needs no defense'; 'Just seeing the table of contents for FAIR will show you how many problems the Church has'.
Some people assume that the amount of work that has gone into Latter-day Saint apologetics through FAIR suggests that there are a lot of issues that the Church has to deal with. Others have claimed that Truth needs no defense. It will fight for itself. This is clearly false, for a number of reasons:
- Some people are ignorant of the truth
- Some people are aware of the truth, but don’t have the expertise to appreciate all its nuances.
- Some critics misrepresent the truth
- Some critics understand the truth but purposefully lie in order to win influence.
- Knowledge is always increasing; what might have seemed like a good criticism in the past may now be shown to be incorrect because of new information.
If you were accused of a serious crime, would you listen to a lawyer who told you that "truth needs no defense"? In court, we understand that the truth especially needs a defense, since people can misunderstand or misrepresent evidence.
Claim: FAIR doesn’t acknowledge the issue fully; FAIR has created a lot of answers out of confirmation bias and isn’t reliable; FAIR is dishonest and doesn’t include both sides of an argument fairly
Some have claimed that FAIR is not fully honest. Some claim that FAIR
- does not acknowledge the complexity of a problem
- produces answers that are subject to confirmation bias
- is dishonest about whether an issue has a good answer.
In response, we would suggest the reader consider these points:
- FAIR provides its reader with the actual criticisms (usually with direct citation from critics) and our answers. We have worked with hundreds of people with questions, and so are usually well-acquainted with the issues at stake. If we have omitted an area of concern to you, please let us know.
- Like everyone, FAIR authors have biases. By putting our work on an apologetic website, we are making our biases clear. Readers can account for those biases. Critics often portray themselves as just helpful, disinterested seekers of truth. Readers troubled by something from a critic should likewise consider the critics’ biases—and ask whether they received all the information provided by FAIR from the critic.
- FAIR strives for accuracy, truthfulness, and transparency. If readers encounter a statement or citation that is false or mistaken, we appreciate having it drawn to our attention. FAIR has many authors and volunteers, and we do make mistakes. These mistakes are unintentional.
- Readers should remember that it is not in FAIR’s interest to be dishonest. We know that our material will be scrutinized heavily. Critics are often gleeful when they find an error (but this provides us with valuable peer review!) We also know that if we are dishonest in one article, that will reduce readers’ trust.
- Even when mistakes are found, this does not mean that the author was dishonest: an accusation of dishonesty presumes intent to deceive and knowledge that one was deceiving.
Claim: FAIR's responses are full of logical fallacies and especially ad hominem attacks
In an attempt to dismiss FAIR’s work, critics will often claim that we commit logical fallacies, especially ad hominem attacks.
An accusation of a fallacy is, in itself, a fallacy unless the critic can provide examples. This they rarely, if ever, attempt. Readers should ask themselves if claims of fallacy are more of an effort to discredit us before our arguments have been heard.
Ad hominem means to the man—it is a type of bad reasoning in which the person making the argument is attacked, rather than the argument itself.
FAIR does not attack individuals, or encourage readers to dismiss their arguments unheard. We have often told critics making this claim that if they can point to any examples, we will correct the problem. No one has done so yet, so if you spot one, let us know!
Ad hominem attacks encourage the audience to ignore someone’s argument by painting the person making the argument in a bad light. Readers should realize that accusing someone of ad hominem without providing specific evidence is ‘’itself’’ a form of ad hominem.
Many critics who are quick to blame FAIR for this have egregious examples of their own.
Claim: FAIR simply tries to cloud the issues
FAIR aims to provide context and further information—only someone with significant bias would claim that these are of no importance. Readers will have to decide for themselves whether the information we provide is helpful. (If you realized that claiming someone just clouds the issues without providing specific examples and counterarguments, congratulations—you’ve spotting another example of the ad hominem fallacy!)
Claim: FAIR gaslights its readers
The act of gaslighting is to manipulate someone through psychological means so that they question reality.
It is not gaslighting to argue that there is another way of seeing matters in light of different evidence or presuppositions.
Claim: FAIR uses biased scholarship to substantiate their views. Unbiased scholars don't accept the Book of Mormon nor Book of Abraham as factual or historical. Unbiased historians acknowledge Joseph Smith's history as deeply problematic. You can't trust any of FAIR's apologetic scholarship
As noted above, everyone has biases. This is why we must explore the evidence that people offer, and not just claim that they "have biases". (Every critic of the Church has their own biases—often very deep-seated ones. But, they don’t tell us that we should ignore them because of their biases.
Bias does not mean that one cannot do good scholarly or scientific or historical work—if it did, there would be no such work done at all.
Many of the authors cited by FAIR have significant academic credentials. For instance, Dr. John Gee has his PhD in Egyptology from Yale. For example, Dr. John Gee wrote:
- According to Oxford University’s and the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München’s Online Egyptological Bibliography, I am already in the top 4 percent of Egyptologists historically in terms of number of Egyptological publications.[. . .] In 2018 I served as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.[1]
This does not mean that Gee should be accepted uncritically—but it is also not fair to claim that because he has a bias, he cannot have something worthwhile to say. The only way to know is to read him—and if you’ve been following along, you’ll know that critics seem desperate to get you to not read what we have to offer. Why might that be?
Notes
- ↑ John Gee, in 2018 Annual Report for the BYU Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship PDF link pg. 47-8 (accessed 30 May 2019)
