Letter To A Ces Director

[readstoomuch]

This is making the rounds on other message boards. Detailed arguments about why the person left the church. Not balanced. Very mormonthink like. He praised Richard Bushman and Grant Palmer for their scholarship. Not something I would have said in the same sentence. Where does Palmer or Mormonthink come off not quoting from alternate opinions. They are so obviously missing-they must have known they were picking and choosing their sources. Anybody else read the letter to a CES Director. I did. Painful

[Calm]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

[Storm Rider]

I recall having heard about this letter, but have never felt compelled to seek after it for my own curiosity. I find these types of "letters" to be unworthy of of devoting what little time I have.  When a prior member chooses to publicly attack their previous religious affiliation be it Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, or Mormon, I lose all interest in their soap box. I value the opinions of those who have found a new home when they share their journey privately; they express little rancor, but share the joy they have found.  There is value to it; I am edified by listening to their personal journey to become closer to our Father in Heaven.  

 

The fairy tale of the diligent servant that studies and after much labor concludes their "church" is wrong and so they feel driven to short from the roof tops the errors of their previous faith, is both arrogant and naive.  I greatly doubt that this individual has found any new subject, new evidence, or anything else that sheds new light on what I know and have studied.  Sour people are just too unpleasant to pass the time of day with; let all seek after that which is beautiful and of good report. 

[jkwilliams]

I recall having heard about this letter, but have never felt compelled to seek after it for my own curiosity. I find these types of "letters" to be unworthy of of devoting what little time I have.  When a prior member chooses to publicly attack their previous religious affiliation be it Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, or Mormon, I lose all interest in their soap box. I value the opinions of those who have found a new home when they share their journey privately; they express little rancor, but share the joy they have found.  There is value to it; I am edified by listening to their personal journey to become closer to our Father in Heaven.  

 

The fairy tale of the diligent servant that studies and after much labor concludes their "church" is wrong and so they feel driven to short from the roof tops the errors of their previous faith, is both arrogant and naive.  I greatly doubt that this individual has found any new subject, new evidence, or anything else that sheds new light on what I know and have studied.  Sour people are just too unpleasant to pass the time of day with; let all seek after that which is beautiful and of good report. 

 

Given that he was asked by the CES director to write this up, it's kind of unfair to label him as an angry exmo who is motivated by rancor. I don't feel the need to justify what I say about the church, but it's interesting how many times I hear that unless I'm absolutely silent I must be bitter.

[cinepro]

I recall having heard about this letter, but have never felt compelled to seek after it for my own curiosity. I find these types of "letters" to be unworthy of of devoting what little time I have.  When a prior member chooses to publicly attack their previous religious affiliation be it Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim, or Mormon, I lose all interest in their soap box. I value the opinions of those who have found a new home when they share their journey privately; they express little rancor, but share the joy they have found.  There is value to it; I am edified by listening to their personal journey to become closer to our Father in Heaven.  

 

The fairy tale of the diligent servant that studies and after much labor concludes their "church" is wrong and so they feel driven to short from the roof tops the errors of their previous faith, is both arrogant and naive.  I greatly doubt that this individual has found any new subject, new evidence, or anything else that sheds new light on what I know and have studied.  Sour people are just too unpleasant to pass the time of day with; let all seek after that which is beautiful and of good report. 

 

As jkwilliams pointed out, the claimed timeline is that the writer of the letter was asked to put his concerns in writing for the CES guy.

 

 

In February 2012, Jeremy experienced a crisis of faith, which subsequently led to a faith transition in the summer of 2012. In the spring of 2013, Jeremy was approached and asked by a Church Education System (CES) Director to share his concerns and questions about the LDS Church's origins, history, and current practices. In response, Jeremy wrote what later became publicly known as Letter to a CES Director.

 

Letter to a CES Director very quickly went viral on the internet. The CES Director responded that he read the "very well written" letter and that he would provide Jeremy with a response. No response ever came.

 

http://cesletter.com/

 

Does that mean you'll be devoting some time to reading it?

 

To be fair, I haven't read it either.  But I hope my reason for not reading it isn't based on as much of a misunderstanding as yours.

Edited February 25, 2014 by cinepro

[ALarson]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director

 

And, here's a response to FAIR's response:

http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/

 

(I haven't read this yet, but have seen it posted on other forums)

 

To really discuss this, it seems we'd need to take it point by point (or topic by topic).  

[cinepro]

And, here's a response to FAIR's response:

http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/

 

(I haven't read this yet, but have seen it posted on other forums)

 

To really discuss this, it seems we'd need to take it point by point (or topic by topic).  

 

And here's the original author's response to the FAIR response:

 

http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/

 

I like his observation that FAIR's response is neutral or confirmatory of 79% of his points:

 

Edited February 25, 2014 by cinepro

[jkwilliams]

I would think the church would be interested in figuring out why people leave the church. It seems counterintuitive to hear people so often say, "I'm not going to listen to you because you're bitter. And don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out."

[The Nehor]

I would think the church would be interested in figuring out why people leave the church.

 

To perform baby-eating black masses.

 

 

It seems counterintuitive to hear people so often say, "I'm not going to listen to you because you're bitter. And don't let the door hit you on the butt on your way out."

 

To be fair would you want to try to hang on to satanic baby-eaters?

[jkwilliams]

To perform baby-eating black masses.

 

 

To be fair would you want to try to hang on to satanic baby-eaters?

 

The sad thing is that some people really do feel that way about us apostates. In the last 2 weeks I've been called a terrorist who assented to the persecution of my own ancestors. Bizarre.

[Anteojito]

The fairy tale of the diligent servant that studies and after much labor concludes their "church" is wrong and so they feel driven to short from the roof tops the errors of their previous faith, is both arrogant and naive.  I greatly doubt that this individual has found any new subject, new evidence, or anything else that sheds new light on what I know and have studied.  Sour people are just too unpleasant to pass the time of day with; let all seek after that which is beautiful and of good report. 

Yeah Like Martin Luther. What a loser...

[Calm]

I wonder how those who applaud the letter would respond if someone defended the Church by saying it told 80% of the truth (ie. its claims were 80% accurate).

Edited February 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Anteojito]

I wonder how those who applaud the letter would respond if someone defended the Church by saying it told 80% of the truth (ie. its claims were 80% accurate).

I think you are a little bit confused. The above donut shows that FAIR either agrees or is neutral on 80% of the letter. Because they do not agree on 20% of the letter does not mean that the 20% is not true.

[Calm]

I am not confused. While it may be true, if FairMormon disagrees with it, that means they (I say they because I was not involved in this project) don't find it to be accurate or true, correct? So claiming that FairMormon agrees with 80% (assuming that is even an accurate statement) says nothing about whether FM sees any value in the letter itself just as a statement by a nonmember that the Church teaches 80% truths in no way demonstrates he doesn't think the Church is a major fraud...nor does it help demonstrate that it isn't. Perhaps the example of the IRS commenting that your tax return was 80% accurate and how most people would react to that comment better expresses my point. At best it gives a starting point of what needs to be discussed. At worst you are in significant trouble.

And that was what I was making an observation about.

Edited February 25, 2014 by calmoriah

[Anteojito]

I am not confused. While it may be true, if FairMormon disagrees with it, that means they (I say they because I was not involved in this project) don't find it to be accurate or true, correct? So claiming that FairMormon agrees with 80% (assuming that is even an accurate statement) says nothing about whether FM sees any value in the letter itself just as a statement by a nonmember that the Church teaches 80% truths in no way demonstrates he doesn't think the Church is a major fraud...nor does it help demonstrate that it isn't. Perhaps the example of the IRS commenting that your tax return was 80% accurate and how most people would react to that comment better expresses my point. At best it gives a starting point of what needs to be discussed. At worst you are in significant trouble.

And that was what I was making an observation about.

If Fair either agrees or is neutral on 80% of the letter, does that mean 80% of what the letter states about the church is true?

[Calm]

If Fair either agrees or is neutral on 80% of the letter, does that mean 80% of what the letter states about the church is true?

If and that is a big if given some of the interpretations I have seen the writer make in the past...I honestly am not that interested enough today to make an effort to read his response yet....then it is a statement about whether or not FM agrees or is neutral. We are not infallible after all nor the arbiters of all truth last I checked. We try to be as accurate as possible, but make mistakes.

I would also have to see what he is saying FM is neutral on and possibly even agrees with, it may be something that can't be demonstrated one way or the other which in no way signifies it must be true.

Edited February 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

Well, I'm not "applauding" anything, but as I understand his point, he's saying that, since FAIRMormon doesn't dispute 80% of his stuff, he only needs to deal with the 20% they dispute. Seems reasonable to me.

[Calm]

I wasn't debating that approach, just making a general observation.

PS: thank you for noticing that it is FairMormon now, but to save you effort no capitalised AIR. I believe it was decided too much effort had to be spent on explaining what the letters stood for so a simpler and more obviously connected to the Church with the addition of "Mormon" was chosen.

Edited February 26, 2014 by calmoriah

[jkwilliams]

I wasn't debating that approach, just making a general observation.

 

As was I.

[Calm]

Ok. Hopefully everyone else is clear on the conversation now as well.

Please see my previous PS as you are too quick in keeping up with the conversation.

[jkwilliams]

I wasn't debating that approach, just making a general observation.

PS: thank you for noticing that it is FairMormon now, but to save you effort no capitalised AIR. I believe it was decided too much effort had to be spent on explaining what the letters stood for so a simpler and more obviously connected to the Church with the addition of "Mormon" was chosen.

 

Well, I don't keep up on the capitalization policies over there. My deepest apologies.

[Storm Rider]

Given that he was asked by the CES director to write this up, it's kind of unfair to label him as an angry exmo who is motivated by rancor. I don't feel the need to justify what I say about the church, but it's interesting how many times I hear that unless I'm absolutely silent I must be bitter.

 

Nope, got no problems with conversation between people, but when mass marketing is undertaken the motivation has obviously changed. I think you understand the different I am highlighting. I don't appreciate zealots of any cause. 

[BCSpace]

This is making the rounds on other message boards. Detailed arguments about why the person left the church. Not balanced. Very mormonthink like. He praised Richard Bushman and Grant Palmer for their scholarship. Not something I would have said in the same sentence. Where does Palmer or Mormonthink come off not quoting from alternate opinions. They are so obviously missing-they must have known they were picking and choosing their sources. Anybody else read the letter to a CES Director. I did. Painful

 

As I noted on one of the other boards regarding the rebuttal of the rebuttal, "Buy me a beer" is really all one needs to know.

[Thinking]

I greatly doubt that this individual has found any new subject, new evidence, or anything else that sheds new light on what I know and have studied.

 

The first time you learn about something it is new to you. Should you casually discard his concerns because you already resolved those same concerns for yourself at an earlier time?

 

[Calm]

Well, I don't keep up on the capitalization policies over there. My deepest apologies.

absolutely no need to apologise, since you were considerate enough to add the Mormon, I just figured you would want to do it completely right. Plenty of people are still calling us FAIR and I don't bother to correct them, only the people who seem to really care so I am guessing they want to know. Edited February 26, 2014 by calmoriah