Questions For Jeremy Runnels "letter To Ces Director" Author

[mormonstories]

Tomorrow I will be interviewing Jeremy Runnells, author of the very popular "Letter to a CES Director," for Mormon Stories Podcast. Please post your questions for Jeremy at the Mormon Stories site linked to below.

 

http://mormonstories.org/questions-for-jeremy-runnells-author-of-letter-to-a-ces-director/

 

This is a discussion board. You have been asked to not post notices for your personal site on this board.  If you want to make an arrangement with this board please contact Nemesis. We are putting you on "limited" status. You are welcome to post but will not be able to open threads.

[stemelbow]

I have no questions, but I"ll look forward to listening. Honestly, wasn't as impressed with the letter and follow-ups as others, but he seems interesting.

[bluebell]

Is this an allowable topic?  

[Senator]

Is this an allowable topic?  

Why not?

[bluebell]

Why not?

 

I was under the impression that threads had to be discussion based (not simply informational or advertising for a different site).  Maybe i'm wrong though.

[Senator]

I was under the impression that threads had to be discussion based (not simply informational or advertising for a different site).  Maybe i'm wrong though.

 

Oh

 

I guess he might just need to word it differently then.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[stemelbow]

There doesn't seem to be a topic for discussion here. Just an ad for John's website and podcast.

 

Anyway, Jeff Lindsay has a good post on Runnells's letter at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/05/20/coping-with-the-big-list-of-attacks-on-the-lds-faith/, where he notes the similarity to the "Gish Gallop" tactic used by Creationists.

Interesting. His approach does seem very Gish Gallop, most evident in his response to Fair.

Edited May 21, 2014 by stemelbow

[Buckeye]

There doesn't seem to be a topic for discussion here. Just an ad for John's website and podcast.

 

Anyway, Jeff Lindsay has a good post on Runnells's letter at http://blog.fairmormon.org/2014/05/20/coping-with-the-big-list-of-attacks-on-the-lds-faith/, where he notes the similarity to the "Gish Gallop" tactic used by Creationists.

 

Actually, the Lindsay post is not about the Runnells letter.  Lindsay makes that clear in a comment below the post. 

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[cinepro]

Well, maybe we can shift the focus of this thread to "big list" attacks.

 

I can understand why "big list" attacks can be bad, since it's possible for the list items to be individually weak, and the format of the presentation can be such that there isn't enough time (or energy) to address all the items.

 

But if someone has several issues with something, why is it categorically bad to collect them together in one place?  For example, if a friend of mine wrote to me and asked why I don't want to join his Scientologist group, my response wouldn't be one thing.  It would be a list of many things.  Likewise, if someone asked why I don't like McDonalds, my response might have many, many items (at least as many items as their menu does   ). 

 

But if there are many solid, good reasons to object to something, why is it objectionable to collect those reasons into one essay or letter?  The fact that it's difficult for someone to respond to them doesn't mean the format is bad.

 

And I would suggest that Jeff Lindsay's site is a perfect and ironic example of the "big list" itself. 

[Paddy]

I would ask Jeremy if he could honestly state that that all the critisms are valid. I have read the letter iand it seems to me that he was going for quantity over quality. This approach evidences an agenda rather than an honest search for truth.

[Calm]

I would ask Jeremy if he could honestly state that that all the critisms are valid. I have read the letter iand it seems to me that he was going for quantity over quality. This approach evidences an agenda rather than an honest search for truth.

That I think is the major problem with big lists besides the tendency for them to feel overwhelming is the way they can interfere with processing of information in that there is too much covered so people dont really retain or examine it in depth, treatment is often superficial leaving people feeling like they are more informed when they really aren't. If you are sincere about wanting to discuss something, then a better approach is one topic at a time and actually dealing with it and acknowledging coming to a conclusion or the validity of the rebuttal or lack of it rather than just jumping to the next in the list as if there had been no response (which is often how people make use of big lists). If someone just asks you what is wrong with something and you are not intending to discuss but just giving your reasons as requested, then list however many you want IMO.

Edited May 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

And I would suggest that Jeff Lindsay's site is a perfect and ironic example of the "big list" itself.

Unless one equates encyclopaedias with big lists, I don't see Lindsay's site as an example.

"Examples are most commonly found in "list" articles that may claim to show "100 reasons for" something, or "50 reasons against" something. At this sort of level, with dozens upon dozens of minor arguments, each individual point on the list may only be a single sentence or two, and many may be a repeat or vague re-wording of a previous one. This is the intention: although it is trivial amount of effort on the part of the galloper to make a point, particularly if they just need to re-iterate an existing one a different way, a refutation may take much longer and someone addressing will be unable to refute all points in a similarly short order. If even one argument in a Gish Gallop is left standing at the end, or addressed insufficiently, the galloper will attempt to claim victory."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

Edited May 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[Kevin Christensen]

Well, maybe we can shift the focus of this thread to "big list" attacks.

 

I can understand why "big list" attacks can be bad, since it's possible for the list items to be individually weak, and the format of the presentation can be such that there isn't enough time (or energy) to address all the items.

 

But if someone has several issues with something, why is it categorically bad to collect them together in one place?  For example, if a friend of mine wrote to me and asked why I don't want to join his Scientologist group, my response wouldn't be one thing.  It would be a list of many things.  Likewise, if someone asked why I don't like McDonalds, my response might have many, many items (at least as many items as their menu does   ). 

 

But if there are many solid, good reasons to object to something, why is it objectionable to collect those reasons into one essay or letter?  The fact that it's difficult for someone to respond to them doesn't mean the format is bad.

 

And I would suggest that Jeff Lindsay's site is a perfect and ironic example of the "big list" itself.

Runells says he spent a year doing the research that let to his letter. Lindsay has been blogging since 1994 or so, which means Jeff has spent at least 20 times the effort on the topics that Runells has. Lindsay provides far more information, refers to far more and better sources, and provides far more original research. Runells says that the most troublesome topic for him is the Book of Abraham, and that he spend the most time researching it. Most of the six pages he offers consists of large graphics lifted from a single anti-LDS site. Let's just be honest and admit that Lindsay provides a much more in-depth approach, and far better documentation.

A list can be just that, a list, with very little to back it up. The more complaints crammed into a long list the less documentation, analysis, exploration, and explanation per point. One of the most self-evident characteristics of the Runells list is superficiality. Another is selectivity. We never get to wonder who Hugh Nibley is, or John Gee, or Michael Rhodes or Kevin Barney, or Blake Ostler because he never mentions them. He cites mostly anonymous Egyptologists, pulling three names I recognize from the 1912 attacks.

Take any single element raised in Runells list and carefully and honestly compare it with Lindsay's treatment of the same theme. Then see if "perfect and ironic" come to mind as appropriate terms with which to evaluate the comparison.

I wonder whether John Dehlin ever asked Lindsay for an interview? There was a time when I agreed to be interviewed, and he insisted that he really wanted to do it. But nope. While he was too busy to talk to me, he did find time to interview several other people. And I eventually pulled myself off the list of candidates.

I notice that he recently interviewed Sandra Tanner. When I read Runells's Letter, my impression was of finding a "Tanners Lite for the Twitter Generation." In that sense, he's probably a good match for Dehlin's level of thinking. They'll probably get on great.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited May 22, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[Tacenda]

Kevin I could have swore he did an interview with Jeff Lindsay, but when I checked I didn't see it on the episode's list.  So if that's true, I hope John Dehlin will look into doing one. I swear I heard a podcast with you in it though.  With someone else apparently, did you do one?  Or I'm thinking of someone else.  For sure JD, hope you're reading, needs to make it fair and get both sides!! 

[blooit]

I would ask Jeremy if he could honestly state that that all the critisms are valid. I have read the letter iand it seems to me that he was going for quantity over quality. This approach evidences an agenda rather than an honest search for truth.

 

There were numerous "big lie" statements there that really gave me pause.  Things like, "There is absolutely no DNA evidence"  "There is absolutely no archaeology evidence"  "it doesn't matter because no one saw the plates"  - my paraphrasing, but his letter is not one of concerns, but of positions.  It is not principles but paradigms - he has already made up his mind.  Question all LDS authorities and their integrity, but trust Strang's account?  The letter seemed nothing to me but a synthesized work of already debunked arguments.

[Duncan]

Runells says he spent a year doing the research that let to his letter. Lindsay has been blogging since 1994 or so, which means Jeff has spent at least 20 times the effort on the topics that Runells has. Lindsay provides far more information, refers to far more and better sources, and provides far more original research. Runells says that the most troublesome topic for him is the Book of Abraham, and that he spend the most time researching it. Most of the six pages he offers consists of large graphics listed from a single anti-LDS site. Let's just be honest and admit that Lindsay provides a much more in-depth approach, and far better documentation.

A list can be just that, a list, with very little to back it up. The more complaints crammed into a long list the less documentation, analysis, exploration, and explanation per point. One of the most self-evident characteristics of the Runells list is superficiality. Another is selectivity. We never get to wonder who Hugh Nibley is, or John Gee, or Michael Rhodes or Kevin Barney, or Blake Ostler because he never mentions them. He cites mostly anonymous Egyptologists, pulling three names I recognize from the 1912 attacks.

Take any single element raised in Runells list and carefully and honestly compare it with Lindsay's treatment of the same theme. Then see if "perfect and ironic" come to mind as appropriate terms with which to evaluate the comparison.

I wonder whether John Dehlin ever asked Lindsay for an interview? There was a time when I agreed to be interviewed, and he insisted that he really wanted to do it. But nope. While he was too busy to talk to me, he did find time to interview several other people. And I eventually pulled myself off the list of candidates.

I notice that he recently reviewed Sandra Tanner. When I read Runells's Letter, my impression was of finding a "Tanners Lite for the Twitter Generation." In that sense, he's probably a good match for Dehlin's level of thinking. They'll probably get on great.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

 

 

I love this!!!! 

[Senator]

It appears there is discussion after all.

Edited May 22, 2014 by Senator

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin I could have swore he did an interview with Jeff Lindsay, but when I checked I didn't see it on the episode's list.  So if that's true, I hope John Dehlin will look into doing one. I swear I heard a podcast with you in it though.  With someone else apparently, did you do one?  Or I'm thinking of someone else.  For sure JD, hope you're reading, needs to make it fair and get both sides!!

Blair Hodges and Bill Reel have both interviewed me. Blair for FAIR a couple of years back, and Bill for his podcast earlier this year.

While John D. talks about giving time to both sides, remember that he controls what questions to ask, to not ask, and the emotional reaction to answers. He decides what goes on the scales via his choice of subject and control of the questions, and even then, he always has this thumb on the scales in providing the emotional reactions. That is abundantly clear in the Coe interview, with John pumping Coe for tales of disillusioned LDS archeologists, and wallowing in a lack of evidence of brass helmets and iron arrowheads (neither of which are mentioned in the Book of Mormon). Then when he talks to Brant Gardner, we get something that never happens in the Coe interview. A motor boat impression. "But, but but but..."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Senator]

Well, maybe we can shift the focus of this thread to "big list" attacks.

 

I can understand why "big list" attacks can be bad, since it's possible for the list items to be individually weak, and the format of the presentation can be such that there isn't enough time (or energy) to address all the items.

 

But if someone has several issues with something, why is it categorically bad to collect them together in one place?  For example, if a friend of mine wrote to me and asked why I don't want to join his Scientologist group, my response wouldn't be one thing.  It would be a list of many things.  Likewise, if someone asked why I don't like McDonalds, my response might have many, many items (at least as many items as their menu does   ). 

 

But if there are many solid, good reasons to object to something, why is it objectionable to collect those reasons into one essay or letter?  The fact that it's difficult for someone to respond to them doesn't mean the format is bad.

 

And I would suggest that Jeff Lindsay's site is a perfect and ironic example of the "big list" itself. 

 

I'm sure if Runells had emailed a letter to the CES saying that he had a list of issues and that he would send one every week for the next 36 weeks, he would probably get a response of....if you just send us the whole list and we can probably weed out most of them rather quickly...

 

Yeah I wonder if the "big list" is as much an issue as is what's on the list.

[Calm]

When we get big lists at FM no matter what type (faith or nonfaith promoting types), we ask them to narrow it down to one or two items at a time so that we can address it sufficiently.  When they do that, it is fine but those who refuse and who keep throwing the list at us…I cannot think of a time when they haven't been dissatisfied with the result as even when they get thorough answers to a couple issues per response they are always "but what about…" and they get the impression that appears to never go away that we are reluctant to deal with something rather than just trying to make it edible, bite size pieces.

Edited May 22, 2014 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

I think the problem with "big lists" is this:

 

With any such list, some items are going to be better than others.  Personally, I have yet to see a "big list" of problems with the LDS Church that didn't have at least a few things on it that didn't bother me, or I recognized as having been well-addressed by apologists.

 

So when you present such a list to an apologist, they are obviously (and rightfully) going to focus on the easiest issues to address.  They're not going to point out the issues that have no satisfactory explanation.  

 

But in doing so, sometimes responders to such lists overreach, and imply that because they have nullified this many items on the list, the rest of the items should be disregarded as well.  But this is obviously not true.  There may be some really, 100% solid doozies left on the list, and just because a different concern has been resolved doesn't mean there aren't some silver bullets elsewhere on the list.

 

So instead of whining about all the problems people can have with the Church and the fact that they might collect these issues into one document in list form, Jeff Lindsay should just acknowledge "Hey, sometimes people can have a lot of different issues and it's very time consuming to address them all if they put them together into one big list."

 

One thing I would object to is if someone compiles a list (or borrows a list from someone else) without trying to understand each issue on the list in detail.  In other words, I can understand an apologist's frustration if someone says "here are all the problems I have with the Church" but they haven't taken the time to study each issue for themselves.  I wouldn't spend time responding to someone's concerns if they don't care enough to spend time doing their homework on their own.

[why me]

Kevin I could have swore he did an interview with Jeff Lindsay, but when I checked I didn't see it on the episode's list.  So if that's true, I hope John Dehlin will look into doing one. I swear I heard a podcast with you in it though.  With someone else apparently, did you do one?  Or I'm thinking of someone else.  For sure JD, hope you're reading, needs to make it fair and get both sides!! 

I think that john is setting his own agenda and interviewing Jeff may not be apart of that agenda. I also think that john is heading in his own direction when it comes to church topics. But I do think that when john did begin his podcasts, jeff would have been on the list if he thought about it. John was searching for answers to work his way through his own problems when he began the podcasts. But now...I am afraid he has veered off the path that he set in the beginning. Such is my humble opinion.

[why me]

I think the problem with "big lists" is this:

 

With any such list, some items are going to be better than others.  Personally, I have yet to see a "big list" of problems with the LDS Church that didn't have at least a few things on it that didn't bother me, or I recognized as having been well-addressed by apologists.

All religious faiths can have a big list. Such is the nature of religion that is usually built on faith. At the end of the day, big lists can seem unanswerable because of the nature of faith as something that someone believes in when common sense tells them not to. (faith definition is from the movie Miracle on 34th Street)