Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Scott Gordon--CES Letter: Proof or Propaganda


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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." 

From what I read, I believe he was.  Didn't he originally go to his own Father?

Either way....it's not really up to us to judge and this thread has devolved once again into personal attacks against Runnells as most threads about the CES Letter seem to do.

Maybe we should get back to what was in the OP and actually discuss the content of the letter and Scott Gordon's presentation?  I'm not really interested in continuing to analyze Runnell's original testimony or original intent in asking his questions.   And, it's obvious where those are now (testimony and intent), IMO, so I'm also not really interested in discussing those either.

But if you want to continue making it personal against Runnells and avoid discussing the actual letter, that's of course your choice....

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Exiled said:
Quote

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. 

"Of course?"  Reasonable minds can't disagree about this?  

Are you sure?

Quote

You see what you want to see and that is the problem. 

The same could be said of Jeremy Runnells.  And of you, perhaps?

But I reject the charge.  I've spent 20+ years interacting directly with critics of my faith.  It's often a less-than-pleasant experience, but I do it because I want to defend what I believe, but also re-examine what I believe, and why I believe it.  

I don't have blinders on.  I see what I have tested and examined and applied.  I have found the claims of the Church to be substantively "true."  

Quote

Perhaps try and separate yourself from your religion for just a little bit and look at this as an outsider would.

In other words, ignore the decades of my life filled with first-hand experiences with the Church and its doctrines and history?  

Put aside the countless hours studying the Church's scriptures and history?  In favor of a position of substantial ignorance and inexperience ("look at this as an outsider would")? 

Ignore the thousands arguments and sources I have encountered in debating and discussing the Church with its critics and dissidents?

Why on earth would I want to do that?

Quote

You don't have to respond but the simple exercise will be highly beneficial to you.

Again, I have spent many years discussing these things with critics and dissidents of the Church.  I am not ignorant if their arguments, their sources, their reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Bravissimo!!!

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Again, so what if that is the case.  His motivation doesn't suddenly make marrying 14 yr olds correct or validate the priesthood ban or resolve why deutero isaiah appears in the book of mormon, or resolve the discrepancies in the first vision accounts, ........ and on and on .......

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Again, so what if that is the case.  His motivation doesn't suddenly make marrying 14 yr olds correct or validate the priesthood ban or resolve why deutero isaiah appears in the book of mormon, or resolve the discrepancies in the first vision accounts, ........ and on and on .......

But personally attacking Runnells is a great diversion from actually having to discuss all that 😛

Link to comment
5 hours ago, JulieM said:

Really?  I’m sure the leaders would announce it and also have it authenticated and most likely then displayed. They certainly wouldn’t hide it!  

They would at least publish the finding for members to read, imo.

But the problem is knowing what is a "Nephite" pot.

Suppose someone digs up your kitchen in a couple thousand years after some horrible disaster.

Would they know what your religion was from your eating utensils?

Many scholars now believe that the Nephites lives among other cultures, much as LDS people live among American cultures European cultures Etc.

Within a Mayan dig for example one may find what are Nephite pots without possibly knowing what's the religion of the owner was.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, ALarson said:

But personally attacking Runnells is a great diversion from actually having to discuss all that 😛

Sadly for them, diversion is the point of the worthy question nonsense or Runnells just wants the church to fail attacks.  For all I care, he could be the devil himself and that wouldn't matter.  I seem to remember that the devil was the only one who told the truth in the garden of eden story. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Rather than building one's faith as a chain, where a single link failure can lead to catastrophe, I build mine as a rope of many strands, no one strand depending on the existence of others for its own integrity, no single strand essential, and many strands providing greater strength when woven together.

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I think you may have not reflected enough on how essential certain single strands are, such as Jesus being the Christ and each President of the Church being someone he has authorized and empowered to lead us in his Church, but overall I like your analogy of the rope better than that of the chain and I will adopt it with a careful analysis of exactly what the Holy Ghost is giving his sure witness about when he conveys some element of truth to me personally.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Exiled said:
Quote

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. 

No, it's not.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The actual questions matter

So do the tone and content of the questions.  And the motives behind the questions.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

and whatever his motivation is for asking them is wholly and entirely irrelevant. 

I disagree.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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.

Not so.  I have (or attempt to have) a "believing paradigm."  But I do not feel any need to trick myself, or to "turn off the questions" (as evidenced by my 20+ years of regularly interacting with critics and dissidents in addressing controversies about the Church).  And in the main, I find Mr. Runnells' "questions" to be banal, facile, and uninformed.  In contrast, I have found much of the apologetic work produced by the members of the Church to be, in the main, persuasive, well-reasoned, thoughtful and erudite (and often quite "satisfying").

So I reject your proposed "either/or" problem, since I am on both sides of the "or."

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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.

"Me idly standing by" ≠ "actual or constructive fraud."

"Me idly standing by" ≠ "a design to mislead or deceive another."

"Me idly standing by" ≠ "a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty" ("duty" being in the legal sense here).

There are a lot of ways to characterize your scenario.  "Bad faith" isn't really one of them.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:
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,

And you . . . don't?  You don't think motive or bad faith matters?

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

because the questions are difficult to answer

Not really.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

and require a lot of squinting to see things as the church claims them to be. 

They often require a lot of context and information and exposition, yes.  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.

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.  

See also here, and here.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, invariably,

No, not invariably.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

a bad motive is put onto Jeremy, conveniently,

A bad motive is apparent in the letter itself.  In its failure to meaningfully interact with the answers that were and are available.  In its pretending those answers do not exist.  In its having an ulterior motive (tearing down the faith of the Saints, not a sincere pursuit of knowledge/information).  And so on.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

so the ad hominem can be used,

Malarky.  Mr. Runnells' "questions" have been repeatedly and substantively addressed.

Mr. Runnells brought his own motives into the public sphere.  It's not unreasonable to comment on them.

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

in order to dissuade people from reading the letter or discounting it, etc.

Nowhere have I discouraged people from reading the letter.  As for "discounting it," I have repeatedly provided numerous links which substantively respond to Mr. Runnells' "questions."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Exiled said:
Quote

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

Again, so what if that is the case. 

So to be clear, you don't care if a question is posed in good faith or bad faith?  The distinction between the two doesn't matter to you?

19 minutes ago, Exiled said:

His motivation doesn't suddenly make marrying 14 yr olds correct

I agree that his motivation in asking a question doesn't erase the controversies of the Church.  But for you to suggest that a person's bad faith motives just don't matter at all, well, that's something to think about.

19 minutes ago, Exiled said:

or validate the priesthood ban

I agree that the origins of the priesthood ban are not to be found in the motives of Jeremy Runnells.  That doesn't mean his bad faith approach to the issue doesn't matter.

19 minutes ago, Exiled said:

or resolve why deutero isaiah appears in the book of mormon, or resolve the discrepancies in the first vision accounts, ........ and on and on .......

Jeff Lindsay has a very good article about this the approach you seem to be taking: Coping with the "Big List" of Attacks on the LDS Faith

And here, too: "If Only 10% of These Charges, Are True, The Church is False" - The Fallacy of Quantity Versus Quality

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

But personally attacking Runnells is a great diversion from actually having to discuss all that 😛

Yet again:

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

Of these, I think Jim Bennett's and Jeff Lindsay's and FAIR's and Kevin Christensen's contributions are the most salient.

So nope!  No diversions!  If you want to have a discussion of one of Jeremy's "questions," let's have at it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I don't know why.  I just see the labelling happening at this point.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

no.  I"m taking him at his word.  You are hearing his claimed intent and saying that's not true for whatever reason.  I disagree you have a very good grasp of his intent.  You seem to misunderstand, so I tried helping.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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

See also here:

I hope that clarifies things.

It doesn't  for all your words I see no credible critique--no actual effort to address the content.  I see effort after effort to re-frame anything he says or does  in the light of ill-intent.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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. 

I do not see how that is reason to question his sincerity.  That is merely you hating certain terms or phrases he has chosen.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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's stating outright his conclusion.  He's not seeking to delegitimize, per se.  He's seeking to express how the apologetic efforts he's seen have hurt more than helped in terms of him keeping his faith.  YOu simply don't seem to want that to be true?  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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 confused how this is anything different than what you've done here.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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:

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:

(Emphases added).

And here:

(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.  

It's not tricky at all.  For instance, I think Scott did offer a few relative points regarding the few points under consideration.  It seems pretty easy, hear the points, consider them and address them.  Let the responses speak for themselves (something Scott may have struggled with a bit).  But to seemingly address everything as if it's coming from ill-intent because word-choice offends or someone responded to it already doesn't really counter the points.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I think this makes a category error, and therefore may or may not apply.  

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From what I read, I believe he was.  Didn't he originally go to his own Father?

Either way....it's not really up to us to judge and this thread has devolved once again into personal attacks against Runnells as most threads about the CES Letter seem to do.

Alas, he injected himself and his motives and such into the public sphere with his letter.  The messenger is part and parcel of the message.

Nevertheless, I'm just repeating myself now, so I'll wind things down.

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe we should get back to what was in the OP and actually discuss the content of the letter and Scott Gordon's presentation? 

Sounds good.  What part?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, it's not.

So do the tone and content of the questions.  And the motives behind the questions.

I disagree.

Not so.  I have (or attempt to have) a "believing paradigm."  But I do not feel any need to trick myself, or to "turn off the questions" (as evidenced by my 20+ years of regularly interacting with critics and dissidents in addressing controversies about the Church).  And in the main, I find Mr. Runnells' "questions" to be banal, facile, and uninformed.  In contrast, I have found much of the apologetic work produced by the members of the Church to be, in the main, persuasive, well-reasoned, thoughtful and erudite (and often quite "satisfying").

So I reject your proposed "either/or" problem, since I am on both sides of the "or."

"Me idly standing by" ≠ "actual or constructive fraud."

"Me idly standing by" ≠ "a design to mislead or deceive another."

"Me idly standing by" ≠ "a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty" ("duty" being in the legal sense here).

There are a lot of ways to characterize your scenario.  "Bad faith" isn't really one of them.

And you . . . don't?  You don't think motive or bad faith matters?

Not really.

They often require a lot of context and information and exposition, yes.  That's part of the problem with the "Big List" approach.  I've commented on this here:

And here:

See also here, and here.

No, not invariably.

A bad motive is apparent in the letter itself.  In its failure to meaningfully interact with the answers that were and are available.  In its pretending those answers do not exist.  In its having an ulterior motive (tearing down the faith of the Saints, not a sincere pursuit of knowledge/information).  And so on.

Malarky.  Mr. Runnells' "questions" have been repeatedly and substantively addressed.

Mr. Runnells brought his own motives into the public sphere.  It's not unreasonable to comment on them.

Nowhere have I discouraged people from reading the letter.  As for "discounting it," I have repeatedly provided numerous links which substantively respond to Mr. Runnells' "questions."

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you explain for me how the "bad faith" Mr. Runnells supposedly exhibits in your mind changes anything regarding the actual questions he has?  I can't see it.  His motivation doesn't change the problem with the overly credulous 3 witnesses that believed Jesus walked and talked in the form of a deer or that an Angel was under a shed or belief in dousing rods.  His motivation doesn't change polygamy and polyandry problems.  His motivation doesn't change the fact that Joseph Smith thought he was actually translating the kinderhook plates or the egyptian papyri.

Is it the fact that he asked questions in the first place?  That seems to be the real objection. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Exiled said:
Quote

But personally attacking Runnells is a great diversion from actually having to discuss all that 😛

Sadly for them, diversion is the point of the worthy question nonsense or Runnells just wants the church to fail attacks. 

Not so.  It is a supplementary issue relating to the letter.

The letter itself, its contents, has been addressed.  A lot.

Let's do this: You present an issue raised by Jeremy Runnells which, in your view, has not been adequately or competently addressed in the various rebuttals I have linked to (many times now).  Then we can discuss.  Get down to brass tacks.  Perhaps to keep things within the parameters of this thread, you could choose something that Scott Gordon addressed.

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

For all I care, he could be the devil himself and that wouldn't matter. 

Got it.  Good faith and bad faith don't matter to you.  That seems ad hoc and unlikely, but I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Sadly for them, diversion is the point of the worthy question nonsense or Runnells just wants the church to fail attacks.  For all I care, he could be the devil himself and that wouldn't matter.  I seem to remember that the devil was the only one who told the truth in the garden of eden story. 

Do you remember God saying anything in the Garden?  Or Adam, or Eve?  Or various others in the temple drama?   There is a difference between telling "a truth", some truths, honestly saying what a person thinks, which is not necessarily the same same as being correct, saying something factual with malicious intent, and telling "the Truth."  It's important to ask whether your memory is telling you the truth on this point, and possibly others of significance.  Truth, according to D&C 93 is "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come."  Anything short of full omniscience comes short.  Alma 32 does not say that a few successful experiments is enough to bring "perfect knowledge", but that acquiring knowledge is an ongoing process.

FWIW

Kevin Christenen

Canonsburg, PA

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not so.  It is a supplementary issue relating to the letter.

The letter itself, its contents, has been addressed.  A lot.

Let's do this: You present an issue raised by Jeremy Runnells which, in your view, has not been adequately or competently addressed in the various rebuttals I have linked to (many times now).  Then we can discuss.  Get down to brass tacks.  Perhaps to keep things within the parameters of this thread, you could choose something that Scott Gordon addressed.

Got it.  Good faith and bad faith don't matter to you.  That seems ad hoc and unlikely, but I'll leave you to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Answer the question that Professor Hamblin had such a hard time answering from Professor Jenkins a few years ago.  Professor Jenkins waded into the Nahom question and asked if there was something in the new world, e.g. pottery, an inscription, etc. that ties the old world to the new.  Sadly, Professor Hamblin's "responses" devolved into asking what is "evidence" anyway and what does one even expect to find and how would one know it when one sees it, etc.  In other words, he never could answer Professor Jenkins in a good way because there isn't anything that ties the old world circa 600 B.C. to the new world.  Maybe you could step into the fray?

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I've seen your list (posted over and over again here) and I've read most of them.  Honestly, I'm not real impressed with any of them and neither is my Bishop....we are both searching for help with answers because so many members come in with questions after reading this letter.  So far, none of these have been much help....but we keep trying.

I do appreciate all the effort these good men have put into their writings....I don't mean to infer that I don't see their intentions for trying to help.  I just believe many of the questions in the letter and facts stated are very difficult to answer or refute.  We can debate Runnell's intent, etc., but the fact is that there is much truth in the letter.  We've been pretty successful at sorting out the truths from Runnell's opinions with members who come in, but his opinion still greatly affects them from my experience.

Edited by ALarson
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Do you remember God saying anything in the Garden?  Or Adam, or Eve?  Or various others in the temple drama?   There is a difference between telling "a truth", some truths, honestly saying what a person thinks, which is not necessarily the same same as being correct, saying something factual with malicious intent, and telling "the Truth."  It's important to ask whether your memory is telling you the truth on this point, and possibly others of significance.  Truth, according to D&C 93 is "knowledge of things as they were, as they are, and as they are to come."  Anything short of full omniscience comes short.  Alma 32 does not say that a few successful experiments is enough to bring "perfect knowledge", but that acquiring knowledge is an ongoing process.

FWIW

Kevin Christenen

Canonsburg, PA

God set up the scenario so that Adam would be mistaken with whatever choice he made.  Eat the apple and be against the prohibition of partaking from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  Don't eat and be against the reproductive injunction.  God then blames Adam and Eve for acting.  Then Adam blames Eve for his decision.  Eve blames the devil.  Neither take responsibility.  However, the devil told the truth but was cast out because that was the plan all along.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

I've never actually read the entire CES letter, but it put the nail in the coffin for at least one family member's testimony, so I've certainly seen its effects.  And as others have pointed out, it does appear to be the most common resource for igniting faith crises among LDS online these days.

So it's not surprising to see such a list of responses.  In fact, I find it heartening that apologists have not shrunk from the task and are willing to fight the good fight.  But, alas, I fear that all the arguments in the articles in that list are going to be mostly for naught (and not just because most people who read the CES letter are never going to read those articles).

The problem is that, I suspect, those articles don't actually show that anything the CES Letter says isn't true.  Instead, I'd bet dollars to donuts that each of those articles is based on the proposition that what the CES Letter says is true, but that we shouldn't care that it's true (or in other words, if we just change the way we look at it, then it doesn't matter anymore).

In the end, while those arguments are not doubt well intended and verbosely presented, they just aren't going to have the needed effect.  Instead of hundreds of pages of responses, I suspect the only actual response is this:

Yes, the stuff in the CES Letter is true. We're sorry we didn't tell you.  But there is also much more to the Church than that (as you probably know).  We (the Church) are asking you to have faith and believe in all of it.  The good, the bad and the unknown.

But I am curious to be proven wrong.  Can anyone list four or five factual errors made in the current version of the CES Letter?  Not in matters of style or prose, but where Runnels simply got something wrong?

Edited by cinepro
Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Can you explain for me how the "bad faith" Mr. Runnells supposedly exhibits in your mind changes anything regarding the actual questions he has?  I can't see it. 

I'll give it a try (again).

A question does not exist in a vacuum.  It exists within a particular context.  Perhaps the most salient feature of a question is its purpose and definition: "a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information."

Well, we have a problem right there, since the consensus appears to be that Jeremy Runnells was not attempting to "elicit information."  

That takes us to a question of whether the question was asked in "good faith" ("honesty or sincerity of intention") or "bad faith" ("lack of honesty and trust").

Honesty and sincerity matter when two people are attempting to communicate.  Similarly, a lack of these things also matters.

The purpose of the question matters.  If asked in "good faith," then things can generally proceed.  If asked in "bad faith," then communications break down.  Mistrust grows.  Because there is "a lack of honesty and trust" going on.  There is an ulterior motive.  There is intent to deceive (that is, the person posing the question is not asking it "to elicit information," but for some other reason).

Further, the form of the question matters.  In a Gospel context, many challenging issues can, and generally are, framed as a short questions that demand long answers.  This calls for, well a lot.  An understanding of 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.  These 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.

In our world of soundbites, Wikipedia, on-demand media content, etc., some of us want a quick 'n easy answer.  I think Jeremy Runnells knew this when he wrote the Letter.  He wrote the letter as a series of questions because he knew the answers to be elicited required a lot of unpacking.  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.  This is where "bad faith" become relevant.  And evident.  Jeremy Runnells "wins" because his "questions" 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.

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.

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 and worldly praise while doing it.

Quote

His motivation doesn't change the problem with the overly credulous 3 witnesses that believed Jesus walked and talked in the form of a deer or that an Angel was under a shed or belief in dousing rods. 

You're stacking the deck.  

Quote

His motivation doesn't change polygamy and polyandry problems.  His motivation doesn't change the fact that Joseph Smith thought he was actually translating the kinderhook plates or the egyptian papyri.

Again, Jeff Lindsay has a very good article about this the approach you seem to be taking: Coping with the "Big List" of Attacks on the LDS Faith

And here, too: "If Only 10% of These Charges, Are True, The Church is False" - The Fallacy of Quantity Versus Quality

Quote

Is it the fact that he asked questions in the first place?  That seems to be the real objection. 

No.  It's that he asked the "questions" in bad faith.

It's that the "questions" are intellectually lazy.  Facile.  Uninformed.  

It's that his "questions" are designed to elicit long, complex answers, and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.  

It's that his "questions" 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." 

It's that his "questions" are not the product of meaningful and rigorous study, but are instead just a cobbled-together list of complaints and criticisms he found online (or which he received from others whom he solicited online).

It's that his "questions" do not meaningfully or substantively interact with the "answers" that were, and are, available to him.  Virtually everything Runnells presents has been addressed over and over and over.  It is one thing to disagree with those responses, but it is simply bad faith to pretend as if they don't exist, and to refuse to meaningfully interact with them at all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Alas, he injected himself and his motives and such into the public sphere with his letter.  The messenger is part and parcel of the message.

Nevertheless, I'm just repeating myself now, so I'll wind things down.

Sounds good.  What part?

Thanks,

-Smac

As long as people care more about the messenger than the message, then there's really not much to talk about.

Even rotten, nasty politicians, with all of their ulterior motives and scheming can be right on occasion. But when the politician is vilified in a way to completely discount the message, regardless of what that message is, then the opportunity to address the content ceases. I see Runnells as being somewhat similar. Just like a politician, he may not have had pure motives in raising certain issues to the consciousness of a large group of people. I don't know the guy so his motives don't much matter to me. What matters is the content. It's dangerous to toss out everything a person says because you don't like the person or what you perceive to be his motives.

IOW- Even IF his motives were bad, Runnells points out some serious flaws with LDS theology, practice, policy, history. Is he 100% accurate? Probably not, but that doesn't mean he's 100% wrong either.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As long as people care more about the messenger than the message, then there's really not much to talk about.

Even rotten, nasty politicians, with all of their ulterior motives and scheming can be right on occasion. But when the politician is vilified in a way to completely discount the message, regardless of what that message is, then the opportunity to address the content ceases. I see Runnells as being somewhat similar. Just like a politician, he may not have had pure motives in raising certain issues to the consciousness of a large group of people. I don't know the guy so his motives don't much matter to me. What matters is the content. It's dangerous to toss out everything a person says because you don't like the person or what you perceive to be his motives.

IOW- Even IF his motives were bad, Runnells points out some serious flaws with LDS theology, practice, policy, history. Is he 100% accurate? Probably not, but that doesn't mean he's 100% wrong either.

I believe in the concept of finding the truth wherever it can be found.  Some sources offer much and some other sources offer very little, but still some can be found pretty much anywhere.  But still the "best" books and such are the better sources of information, and truth.

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, Exiled said:
Quote

Let's do this: You present an issue raised by Jeremy Runnells which, in your view, has not been adequately or competently addressed in the various rebuttals I have linked to (many times now).  Then we can discuss.  Get down to brass tacks.  Perhaps to keep things within the parameters of this thread, you could choose something that Scott Gordon addressed.

Answer the question that Professor Hamblin had such a hard time answering from Professor Jenkins a few years ago.  Professor Jenkins waded into the Nahom question and asked if there was something in the new world, e.g. pottery, an inscription, etc. that ties the old world to the new. 

That's a fair question.

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Sadly,

How 'bout you present Professor's Hamblin's response?  

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Professor Hamblin's "responses" devolved into asking what is "evidence" anyway

I don't understand.  How is that a devolution?  Prof. Jenkins presupposed, but did not define, "evidence."  Are you suggesting that we ignore the meaning of the word that is central to Prof. Jenkins' inquiry?

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

and what does one even expect to find and how would one know it when one sees it, etc. 

Again, please provide Prof. Hamblin's response(s).

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

In other words,

How 'bout we refrain from A) critiquing a response which you haven't posted by B) re-framing that response in a way that may substantially deviate from the response itself?

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

he never could answer Professor Jenkins in a good way

"In a good way?"  What does that mean?

Let me illustrate my point: As an attorney, I have participated in many depositions (taking a person's sworn testimony outside of court).  Generally speaking, there are huge numbers of questions that are potentially "objectionable" in a deposition.  To me, this illustrates the importance of evaluating the question itself (courts do this all the time).  However, in a deposition, the parties generally "reserve" all such objections (that is, the person objecting will not do so during the deposition, but will file a written objection later with the court).  This is done so that the deposition doesn't get constantly sidetracked. 

However, there are often two types of questions that are not "reserved," and which instead are almost always raised during the objection.  The first is "privileged communications," such as communications between the person being deposed and his attorney.  Such communications are inviolate, so if a question is asked that will elicit an answer that breaches the privilege, the attorney will need to immediately intervene, object, and instruct the deponent to not answer the question.

The second objection that comes up in depositions is "form of the question."  See here:

Quote

Form of the question. This objection is usually used to make a clear record. Questions with objectionable form come in many shapes and sizes, and the proper objection probably depends on your jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions only require that the objecting lawyer state a general “form” objection. Others require that the type of form objection be stated as well. Form questions are waived if they are not made during the deposition.

  • Compound. If the question is compound and the person answers yes, what portion of the question are they agreeing with? For example, if your client is asked “When you turned left were you in the turn lane and was your signal on and was the light green and how do you know”— object! Ask the lawyer to ask one question at a time.
  • Confusing. I know I stated above that it is improper to ask for clarification, but it depends. If the question is actually confusing, an objection may be proper.
  • Calls for speculation. A form objection should also be made to a question that calls for the witness to speculate. Be careful, though. Don’t suggest an answer, which would not be proper.

Again, the lawyer will (or should) object to the "form of the question" and instruct his client not to answer.  This is because the question itself is defective in some way, such that the response to it will likewise be defective or otherwise problematic.

You seem somewhat eager to blow off "form of the question"-type concerns.  I don't think that works here.  If the question is crappy, then there really isn't a good reason to answer it.

You seem to be implying that Prof. Hamblin was being evasive or dishonest in bringing up "form of the question"-type concerns.  I don't think that works here.  Prof. Jenkins asked for "evidence," and Prof. Hamblin asked him to clarify what he (Jenkins) defines as "evidence."  If that definition is problematic, then the two parties are not communicating well (as they may have different understandings about a key term, "evidence").

12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

because there isn't anything that ties the old world circa 600 B.C. to the new world.  Maybe you could step into the fray?

Happy to.  Let's contextualize things a bit.  Please present Jenkins' inquiry, and Hamblin's response.

Thanks,

-Smac

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