What do the Brethren think of FAIR?

[_Mister Scratch]

There have been a couple of intriguing new developments to the thread. In one, Prof. P claims that "very few" notable LDS scholars have anything to do with apologetics and/or the ironically named FAIR message board:

What "high profile LDS scholars" even know that this message board exists?

Here, off the top of my head, are an even two-dozen such scholars who, to the best of my knowledge, have never posted here: Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Richard Anderson, Davis Bitton, James Allen, Jack Welch, Steve Robinson, John Sorenson, Blake Ostler, David Paulsen, Daniel Graham, Grant Underwood, Kent Brown, Tom Alexander, Michael Whiting, Bob Millet, Glen Leonard, Truman Madsen, Milton Backman, Noel Reynolds, Jill Derr, Dean Jessee, Don Parry, John Butler, and Kent Jackson.

I'm reasonably confident that I would know if any of them had shown up here. I doubt that most of them are even minimally aware of this place. Two or three may, perhaps, have heard of it -- though I wouldn't be willing to bet any money on that.

Needless to say, this doesn't speak very well to the level of discourse on FAIR. When the "kreme-de-la-kreme" of FAIR is this dismissive, it cannot bode well for the board as a whole. Additionally, if there is this must dismay percolating below the surface of DCP's posting persona, then is it really any wonder that Hauglid, Stewart, and et. al. are afraid to post in public, and need the special protection of the cordoned-off "School of the Pundits"?

A little further down, DCP comes out and lies about what sort of information is handed over to "the powers that be":

@ Oct 30 2006, 08:40 AM)
I have to believe that the G'A's would not come to a site like this, but I also could not believe that there is not a person who moniters sites like this, and if needs be brief the powers to be of what is going on.

I have no reason to believe that "the Powers That Be" are briefed on any of this. I have substantial reason to believe that they are not.

Do you have any reasons at all for your beliefs?

Notice that Prof. P. refuses to supply any evidence or support for his claims. Everyone else is contributing informed speculation. His Highness, on the other hand, says he has real, "substantial" knowledge. But will he yield it up for inspection? Fat chance.

@ Oct 30 2006, 08:40 AM)
I can't imagine there are not people who are paid to review and pass on "whats going on" on the "anti front".

I have no reason to believe that anybody is paid to review and pass on information about anti-Mormons. I have substantial reason to believe that nobody is.

Do you have any actual evidence to support what you imagine?

This is a bald-faced lie. He knows perfectly well that there is, at the very least, by his own admission, a Secretary working for the Strengthening the Members Committee, which committee, according to an official Church spokesman, "...receives complaints from church members about other members [and will] pass the information along to the person's ecclesiastical leader," ("Mormon Secret Files," Christian Century 109 (9 Sept. 1992): 800). Since DCP himself acted as an "agent" for this committee (his own words), it seems clear that he's deliberately clouding the truth with his posts above. Additionally, his claims regarding the "powers that be" are totally false, since the SCMC is chaired by two of the Apostles.

The bottomline is that, given the way the Church behaves in other arenas (BYU spying, church security, etc.), and given the Church's long history of paranoia and fear (sometimes justified) of anti-Mormonism, it seems far more likely than not that high-profile, high-traffic LDS sites such as FAIR and RfM are indeed monitored.

[/quote]

[_Yoda]

I don't know, Scratch. I really have a hard time believing that any of the bretheren are wasting a lot of time monitoring a message board. Many of them are older than the Internet era, and message boarding is just not a comfortable medium.

What I do gain a sense of, is that the Bretheren are not thrilled with members spending a lot of time on the Internet, period. The view is, it's a waste of time.

And, frankly, these Internet boards can become an addiction or an obsession just like anything else. The key, of course, is moderation.

I usually use this is as my measuring stick. If what I am doing (accessing the Internet, watching TV, etc.) is keeping me from doing my job, from associating with my family, etc., then I'm probably spending too much time on it.

[_moksha]

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?s=a008a8d24e96e33ff5b716796340b8de&showtopic=19215
Read it and either laugh or cry or eat donuts or listen to a cd or check on lunch or make a list or post a thought or get back to work or....

[_Yoda]

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?s=a008a8d24e96e33ff5b716796340b8de&showtopic=19215
Read it and either laugh or cry or eat donuts or listen to a cd or check on lunch or make a list or post a thought or get back to work or....

Dang it, Moksha! Now I'm craving a donut! LOL! ;)

[_Mister Scratch]

I don't know, Scratch. I really have a hard time believing that any of the bretheren are wasting a lot of time monitoring a message board. Many of them are older than the Internet era, and message boarding is just not a comfortable medium.

What I do gain a sense of, is that the Bretheren are not thrilled with members spending a lot of time on the Internet, period. The view is, it's a waste of time.

And, frankly, these Internet boards can become an addiction or an obsession just like anything else. The key, of course, is moderation.

I usually use this is as my measuring stick. If what I am doing (accessing the Internet, watching TV, etc.) is keeping me from doing my job, from associating with my family, etc., then I'm probably spending too much time on it.

Oh, I agree. I doubt very much that any of the actual Brethren monitor the boards. Rather, my impression is that they have other people doing the "dirty work," (such as DCP), and are then given reports as to what's going on. Or else DCP and his ilk pass along their "intel" to the SCMC, or Church Security, or whatever the "appropriate" department it.

by the way: I heard an anecdote today that the SCMC is paired up with organizations such as Evergreen, and that it (i.e., the Committee) works at collecting data on suspected homosexuals.

[_harmony]

What "high profile LDS scholars" even know that this message board exists?

Here, off the top of my head, are an even two-dozen such scholars who, to the best of my knowledge, have never posted here: Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Richard Anderson, Davis Bitton, James Allen, Jack Welch, Steve Robinson, John Sorenson, Blake Ostler, David Paulsen, Daniel Graham, Grant Underwood, Kent Brown, Tom Alexander, Michael Whiting, Bob Millet, Glen Leonard, Truman Madsen, Milton Backman, Noel Reynolds, Jill Derr, Dean Jessee, Don Parry, John Butler, and Kent Jackson.

I'm reasonably confident that I would know if any of them had shown up here. I doubt that most of them are even minimally aware of this place. Two or three may, perhaps, have heard of it -- though I wouldn't be willing to bet any money on that.

That might be true, if Daniel was someone these people all corresponded with regularly, and they were used to reporting their thoughts and actions to him. Somehow I doubt that is the case. For all we know, they all despise Daniel and think he's an arrogant blow-hard who gives the LDS church a bad name. Or maybe Daniel is as well-known in the LDS apologetics world as he is in the Arabic Studies world. After all, we have Daniel and Bill Hamblin as examples of the poor condition of LDS apologetics; maybe the others enjoy a train wreck as well as anyone, but don't want to be actively connected, so they post anonymously. I know I would certainly disavow any connection with Daniel, were we actually connected via our areas of expertise, simply because he's such a trainwreck as a poster on FAIR.

And isn't it interesting that in that group, there's only one woman. That tells us all a lot about the sorry state of affairs in LDS apologetics.

[_moksha]

And isn't it interesting that in that group, there's only one woman. That tells us all a lot about the sorry state of affairs in LDS apologetics.

Women are too nice or honest for such work?

[_The Dude]

All in all, a superb thread, and extremely interesting, in my opinion.

Mr. Scratch, I've gotta come clean about my contribution to that thread -- the rebuttal of Dr. Peterson's denials. It was less than sincere. Later on there was this:

I find it humorous, yet sad, when people say "I believe the Church is doing such and such and it's your job to show me wrong, else I am right.

Urroner, perhaps you were referring to me. If so, let me clear up what I said and why I said it.

I am skeptical of Dan's categorical assertion that the brethren do not visit this site. I think he has bitten off more than he can chew. There is no way to prove that they are not and have never been to the FAIR message board. The FAIR administrators cannot know the IP addresses of each and every GA, so there is simply no way from the position of data for Dan to make this argument. I hereby take the position that it is a real possibility, and point out that the burden of proof is on Dan to show that they don't -- I don't have to prove anything. In fact, there are so many angles of plausibility that Dan would be wise to reevaluate his initial position.

I purposely took a position of extreme skepticism to see how Dan would respond. I've had a dose of this recently and I wanted to see if other people would catch it for the sad sophistry that it is.

If you can come up with even a shred of actual evidence that they do, I'll be willing to consider the possibility that your skepticism might perhaps be warranted. I have considerable reason to believe that they don't.

There's also no way to prove that Elvis hasn't been reincarnated as a millipede on a planet in an adjacent solar system.

The burden of proof is on The Dude to demonstrate that Tiger Woods isn't accompanied on the PGA tour by the invisible and indetectible ghost of Billy the Kid.

Good responses from Dan, in my opinion. He should have also pointed out the bait-and-switch I used, first saying something was "possible", then saying it was "plausible." Oh well, it was a weekend.

If people can see the red flag of sophistry when I wave it, can see it when other people wave it?

The way in which you framed the initial argument puts you in an untenable position, as you are assuming a high burden of proof in attempting to demonstrate that the principal ancestor theory is not possible under any circumstances. I, on the other hand, only have to demonstrate that the principal ancestor theory is *possible* -- I do not have to prove anything. There are so many angles from which plausibility exists that I can understand how uncomfortable your initial position must be.

And I got dinged by the moderators.

Being inflammatory for the sake of fishing for the reaction you want is called trolling. Don't do it.

-Mods

It's been a while since that happened!

[_Dr. Shades]

Mr. Scratch, I've gotta come clean about my contribution to that thread -- the rebuttal of Dr. Peterson's denials. It was less than sincere. . . I purposely took a position of extreme skepticism to see how Dan would respond. I've had a dose of this recently and I wanted to see if other people would catch it for the sad sophistry that it is. . . If people can see the red flag of sophistry when I wave it, can see it when other people wave it?

WHEW! I was a bit taken aback by your argument, since I was POSITIVE that you knew better than to say such a thing. I'm VERY glad you were only jesting to make a point!

[_Mister Scratch]

Dude, I've got to tell you---while your rhetorical method in that thread did seem somewhat uncharacteristic for you, it didn't really stick out at all amongst the usual discourse on FAIR, and so I didn't really pay it much heed. Nevertheless, Prof. Peterson's own posts strongly indicate that there is a wing of the Church (i.e., the SCMC) that is designed specifically for monitoring dissidents (of which there are plenty on FAIR).

Also, for what it's worth, there is a sort of "contra" thread that was started up by Markk, in which he's saying that, well, gosh darnit, if the Brethren don't know about FAIR, then does that mean they're totally clueless? The odd thing is that DCP seems less concerned about this charge then the initial one. That is, he's so intent on squashing any rumors about Church-sanctioned surveillance, that he seems willing to mildly concede that the General Authorities are in the dark somewhat. The big problem with Prof. P.'s remarks in both threads, in my opinion, is that he is so cagey with his evidence. He claims to be having all sorts of contact and communication with all sorts of GAs, but what is it? Why doesn't he want to get into specifics? Frankly, it seems like he's hiding something.