Replies

Again, my apologies for the delay in posting, but I thought this was an important topic that deserved some research and a reasoned response. I had to do that research in available segments.

Let me state clearly: this post has nothing to do with the LDS Church. MormonVoices and The Foundation for Apologetic Research & Information (FAIR) specifically state that they are neither affiliated with nor supported by the LDS Church. This post regards my concern with MormonVoices purporting to be a ‘source’ for the media on Mormons and Mormonism, and declaring that it will ‘fact-check’ the media on issues involving Mormons and Mormonism. This post has nothing to do with Mormons. It has to do with one organization that happens to be composed of Mormons and I don’t know enough about what all of the individual members actually do to speak about them individually.

Let me also state clearly: I respect the right of FR members and all people to their religious beliefs; I do not support the right of people to practice all elements of their religious beliefs (for example, I would not support a person’s right to perform human sacrifice in the name of his or her religion).

Here’s my concern with MormonVoices. Primarily, it has to do with the fact that MormonVoice is not the LDS Church but is the alter ego of FAIR. MormonVoices says its intent is:

to use “average Mormons;”
”to respond to false information put forward in the media;”
”to assist journalists, authors, bloggers, producers, and others in the media in getting their stories right, and to correct misinformation and distortions about Mormons, Mormonism, and other faith communities¹;”
”to shape the public . . . perceptions of the [Mormon] Church;”
(according to a press release from the President of The Foundation for Apologetic Research & Information (FAIR), Scott Gordon, “a resource for journalists; and”
to monitor news reports².

Other religious denominations no doubt have media relations departments, but I’m not aware of any grassroots campaigns using ordinary church or similar members, without training, to monitor news reports to correct what they believe to be misinformation. Nor, especially, to set up an official unofficial one-stop resource upon which journalists are encouraged to rely for information. I consider MormonVoices to be setting itself up as the unofficial official media resource. Its intent and actions are reported upon in the LDS Church’s official newspaper, The Desert News. Its goal was reported by The Desert New back in August 2011 and brief research found no statement from the LDS Church expressing concern with or distancing itself from MormonVoices.

MormonVoices states on its About page that:

”MormonVoices has been created to respond to false information put forward in the media. … MormonVoices is not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is sponsored by [FAIR].”

That’s the point at which I become troubled. I was somewhat familiar with FAIR but spent large parts of a rainy vacation week taking an in-depth look at it after being asked on countless occasions to do so by a former FR member. I simply accepted his or her challenge to ‘seek the truth.’ At some point I should address my issues with FAIR being portrayed as an academic, documented, or researched resource, with linked examples, but I won’t do that here. Perhaps later. FAIR states it is not affiliated with the LDS Church and specifically states that it does not speak for the LDS Church. My opinions reflect on FAIR’s statement from the President of that it is well-researched and well-documented and the repeated suggestions that it should be used as a reference material. I address it on that basis, not a theological basis.

The initial point about whether MormonVoices and FAIR should serve as the resource for facts about Mormonism is this: FAIR instructs its apologists that their main task is not to construct rational, logical or correct answers, but to convert those who question to Mormonism (more details at the site):

”Apologists must remember that their main task is to encourage others to seek a personal witness for themselves; the 'rational' part of apologetics is really a prelude to the important work of conversion.

Source: FAIR website.

FAIR tells its apologists that being right isn’t important when serving as a FAIR apologist and answering questions; having a strong LDS faith is.

Interested private members may seek to explain and defend their faith with the best tools at their disposal, but the truth of that faith does not depend on the soundness of their arguments.

Source: FAIR website..

FAIR states:

that it “can and does make mistakes,” and that its factual arguments don’t have to be sound because the faith is true (Source: FAIR website;
that it is discussing doctrinal issues without LDS priesthood authority and direction, and it falls more under the category of a book publisher than an LDS Church authority (Source: FAIR website);
when asked “how authoritative” its writing are, that it tries not to give the impression it is speaking for the LDS church “in any way;’ that it tries to discuss history or scholarly things and only gets into discussions of doctrine “when we feel our beliefs as Latter-day Saints have been misrepresented,” at which point, those acting on behalf of FAIR are simply “speaking from their own experience and beliefs (Source: FAIR website).”

At the bottom of each page of the FAIR website it states:

“ All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.”

Website diagnostic tools won’t tell on how many of the 220,000+ pages (not including the 5,500+ linked FAIR papers) that disclaimer appears, but it appear to be part of the template for all ordinary FAIR and FAIRwiki pages. The disclaimer is loaded by a script on all pages I checked.

If FAIR has withdrawn all or some of these statements, then I would appreciate the link. I’d like to have the additional information. Absent withdrawal of those statements, when these declarations made by FAIR to the public, its apologists, and prospective apologists are read together it appears to me to say that when FAIR answers a question (drawing solely from FAIR’s and website):

An ordinary Mormon with no special training other than a strong LDS faith;
Whose expressly declared primary purpose is to convert the person addressed to the Mormon faith;
Who expressly is not speaking for the LDS Church;
Whose answers expressly should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice;
Who FAIR expressly acknowledges can and will make mistakes;
Who expressly is not tasked with giving a sound, rational, and logical answer, because that’s not important if the FAIR apologist’s LDS faith is strong;
Who expressly is addressing doctrinal issues solely from his or her own experiences and beliefs;
Who expressly is acting without priesthood authority (female apologists could not have held the priesthood anyway) from the Church when speaking on any issue, even doctrinal ones; and
Who expressly should really only be considered like a book publisher, not an LDS authority,

is answering the question.

That’s what FAIR says about being a FAIR apologist. FAIR discloses that to the public, its apologists, and prospective FAIR apologists, if you work through its 220,000+ pages. (I gave up after finding the information above.) All of that information is on the FAIR website.

FAIR runs MormonVoices; it’s FAIR’s alter-ego ‘brand’ to the media. A website run by people who have all of the qualifiers listed above is presenting itself as the resource for the media on Mormonism and Mormon Church. And it says it will Fact-Check media, although it admits that it may be wrong, and that sound and correct answers aren’t the goal – conversion to the LDS faith and the answering apologist having a strong faith are the important things.

Again, FAIR runs MormonVoices. However, the MormonVoices website contains none of the qualifiers and limitations disclosed by FAIR, and discloses none of them to the reporters, the media, or the public who are target by the MormonVoices website. Instead, it portrays itself as much more unofficially official. Why is this? Why are the disclaimers important on a “research and academic” website, but not on the same party’s website presenting the same information to the media?

The media would have to tunnel its way past MormonVoices and into FAIR’s pages to find all of these things out, to read all of these disclosures and qualifications.

That’s my concern. MormonVoices isn’t the LDS Church officially answering or informing the media. These are just people using their admitted unofficial personal opinion to present doctrines, beliefs, and practices – and answering specifically without feeling compelled to present factual, rational, or logical arguments because they believe in the One True Church. And trying to convert you to Mormonism in the process as their main goal.

Do you see a problem with MormonVoices doing it without . . . well . . . telling the media that? This isn’t attacking the LDS Church . . . because MormonVoices and FAIR clearly tell us that they are not affiliated with or sanctioned by the LDS Church. I believe MormonVoices fraudulently represents itself.

¹ I don’t know what ‘other faith communities’ means. MormonVoices currently addresses only issues related to Mormons and Mormonism.
² MormonVoices will not be alone in monitoring the media during the 2012 Presidential campaign. An article from the LDS Church’s Desert News, highlighted on MormonVoices states: ”Noreen Malone [of New York Magazine] wrote that LDS Church officials have been closely monitoring the Internet, television broadcasts and print publications more frequently than during Romney’s 2008 campaign. ”According to the article, church spokesmen, including LDS Church managing director of public affairs Michael Otterson, have been more active in defending aspects of church doctrine. Malone wrote that that through such activity, Otterson and other spokesman are ‘campaigning on behalf of Romney and Huntsman’ — although Otterson explained the increased activity has been necessary. . “‘We now have two Latter-day Saints running, and the potential for misunderstanding or missteps is therefore twice what it was before,’ Otterson was quoted as saying.

Conference defending LDS doctrine catches attention of Wall Street Journal, Rhett Wilkerson, Deseret News (August 5, 2011).