Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Scott Gordon--CES Letter: Proof or Propaganda


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I can't find where FAIR has shown us how they categorized something as say "falsehood" and something else as "spin"?  

I suppose what we might learn is the Jeremy has considered a pool of say 100 claims in the CES Letter that he finds important.  He perhaps finds that after FAIR"S response that FAIR seems to agree with 70 of those claims.  But it might be that FAIR has considered 1,000 claims in the CES Letter and found that only 15% of those can be considered fact.  But it might be that the large percent of spin is opinion and not a fact consideration for Jeremy.  How do we possibly compare the two if the two aren't telling us how they determined what was a claim worth putting a percentage to?  

Can't find or didn't try to find?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents#Response_to_claims_made_in_.22Letter_to_a_CES_Director.22_and_.22Debunking_FAIR.27s_Debunking.22_by_Jeremy_Runnells

The reason for the graphic I posted was that the FAIR people were irked by Jeremy's claims that FAIR agreed with him. He published his graphic, so they published theirs in response.  And "spin" is important.  Spin is how Iago gets Othello to interpret the situation with his wife.  Spin has consequences.  Spin is especially consequential if you suppose that spin is something that other people do, and that one's own view is unaffected and pristine.   Jesus suggested that criticism ought to start with self reflection.  "Then shall ye see clearly."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

My comment on this presentation:

By doing so, I think Scott completely misses why the CES Letter is so compelling and so effective in deconstructing a traditional LDS belief set.

I don't think so.  That he took a particular approach vector to the CES Letter does not preclude the existence of other vectors and critiques of it.

Quote

Yes, the CES Letter is a little sloppy. Yes, it includes a few inaccuracies and many “half-truths”. Yes, it includes all the bad and none of the good regarding evidences that support LDS truth claims. All of that is true. But it’s at least 70% accurate. And that 70% is a whopper for most LDS.

Yep.  I think most members of the Church are not accustomed to thinking about their faith in an adversarial construct.  This can become a problem, as we may become too complacent in our beliefs, both as to what we believe and why.

Also, Jeff Lindsay has a very good article about this 70% "whopper" issue: Coping with the "Big List" of Attacks on the LDS Faith

Quote

Next to me, of course (https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/), Patrick Mason has given the best insight into how to process the CES Letter while retaining an LDS testimony.

He said the CES Letter does a very good job attacking what he calls an unsustainable view of Mormonism. He then talks about how we have overfilled our “truth cart” and need to empty some of it. He believes there is a sustainable version of Mormonism that will come out on top. The CES Letter is effective in terms of identifying what needs to be tossed and what can stay.

I question that.  The CES Letter takes a throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater approach.  

Again, Jeff Lindsay has a good article about this: "If Only 10% of These Charges, Are True, The Church is False" - The Fallacy of Quantity Versus Quality

Quote

I don’t think Scott Gordon’s defense of the CES Letter is effective, because I didn’t hear him acknowledge that point or encourage those struggling with doubt to shift their paradigm or adopt a more humble view of our doctrine and truth claims.

Again, Scott just took a different vector than Mason did.  Both have utility, depending on the context and the individual.

Quote

His approach seems to be to just simply write it all off and defend the traditional narrative, with the overflowing truth cart, stuffing it back in as it keeps falling out.

I doubt he would agree with that characterization.

Quote

Book of Abraham problems. Polygamy problems. Priesthood ban. Book of Mormon translation issues. Conflict in First Vision accounts. Details lacking in the priesthood restoration narrative. Old Testament Documentary Hypothesis. New Testament textual criticism. Evolution of doctrine in the restoration (and anciently).

Yes.  The "Big List" approach.  Again, Jeff Lindsay has some good points about this.

Quote

None of these are simple problems.

That's part of the problem with the "Big List" approach.  I've commented on this here:

Quote

Many challenging issues can, and generally are, framed as a short questions that demand long answers.  Understanding the context of the issue.  Re-visiting underlying assumptions.  Differentiating fact from fiction/rhetorical embellishment.  And most important of all . . . providing answers based on prayer, scripture, and substantive study and research, rather than off-the-cuff, just-take-my-word-for-it types of explanations.

In our world of soundbites, Wikipedia, on-demand media content, etc., some of us want a quick 'n easy answer.  That is not always possible, or even advisable.

And here:

Quote

Many challenging issues about the Church can be framed (and usually are by folks like Jeremy Runnells and Bill Reel) as a series of fairly short questions that typically demand long answers.  But understanding the context of the issues, and addressing assumptions underlying each "question," and differentiating facts from fiction/rhetorical embellishment, and so on are all necessary predicates to providing substantive and informed and competent answers.  Naturally, this can take a lot of time, far longer than it took a person like Jeremy Runnells to do some Googling and then copy and paste his "questions" into a "Big List."  And not just time, but prayer and effort to meaningfully study and research relevant scriptures, scholarship, etc.

And yet this has been done for Jeremy Runnells.  And the result was that Mr. Runnells largely blew off and generally failed to meaningfully address the very answers to the "questions" he had posed. 

In our world of soundbites, Wikipedia, on-demand media content, etc., some of us want a quick 'n easy answer.  That is not always possible, or even advisable.  But then, perhaps treating these "Big List" grievances as being presented in good faith is not advisable, either.  

And here:

Quote
Quote

I agree.  The original was good and concise (IMO).  The debunking and Fair's response was scattered and kind of chaotic.

That's rather the advantage (and intent) of presenting huge lists of short questions which demand long answers.  Responding to such a list becomes unwieldy and impractical.  The questioner (in this case, Mr. Runnells) then gets to crow and pat himself on the back and unilaterally declare his position to be "correct" because his exhausting list of questions (accusations, really) was not answered to his self-serving satisfaction.

And here:

Quote

That is what Runnells has done, IMO.  So my assessment of his "letter" is there is no good faith here.  The "concerns" and "questions" here are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium.  Many are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions/concerns designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.  They are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions" or "concerns."  His "questions" are, I think, obviously not the product of meaningful and rigorous study, but are instead just a cobbled-together list of complaints and criticisms he found online.  

There is no evidence of a previous good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."  These "questions" and "concerns" are intellectually dishonest in that they do not engage or address the meaningful information that is already readily available and responsive.  These "questions" instead disregard such resources, or pretend they don't exist, or that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed.

So for me, the letter is a ploy.  It is not presented it good faith.  Sincerity matters.  Good faith matters.  None of these things is present.  The letter is not a genuine effort by the author to procure information from a "CES director."  He could have done that in any number of ways privately.  His intended audience is . . . struggling Latter-day Saints.  The purpose is to tear down faith.  To sow seeds of doubt and discord.  And to make money while doing it.

And here:

Quote

I am quite open to addressing challenging questions about the Gospel, but not when they are loaded in such a way as to impute guilt or wrongdoing, or where they are based on highly questionable assumptions (of the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" variety).

I think we should ask and investigate difficult questions.  But not in a spirit of acrimony and accusation, but in the spirit of seeking truth and the Spirit.

I think questions and concerns should be fairly posed, not presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium such as we see in the OP.

I think honest inquiry about the Gospel is useful and productive.  But short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions designed to elicit long, complex answers are often neither useful nor productive, particularly when they are asked with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.

And on and on.

Quote

Every single one is a land mine ready to explode a traditional/literal/fundamentalistic testimony.

I don't think of them as landmines.  They aren't very powerful, after all.  They are more like a series papercuts with lemon juice poured on.  Painful, especially if inflicted all at once.  But not fatal.

Quote

The CES Letter is extremely effective at pointing this out. The process goes like this:

1. Many LDS have a simple, white-washed, historically indefensible view on the issue. Usually the view includes a perspective that God is involved in a way that’s 100% certain, in a fundamentalistic, inerrant manner. 
2. The CES Letter blows away this view. (and imo, rightly so)
3. The faith struggler then has three options. 
a. Combat the new information to settle back into the initial perspective, or a slightly nuanced version that’s essentially the same. But basically retaining the notion that God is involved in a way that’s nearly 100% certain and inerrant. 
b. Accept the new information and come to believe the Church is not “true” and either leave or try to stay in a state that’s very uncomfortable.
c. Accept the new information and reprocess the view of the Church into a version that’s less certain and more humanistic and built on true faith. This new view may not retain beliefs such that LDS is the one and only exclusively true church. But it does retain beliefs that God is in this Church in some way, and that it’s worthy of us devoting ourselves to.

I think there is a fourth option:

d. Accept the new information, but in context and proportion, and with qualifiers as to its provenance, context, accuracy, probative weight, and so on.  Give yourself some time and space.  Study the matter.  Give a fair hearing to the Church and its advocates on these issues.  Utilize faith and the Spirit.  Seek revelation if necessary.  Resist presentism.  Resist the impulse to judge and condemn past leaders and members of the Church.  Apply Mormon 9:31 as needed ("Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been.").  Remind yourself of Matthew 7:2 as needed ("For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."  Focus more on answering the "Primary Questions" summarized recently by Elder Corbridge.  Evaluate the "Secondary Questions" too, but within a reasonable and contextualized framework.  Draw closer to the truths found in the Restored Gospel.  And in all of this, continue to do the "small and simple things" that bring us closer to Christ.  Attend church and the temple.  Participate in sacred ordinances.  Read scriptures.  Pray.  Spend time with family.  Serve others.  Repent.  Seek out the companionship and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Consider what the Lord has done through His (flawed) servants and disciples.

Surely this option is also on the table?

Quote

I have a hunch that Scott Gordon and most of FairMormon would agree with me on this.

I have something of a different hunch.

Quote

But it’s very scary to say directly, considering that this more humanistic more epistemologically humble perspective

You'll understand that many of us reject the notion that epistemological humility is at odds with the truth claims of the Church.

Again, Mormon 9:31 really comes to mind for me when I have discussions like this.

Quote

is not the one taught over the pulpit at General Conference or on Sundays in our wards.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the Church to retain and perpetuate its central truth claims, such as that it is "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (D&C 1:30).

BTW, I don't think the Church has claimed that it is "the one and only exclusively true church."  If you disagree, then please provide references.

Quote

It’s much easier to snipe around the borders of the CES Letter without really taking it on.

There have been many, many responses to Runnells' letter:

Are you sure you want to characterize all of this as merely "snip{ing} around the borders of the CES Letter without really taking it on?"

Jim Bennett's Reply alone is 251 pages long.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Can't find or didn't try to find?

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents#Response_to_claims_made_in_.22Letter_to_a_CES_Director.22_and_.22Debunking_FAIR.27s_Debunking.22_by_Jeremy_Runnells

The reason for the graphic I posted was that the FAIR people were irked by Jeremy's claims that FAIR agreed with him. He published his graphic, so they published theirs in response.  And "spin" is important.

But then we're back to just disagreeing with his opinions or conclusions (ie. the "spin").  

Also, I tried to keep up with the FAIR debunking/Runnell's debunkings of the debunking/FAIR debunking of the debunkings of the FAIR debunkings....ad nauseum.

Many of the so called "errors" were as minor as punctuation or grammar, etc.....and if those are counted in your percentages, I'm not impressed.  And Runnells has corrected most of the "errors" pointed out to him and even made other changes in the letter.   I've seen no one really be able to point to anything substantial as being a lie or wrong other than his conclusions or that he didn't give all the details or information.  But once again, that can be said about both sides of this.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

They are still facts. 

They are a stacked deck.

Again, look at what Shift said.  He gave the Narnians "facts."  Was he being "honest?"

Look at the Palantir analogy I provided earlier. 

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's what the members who read it discover.  That's why this letter is so effective and so damaging.

I disagree.

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We could go into what Runnell's "intent" is....I don't believe it is to "deceive" since he believes what he writes....

Reasonable minds can disagree about that.

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:
Quote

That's the beauty of framing his rhetoric as questions.

Am I "lying" if I ask you if you have stopped beating your wife yet?  Or is the question itself deceitful and misleading?

That's not a good comparison, IMO.  

Ah, well.  I think it's fairly apt.  A "question" can be loaded.  It can be misleading.  It can be deceptive.  

48 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I do believe it's fair of him to ask questions like the one being discussed....is there any archaeological evidence that has been found, etc.

But it's not "fair," or honest, to pretend, as he does, that no answers to these questions exist.

That is, after all, the central and implicit premise of the letter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thank you for this, as a person that went or still going through this, your acknowledgement is help in itself. I hope the church isn't afraid of the people that doubt for fear we are contagious. Maybe you could be a help to those in your ward/stake etc. 

I've thought about asking the Stake President to give a fireside on this general topic.  A few years back, our ward's bishop had such a fireside for the youth.  In the weeks leading up to it, he reminded them of the fireside and invited them anonymously submit questions to him.  He handed out scraps of paper, which he then had them place into a shoebox, which he then rattled around, such that he didn't know who wrote what questions.  His intent was to provide a venue for the youth to ask questions they were prehaps nervous about raising at home or in class.

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

When my husband and I moved fairly recently, I did what many on this board told me to do, I went to the bishop and told him of my battle, and asked to be put in a calling that helped serve others. Well he left me high and dry. He's never called to see how things are going etc. Just as the bishop in my former ward. They are scared of people like me.

I am sorry to hear that.  I would encourage you to follow up with your bishop.  It's a tough gig, and sometimes this sort of neglect can be simple inadvertence.  

Meanwhile, there are all sorts of opportunities to serve in the ward/neighborhood without a specific assignment from the bishop.  In many ways, those oportunities can be more meaningful to the individual.

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Even though I'm far from scary. Never was outspoken about my belief problems, kept it all to myself, felt like I was in the Twilight Zone. The only reason I came out to my former bishop was because I'd been called to teach, and it was the D&C year and wasn't prepared to testify in my lessons.

I think that's a fair and reasonable thing.  I wish you the best.  Don't give up.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

They are a stacked deck.

But still facts.  And when a member goes searching to see if he's right about no archaeological evidence found in the area of Hill Cumorah in New York, they learn it's the truth.  Then they try to find what our current leaders believe about where these battles all took place and find that they pretty much say "we don't know".   Then it snowballs from there and they learn about polygamy....then polyandry....and on and on....

And, Runnells supplies the list and questions all in one document.  

We can continue going back and forth regarding nit picking everything in the letter, but no one can deny it's been effective and continues to have an affect on many members and their families.  Scott Gordon became very emotional about that fact.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But it's not "fair," or honest, to pretend, as he does, that no answers to these questions exist.

That is, after all, the central and implicit premise of the letter.

He believes there are no good answers.  That's his opinion and one can disagree.  

Each members needs to discover, study and decide for themselves. 

But so far, I have not seen anything that is even close to being as effective in answering all of the questions and concerns as his letter has been at presenting the questions.  

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

You don't know his intent. 

I think I can arrive at a reasonable and extrapolated conclusion about his intent.

Quote

His intent is to point out after all his questions and concerns he concluded the Church is not what it claims to be.  There's no ill-intent there.  

So you can infer his intent, but I cannot?  Why is that?

Quote
Quote

Was the CES Letter really written to a CES Director?  Or was it cobbled together by Jeremy Runnells, who went online and solicited input from critics and dissidents of the Church?  Does acting in good faith matter, or not?

Why is it not both? 

Because there is a world of difference between the two.  In tone and content and intent.

Quote

If he had a question it's likely he at some point googled something about it.  If he had that question and googled about it and found input from critics that pertained to his question, why can't he also pose the question, or reframe it and pose it to a CES director? 

For the same reasons with which I critiqued the later, and derivative, Letter to My Wife:

Quote

There isn't really a good faith basis for publishing a letter "to my wife" online, to the entire world.  So the "to my wife" bit (coupled with it being formally published online, anonymously, under a unique URL) comes across as a rhetorical gimmick.  A pretextual excuse to pluck at the ol' heartstrings.  An attempt to evade scrutiny or criticism by hiding behind sentimentality (as in "How dare you critique the heart-felt writings of this man to his wife!  Have you no decency, sir?").  

The letter comes across as a mediocre retread of Runnell's CES letter, which itself was not exactly the pinnacle of critical thought and analysis.  In both instances, the authors pretend (yes, I'm suggesting bad faith here) that there are no substantive responses to the laundry list of cut n' paste complaints.  FAIR.  Jeff Lindsay.  Mormon Interpreter.  Various published books.  These things have been addressed over and over and over.  It is one thing to disagree with those responses, but it is manifestly bad faith to pretend as if they don't exist, and to refuse to interact with them at all.  Runnells' attempt at ignoring these materials was weak.  This fellow really has no excuse at all (in fact, this letter comes across as nearly wholesale plagiarism of Runnell's stuff).

So there is no good faith here.  The "concerns" and "questions" here are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium.

Many are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions/concerns designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.

They are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions" or "concerns."

There is no evidence of a previous good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."

These "questions" and "concerns" are intellectually dishonest in that they do not engage or address the meaningful information that is already readily available and responsive.  These "questions" instead disregard such resources, or pretend they don't exist, or that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed.

Again, the letter is a ploy.  It is not presented it good faith.  Sincerity matters.  Good faith matters.  None of these things are present.  The letter is not a genuine effort by the author to convey information to his wife.  He could have done that in any number of ways privately.  His intended audience is . . . struggling Latter-day Saints.  The purpose is to tear down faith.  To sow seeds of doubt and discord.  

See also here:

Quote

The letter strikes me as nothing like an "honest quest."  Instead, the letter comes across as Mr. Runnells pretending (yes, I'm suggesting bad faith here) that there are no substantive responses to his laundry list of cut n' paste complaints.  FAIR.  Jeff Lindsay.  Mormon Interpreter.  FARMS.  BookofMormonCentral.  Dozens (hundreds?) of published books.  Virtually everything Runnells presents has been addressed over and over and over.  It is one thing to disagree with those responses, but it is manifestly bad faith to pretend as if they don't exist, and to refuse to meaningfully interact with them at all.  

That is what Runnells has done, IMO.  So my assessment of his "letter" is there is no good faith here.  The "concerns" and "questions" here are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium.  Many are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions/concerns designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.  They are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions" or "concerns."  His "questions" are, I think, obviously not the product of meaningful and rigorous study, but are instead just a cobbled-together list of complaints and criticisms he found online.  

There is no evidence of a previous good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."  These "questions" and "concerns" are intellectually dishonest in that they do not engage or address the meaningful information that is already readily available and responsive.  These "questions" instead disregard such resources, or pretend they don't exist, or that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed.

So for me, the letter is a ploy.  It is not presented it good faith.  Sincerity matters.  Good faith matters.  None of these things is present.  The letter is not a genuine effort by the author to procure information from a "CES director."  He could have done that in any number of ways privately.  His intended audience is . . . struggling Latter-day Saints.  The purpose is to tear down faith.  To sow seeds of doubt and discord.  And to make money while doing it.

I hope that clarifies things.

Quote

Why does it feel like your whole complaint about the CES Letter is to conclude he has ill-intent?  

I've criticized a lot more than just his ill intent.  I've spent a lot of time on the content as well.  

Quote

I believe his point is made here from the Letter:

"FairMormon and these unofficial apologists have done more to destroy my testimony than any “anti-Mormon” source ever could. I find their version of Mormonism to be alien and foreign to the Chapel Mormonism that I grew up in attending Church, seminary, reading scriptures, General Conferences, EFY, Church history tour, mission, and BYU. It frustrates me that apologists use so many words in their attempts to redefine words and their meanings. Their pet theories, claims, and philosophies of men mingled with scripture are not only contradictory to the scriptures and Church teachings I learned through correlated Mormonism...they're truly bizarre."

I have a hard time taking this rhetoric as sincere.  He references phrases like "Chapel Mormonism" and "correlated Mormonism," which are used almost exclusively by anti-Mormons.  He seeks to delegitimize the extensive scholarship and reasoning and effort of defenders of the Church by employing a guilt trip ("have done more to destroy my testimony...").  He refuses to acknowledge the quality of some (much?  most?) of these efforts by calling them names ("pet theories, claims, and philosophies of men mingled with scripture").  He preemptively refuses to address these efforts by summarily waiving them off.

I'm reminded here of the back-and-forth discussion many years ago between Paul Owen, an evangelical scholar, and John Weldon.  Owen, with another evangelical academic, Carl Mosser, had previously written a very blunt assessment of how evangelicals were responding to the claims of the LDS Church and scholarship being generated by LDS writings in support of those claims: Mormon Apologetic Scholarship and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?   Here are the five main conclusions Mosser and Owen reached in their paper:

Quote

The first is that there are, contrary to popular evangelical perceptions, legitimate Mormon scholars. We use the term scholar in its formal sense of "intellectual, erudite; skilled in intellectual investigation; trained in ancient languages." Broadly, Mormon scholarship can be divided in to four categories: traditional, neo-orthodox, liberal and cultural. We are referring to the largest and most influential of the four categories-traditional Mormon scholars.
...
The second conclusion we have come to is that Mormon scholars and apologists (not all apologists are scholars) have, with varying degrees of success, answered most of the usual evangelical criticisms. Often these answers adequately diffuse particular (minor) criticisms. When the criticism has not been diffused the issue has usually been made much more complex.
...
A third conclusion we have come to is that currently there are, as far as we are aware, no books from an evangelical perspective that responsibly interact with contemporary LDS scholarly and apologetic writing.
...
Our fourth conclusion is that at the academic level evangelicals are losing the debate with the Mormons. We are losing the battle and do not know it. In recent years the sophistication and erudition of LDS apologetics has risen considerably while evangelical responses have not.
...
Finally, our fifth conclusion is that most involved in the counter-cult movement lack the skills and training necessary to answer Mormon scholarly apologetic. The need is great for trained evangelical biblical scholars, theologians, philosophers and historians to examine and answer the growing body of literature produced by traditional LDS scholars and apologists.

Subsequent to the publication of this paper, an evangelical critic of the LDS Church, John Weldon, wrote a response to it, and Paul Owen then wrote a response to Mr. Weldon.  Although both parties were on the "same side" (both are evangelicals, both are critical of the claims of the LDS Church), they had substantially different ideas as to the merits of LDS scholarship.  I am sort of seeing this same divergence of opinion here.

For example, Mr. Owen wrote this:

Quote

I note at the beginning of appendix 1 that Mr. Weldon writes: "The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) publishes literature in defense of Mormonism, especially the Book of Mormon ." This statement is a factual error, not in terms of what is stated, but what goes conspicuously unstated. As Carl Mosser and I have extensively documented, FARMS does far more than simply defend the Book of Mormon: They are actively engaged in "Ancient Research." They are not FMS; they are FARMS. Why is this important? Because, by ignoring FARMS involvement in the wider field of academic historical research, Mr. Weldon hides from his readers (most of whom probably have little exposure to FARMS) the fact that many of the scholars associated with this organization are respected experts in fields directly pertinent to LDS apologetic claims; fields such as Second Temple Judaism, Ancient Near Eastern literature, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Egyptology. By contrast, no researcher currently involved in apologetic responses to LDS scholarship has any acknowledged expertise in such areas. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY, NO MATTER HOW LONG WE HIDE OUR HEADS IN THE SAND. How on earth can our pastors, most of whom have at best a M.Div. level seminary training, be expected to give their flocks substantive replies to the FARMS literature which is increasingly being used in LDS proselytizing activities? How can our laypeople successfully convince their Mormon friends of the superior plausibility of the truth claims of orthodox Christianity when our researchers in the apologetics community have no better arguments to offer than: FARMS scholarship is obviously wrong, because we already know Mormonism is a false religion? Put yourself in the Mormon's shoes. Would you find that to be a convincing argument?

(Emphases added).

And here:

Quote

The heart of the problem is Mr. Weldon's refusal to seriously engage LDS scholarship; and this comes to the surface again under the heading Needless Concerns . Brother Weldon tells us: "But at another level, the alleged new evidence for Mormonism isn't impressive--and it never will be when it comes to defending the truth claims of Mormonism." The intellectual narrow-mindedness displayed here is astounding. Of course, such evidence will fail to convince Brother Weldon; but it sure does seem impressive to folks in the LDS Church! In case Brother Weldon has forgotten, THEY are the ones that we Christians are supposed to be talking to. THEY are the ones who need to be shown why FARMS scholarship does not establish the historical and theological truth claims of the Mormon religion. And they are sure as shootin' going to find FARMS scholarship a lot more "impressive" than the frighteningly lame argument: "In a similar fashion, Mormonism is so clearly false on doctrinal grounds, one need not worry their scholarship could ever prove much of anything." My goodness, does Brother Weldon realize how utterly pathetic that must sound to a Mormon's ears? Does he care?!

(Emphasis added).

Jeremy Runnells is doing the same thing that John Weldon did years ago: trading on ignorance and misrepresentation.

To be sure, I am not discounting that Runnells has been effective in what he is doing.  But that is a separate question from the morality and ethics of what he is doing.

I think we as Latter-day Saints need to find ways to counter what Runnells is doing, but to do so by relying on education and encouragement and faith and patience.  This can be a tricky thing.  

Over the last 2 weeks I have spent extensive time demolishing half of the basement in my hope.  Pulling out wall paneling and ceiling tiles, tearing down a very ugly 1960s-era stone fireplace, etc.  However, I have hired an expert to come in and re-wire the electrical stuff, and Home Depot to install new carpet, and a skilled friend to install new drywall and tape/mud/texture it.  I did this because A) I lack the skills to work with electrical components, drywall, and carpet, and B) demolition work is way easy.

My point is that demolishing or destroying something (like what Jeremy Runnells is doing) is a lot easier than creating an environment that is attractive and functional (which is what we are trying to do).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

A quick check at his website reveals that Runnels has responded to major criticisms on several occasions, he's responded to the separate criticisms by FAIR, Daniel Peterson, Brian Hauglid, and Kevin Christensen, at least.

The question was, has he made any corrections to his letter as a result of those criticisms as Richard Abanes did with his book? Some of the same people responded to both the CES letter and ONUG

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But still facts.  And when a member goes searching to see if he's right about no archaeological evidence found in the area of Hill Cumorah in New York, they learn it's the truth.  Then they try to find what our current leaders believe about where these battles all took place and find that they pretty much say "we don't know".   Then it snowballs from there and they learn about polygamy....then polyandry....and on and on....

And, Runnells supplies the list and questions all in one document.  

We can continue going back and forth regarding nit picking everything in the letter, but no one can deny it's been effective and continues to have an affect on many members and their families.  Scott Gordon became very emotional about that fact.

He believes there are no good answers.  That's his opinion and one can disagree.  

Each members needs to discover, study and decide for themselves. 

But so far, I have not seen anything that is even close to being as effective in answering all of the questions and concerns as his letter has been at presenting the questions.  

Yup, and that’s a problem and why so many are addressing it like what Scott attempted to do.  He’s a good man and is really trying, but I wonder if it just gives more attention to what’s in the letter?  They have to try though because it just seems that more and more are being exposed to the CES letter by friends and family members.  

And that is at least Jeremy’s intent now.  Not to deceive, but to “educate” the masses. 🙁

Edited by JulieM
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think most of us can figure out that by the time Runnell's wrote the CES Letter, he was no longer expecting answers.

So you concede his letter is not asking questions in good faith?  That he was "no longer expecting answers?"

Why, then, do you contest my conclusion that he presented the questions in bad faith?

57 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But members really don't seem to care much about that point when they actually read the letter. 

So acting in bad faith?  Is that your position?

I don't understand.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It's a nice list of the problems and the so-called answers are lacking for a lot of people. 

Funny how the "list of the problems" does not include any reference to the answers.

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

One may choose to not see the issues as issues, as one may choose to believe just about anything, regardless of whether or not belief is reasonable.

Surely such reasoning applies to Jeremy Runnells as well as us?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you concede his letter is not asking questions in good faith?  That he was "no longer expecting answers?"

Why, then, do you contest my conclusion that he presented the questions in bad faith?

So acting in bad faith?  Is that your position?

I don't understand.

Thanks,

-Smac

What does that matter if he asked the questions in good faith or bad faith?  If I witness my enemy, a person that I want dead and was about to murder, if I see that enemy murdering some random person and I film it, does my going to the police in bad faith change the fact that my enemy committed murder and should be punished for it?

The point is the substance of the questions and the lack of good answers, not what his motivation was.

Edited by Exiled
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So you concede his letter is not asking questions in good faith? 

Oh, I believe he had a list of his original concerns and questions.....and was sincerely looking for help and answers when he formed those questions.  But by the time he wrote the letter, he most likely knew he either wouldn't get a response or that there were really no "good" answers to his questions.   That doesn't mean his original questions had changed that he was asking in good faith hoping for help and looking for answers. 

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why, then, do you contest my conclusion that he presented the questions in bad faith?

I don't believe he did that.....not originally and not even when he put all of them into a letter.   

Maybe he did hope for at least some type of response?   I don't know....

As far as we know, there was no response though (if I am remembering correctly).

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yup, and that’s a problem and why so many are addressing it like what Scott attempted to do.  He’s a good man and is really trying, but I wonder if it just gives more attention to what’s in the letter?  

If we ignore the content of the letter, we'll be accused of, well, ignoring the content of the letter.

I think we need to address these controversies.  We need to contextualize them.  We need to respond with accuracy and humility and fairness.  The existence of an accusation or criticism is not evidence for itself, though some seem to think otherwise.

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

They have to try though because it just seems that more and more are being exposed to the CES letter by friends and family members.  

And that is at least Jeremy’s intent now.  Not to deceive, but to “educate” the masses. 🙁

To persuade people to join him in abandoning faith, yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

What does that matter if he asked the questions in good faith or bad faith? 

Because the difference matters.  A good faith question seeks information or clarification.  A bad faith question does not.  

A good faith question expands knowleldge and improves and edifies both parties.  A bad faith question does not.

A bad faith question is innately deceptive because it is not seeking information or clarification.  It has an ulterior motive.  

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

If I witness my enemy, a person that I want dead and was about to murder him, if I see that enemy murdering some random person and I film it, does my going to the police in bad faith change the fact that my enemy committed murder and should be punished for it?

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "bad faith."

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The point is the substance of the questions and the lack of good answers, not what his motivation was.

I think the form and content of the questions matter.  A lot.  

I think motive matters.  A lot.

I think acting in bad faith matters.  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Exiled said:
Quote

To persuade people to join him in abandoning faith, yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think this should be such a big deal when tens of thousands of missionaries are trying to convert people into the church.

I do not think there is any sort of symmetry between the efforts of our missionaries and the efforts of Jeremy Runnells.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To persuade people to join him in abandoning faith, yes.

Which is different than an intent to lie or deceive.  He believes he has the truth.  

You believe he’s deceiving, I get that.  

I do agree that he wants to persuade people to leave the church now.  But he thinks he’s sharing the truth and waking members up, not deceiving.

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not think there is any sort of symmetry between the efforts of our missionaries and the efforts of Jeremy Runnells.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course there is.  (do you think this is an example of a bad faith response?)  You see what you want to see and that is the problem.  Perhaps try and separate yourself from your religion for just a little bit and look at this as an outsider would.  You don't have to respond but the simple exercise will be highly beneficial to you.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

As is often the case, what at first seems a serious problem on further study ceases to vex, and sometimes even bolsters the target of the critic. But when the damage is done, it’s difficult to undo.

I’m reminded of our experience here with One Nation Under Gods by Richard Abanes. A weak member or an uninformed non-member could come away from that book abhorring the Restoration and looking for a rope with which to hang some Mormons. But a closer look revealed it to contain a plethora of misinformation and disinformation. After some careful checking, I came to the conclusion that one could randomly open the book and find at least one howler on the page. That proved to be true. 

To Abanes’ credit, he came here to defend his work and received many well-deserved lumps. He even showed up at a FAIR conference! His second edition was cleaned up a bit, but it was still dismal. He should have paid some residuals for all the free editing and fact checking.

So, has the author of the CES Letter made corrections when confronted by criticism such as this excellent presentation by Scott Gordon (and many others)?

I met with Richard personally over lunch and visited with his pastor on one occasion and found them both to be sincere but very misguided and insistent in their ignorance.

Not much you can do with those kind of folks.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Oh, I believe he had a list of his original concerns and questions.....and was sincerely looking for help and answers when he formed those questions. 

Actually, I question that.  I think he started with doubts (and resentments), and went looking for help in validating them.

As Exiled just observed: "One may choose to not see the issues as issues, as one may choose to believe just about anything, regardless of whether or not belief is reasonable."

I have a hard time believing that Mr. Runnells was "sincerely looking for help." 

His questions are overwhelmingly uninformed and facile.  They give no indication of effort by him to meaningfully study and understand the issues with which he purports to struggle.

His out-of-hand rejection of scholarly/apologetic efforts to address controversies in the Church's history and doctrines is overwrought and absurd.  Again, he gives little indication of having meanginglly attempted to engage or understand these efforts.  

His tone and tenor reek of bad faith.  

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But by the time he wrote the letter, he most likely knew he either wouldn't get a response or that there were really no "good" answers to his questions.   

So he asked these questions . . . in bad faith.

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That doesn't mean his original questions had changed that he was asking in good faith hoping for help and looking for answers. 

Perhaps you can show us evidence of these "original questions?"  The letter appears to have been intended as a start-to-finish, soup-to-nuts hit job on the Church.  See here (previously linked to by Kevin Christensen):

Quote
Jeremy can boast more than one epistle in his corpus. In October 2012 he wrote the so-called “Open Letter to Elder Quinten L. Cook.” This letter drips with sarcasm as he blatantly mocks Elder Cook’s General Conference talk from that month. This is more than 3 years ago, and it is quite clear where he stands. (I’ll wait while you go ahead and read it.)
 
A month later, on November 15, 2012, he openly stated, “I’m [born-in-the-covenant], [returned missionary], Temple Married who left the church a few months ago (haven’t resigned yet).”
 
So, at this point Jeremy had already left the church. Although he hadn’t formally resigned, he indicated that he intended to at some future point (“yet”). Not only that, but in the same message he stated, “I have a [true believing Mormon] wife who still takes kids to church. I want to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism so they won’t have to go through what I went through.” Not only does he already consider himself as “out” of the Church, he is trying to lead others—namely, his wife and children—out of the Church as well.
 
Forgive me if this does not look much like a sincere person just looking for answers. Mind you, all of this was before he even wrote the CES Letter. You see, his mind was already made up when his grandfather asked him “to speak to his CES Director friend, about [his] concerns.” So what did he do? He drafted the CES Letter, then asked a bunch of ex-Mormons online for “feedback/advice.” He even sent them a second draft, asking again, “Let me know what you guys think before I send.”

I'm really struggling to understand your position here.

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe he did that.....not originally and not even when he put all of them into a letter.   

And the evidence for that assessment is...?

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe he did hope for at least some type of response?   I don't know....

More from the link provided by Steve Christensen:

Quote
Still think Jeremy is just someone sincerely looking for answers? He has recently made the unequivocal statement, “Yes, my position in 2015 is that the LDS Church is based on a foundation of fraud.” Doesn’t get much clearer than that. While he goes on to say that he “was still wrestling with figuring things out 2 years ago when [he] was approached by the CES Director,” we have already shown that this was not the case, and that he had made up his mind at least 6 months before.
 
And since I already know that Jeremy is going to cry ad hominem here (it is his standard response to anyone who ever questions his account of things), let me point out, paraphrasing him (as quoted by Fox News):

I asked questions (about his current version of the story), I shared my concerns (with its accuracy), and I shared facts and information that are backed by his own statements and actions. So if sharing the truth, and publicly, is ad hominem, then I think that’s a problem. 

It is undeniable that Jeremy Runnells is in open apostasy against the Church, and as such is unsurprisingly being subjected to a disciplinary council. His disciples may write gushing (if not wholly misleading) hagiographies of him to be used as didactic tools among the (un)faithful, but responsible news organizations will hopefully do their homework before blindly buying into his blatantly deceptive narrative and ludicrous non-scandal.

This was written around the time he was being disciplined.  You will recall that he fought against church discipline.  And yet... (same link as above):

Quote
Just this last October {2015} he wrote, “I don’t care about the LDS Church anymore. Its foundational truth claims are demonstrably false.” If he doesn’t care about the Church, as it is “demonstrably false,” then why is he so concerned about remaining a member? Perhaps so he can continue to grandstand as a simple Mormon with sincere questions, as he has done for the press? Whatever the answer, it is obvious that this has become an deeply personal issue for Jeremy, not a simple matter of him having some questions.
 
In July 2015, someone started a thread in the ex-Mormon subreddit asking why Jeremy had not yet been excommunicated. In response Jeremy protested that it would be a “grotesque injustice” to excommunicate him. “Grotesque.” 

So on the one hand he "{doesn't} care about the LDS Church anymore," as he found it "demonstrably false" and "based on a foundation of fraud."  But on the other he fought against being excommunicated, calling it a "grotesque injustice."

This is why we have phrases like "good faith" and "bad faith," and why there are legitimate and meaningful differences between these two concepts.

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

As far as we know, there was no response though (if I am remembering correctly).

The CES Director failed to respond to a letter that was obviously and patently presented in bad faith?  And this was . . . a bad thing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Which is different than an intent to lie or deceive.  He believes he has the truth.  

You believe he’s deceiving, I get that.  

I do agree that he wants to persuade people to leave the church now.  But he thinks he’s sharing the truth and waking members up, not deceiving.

The entire premise of the letter is deceptive.  His "questions" are presented in bad faith.  He compiled them well after he had lost his faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because the difference matters.  A good faith question seeks information or clarification.  A bad faith question does not.  

A good faith question expands knowleldge and improves and edifies both parties.  A bad faith question does not.

A bad faith question is innately deceptive because it is not seeking information or clarification.  It has an ulterior motive. 

This is a false and bad faith distinction.  The actual questions matter and whatever his motivation is for asking them is wholly and entirely irrelevant.  It really goes to the crux of the problem: one has to have a believing paradigm, or trick oneself or turn off the questions, in order to continue in the faith despite the unsatisfying answers to Mr. Runnells' questions.

Quote

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "bad faith."

According to Black's Law dictionary:  Bad Faith: The opposite of “good faith,” generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one’s rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive. Hiigenberg v. Northup, 134 Ind. 92, 33 N. E. 780; Morton v. Immigration ***’n, 79 Ala. 617; Coleman v. Billings, 89 111. 191; Lewis v. Holmes, 109 La. 1030, 34 South. 66, 61 L. R. A. 274; Harris v. Harris, 70 Pa. 174; Penn Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Trust Co., 73 Fed. 653, 19 C. C. A. 310, 38 L. R. A. 33, 70; Insurance Co. v. Edwards, 74 Ga. 230.

My scenario has me idly standing by, waiting for the murder to happen, without calling the police beforehand, so I can film the act and then turn my enemy in for murder.

Quote

I think the form and content of the questions matter.  A lot.  

I think motive matters.  A lot.

I think acting in bad faith matters.  A lot.

Thanks,

-Smac

Of course you do, because the questions are difficult to answer and require a lot of squinting to see things as the church claims them to be.  So, invariably, a bad motive is put onto Jeremy, conveniently, so the ad hominem can be used, in order to dissuade people from reading the letter or discounting it, etc.

Edited by Exiled
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...