Questions For Jeremy Runnels "letter To Ces Director" Author

[cinepro]

if someone can argue that Joseph got the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham from books published after they were then that is amazing

One thing I've learned is that studying Mormon history really, really skews one's perception about what is or isn't "amazing".

 

Critic: So where did we get the Book of Mormon?

Believer: I believe Joseph Smith's story, about the angel, the plates, the translation done via a seer stone and a hat (without the plates), the plates being taken away, and all that. Why, where do you think it came from?

Critic: Well, I'm not sure, but there were all these books that had similar ideas at the time, so maybe Joseph was influenced by these books and created it himself?

Believer: Wow! That's amazing!

 

[Calm]

If you'd been there and seen and heard what I did you would see why I didn't. Last year I mentioned the seerstone in the hat but didn't harbor in it. So I'm very willing. This boy was hurt they practised it in the bible, let alone in our religion. And another time I sensed the female teacher balk at polygamy in another lesson. I've never seen boys or girls, it's an all boy class, so inquisitive about lessons. I credit how well this young couple teach, just wish they knew some things and were able to innoculate. I have no real authority here, I'm not teaching, just helping with an incredible young man who is a true hero in life, that suffers with a devastating neurological brain disorder.

Then talk to the teachers after class about it and perhaps they will give the information in the next class.

[frank_jessop]

Brush it all away till the cows come home, all of you that put down the messenger. Who cares about anyone finding out a fact in church history that isn't taught, let them fall by the wayside. Keep teaching faith promoting stories of our leaders. It might be the greatest stories to behold. But keep teaching because truth is not very useful sometimes. Correlation dept, yahoo!

Rant over and out.

In the primary class I help in we were reviewing the last week or so of lessons when one of the boys asked why the men in the bible had more wives. The teacher went on to explain that even Brigham Young had several wives. But that we had polygamy only to take of the wives that had husbands die, maybe in wars or other things. But we don't practice anymore. One of the boys said, yeah like in the civil war? They were clueless as well as the teachers who are a young couple. But sitting there I knew I was letting an opportunity go to help innoculate, but kept my mouth shut, knowing the harm I could do.

This is what happens when it doesn't come from the top early on, Jeremy Runnells and thousands of others left in limbo or killed off, metaphorically. What is going to happen to everyone in that classroom when they find out polygamy wasn't only to take care of the wives during a specific time? Hello, to a whole new generation of disaffected members. The couple who taught are really young as I mentioned, so I guess they haven't really tried to look into anything. I hope they can handle that it happened a totally different way than they had been taught.

I understand your point. And I agree that some seem more interested in vilifying Runnels and discrediting his "back story" in order to create the presumption that the content is of no concern. (The presentation at the Fairmormon conference on the letter will be interesting - the interest for me is will the content be addressed or the messenger "attacked" or both.)

I believe Fairmormon, has addressed the content of the letter. I think the Fairmormon response is as good as can be expected when we must rely on our own intellect to address things for which the original people accused are not longer present.

I would say, when you hear something wrong, just speak up. If it is "polygamy" because not enough men, speak up and say "Polygamy was instituted because God said, and done so for His purposes. We have been instructed not to create reasons for why God does things."

Edited June 16, 2014 by frank_jessop

[frank_jessop]

duplicate again

Edited June 16, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Duncan]

One thing I've learned is that studying Mormon history really, really skews one's perception about what is or isn't "amazing".

 

 

similar doesn't mean same as, I get mistaken for Brad Pitt all the time but we aren't the same person

[Bob Crockett]

Literally the best article I have read in a while!!!! Thanks!

I intend to spend more time thinking about Kevin's article, and possibly critiquing it in public more formally.   My initial assessments:

 

I generally agree with the argument and approach in this well-written article.  Just because I comment upon my disagreement below does not mean that I endorse Runnels . I don't.

 

So, some quick thoughts.

 

The original FARMS Review was supposed to be written in such a fashion that seminary instructors can use the articles for profit.  I don't know if that is the Interpreter's mandate, but Kevin's article approaches the style of the impenetrable Ostler, at least in this article.  The constant asides to secular literary or historical references weren't all that helpful.  I didn't think they were helpful in Brant Gardner's recent two-volume work and I think they detract here.  I suppose it could be said that St. Paul used literary and mythological references, and that you see it in general conference, but I'm not so fond of them in an apologetic framework.

 

I have never thought much of the "unparallel" argument Jack Welch made in his analysis of Ethan Smith.   The presence of an unparallel is not a defense to plagiarism.   I had one of my law review articles ripped off by another lawyer who quoted me verbatim without attribution in several paragraphs with my particular phraseology, while the rest of the 50 page article was original material.  It was still plargiarism.  We should avoid making the "unparallel" argument.  It is not true, at least under the law as it pertains to rip-offs of text, that "Differences are as important as similarities."  26/42.   Such a doctrine might apply to non-textual matters, such as trademarks, but it doesn't apply to textual works. 

 

Similarly, I don't think it is helpful to compare the Book of Mormon to other irrelevant works ("the history of man's voyages to the moon") as a defense to the charge that the Book of Mormon ripped off Ethan Smith.  26/42.    "Was Nephi really Neil Armstrong.  Take the "ph" from Nephi and you've got "Nei" of "Nephi."  27/42.  The Book of Mormon predates these irrelevant publications.  For all we know, Neil Armstrong's parents named Neil after the Nephi of old. 

 

I do not think much of the repeated refrain that a critic has not read research material.  "He completely ignores all LDS scholarship that gives any evidene suggesting authentic translation". Christensen 10/42.  "Obvious neglect of important sources."  (16/42).  That implies that Runnels was aware of it and intentionally disregarded it; could it not be instead said more charitably that the ground has been covered previously?    Elsewhere (16/42) Kevin says:  "'All the information on the table' is a rather large order."  Apologists should get beyond berating a critic for not mentioning obscure treatments of criticism.

 

I think the answer to the KJV anachronisms in the Book of Mormon is simply that (1) Joseph Smith relied upon the KJV (even though one or more witnesses said he did not) or (2) that the Lord determined to reference the KJV.   Is Cyrus's name mentioned in the OT before his borth because of an error or did the Lord really know Cyrus's name?   Who knows.  Who cares.  It can't be answered. 

 

Similarly, I would agree with Brant Gardner' s analysis that the Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are a product of Joseph Smith's environment (such as the KJV) rather than from any other source.  I know that FARMS was going to critique Gardner's conclusions but that has not occurred.  

 

Of course, I am on record for the view that the Mesoamerican LGT (or any other LGT) is not supported by any church statement and thus should not be a theory upon which to defend the Book of Mormon.  Joseph Smith intended a hemispheric model and we shouldn't use an LGT to contravene that intention, or so the best argument seems to go.  I'm rather agnostic about LGT v. hemispheric except when an LGT is used to explain away the absence of war effort at New York, the absence of DNA, and so forth.

 

Nits:    (1)  "Paradigm" is a completely overrused word here.   (2)  I don't trust Margaret Barker.   She has never defended a dissertation and thus is not a secular expert in my book.  Reading a Coe vs. Peterson debate is very helpful.  Reading Barker's defense of a "sons of God" theory isn't.

 

But, the article was very helpful to me and I congratulate the Interpreter for publishing it.  I also realize that apologists don't always agree with each other and that is the kind of diversity we should appreciate, not that I am some kind of apologist.  

Edited June 16, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[why me]

Tacenda what stopped you from gently adding more correct information to those kids in the class?

 

You always seem to get so upset when these kinds of things happen, while at the same time doing absolutely nothing yourself to try to 'fix' them.  There comes a point when anyone who feels strongly about something, needs to either put up or shut up.  Either try to be a part of the solution, or stop constantly complaining about the problem.

 

Said with love, and not meant to be hurtful....

This is something that I have tried to do in class and it seems to work quite well. However, I do have this feeling that even if people do know the truth they may be reluctant to say something because they may offend someone in class with the information. One can refer them to lds.org since lds.org does contain joseph practicing polygamy and the reasons. Nothing about more women than men or husbands that have died. But lds.org does have something on the abrahamic convenant.

[Calm]

If you'd been there and seen and heard what I did you would see why I didn't. Last year I mentioned the seerstone in the hat but didn't harbor in it. So I'm very willing. This boy was hurt they practised it in the bible, let alone in our religion. And another time I sensed the female teacher balk at polygamy in another lesson. I've never seen boys or girls, it's an all boy class, so inquisitive about lessons. I credit how well this young couple teach, just wish they knew some things and were able to innoculate. I have no real authority here, I'm not teaching, just helping with an incredible young man who is a true hero in life, that suffers with a devastating neurological brain disorder.

Since you have maxed out posts, I am repeating the use of this post to add a new comment that occurred to me.

 

You may not feel comfortable talking yourself to the teachers afterwards for various reasons, but you could at least direct them to the new article on lds.org by saying "you know, there were some other reasons that plural marriage was undertaken in Utah, the Church has this great article on it in the Gospel Topics section that I think you would find very interesting and helpful in answering these kinds of questions"…you can even add you've heard there will be an additional article in the future that is still be researched that covers the beginning of plural marriage.  That way you don't have to be concerned about your own feelings colouring the information or be worried about what they might think of you.

 

To those not aware of the article, here is a link:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-and-families-in-early-utah?lang=eng&query=polygamy

 

PS:  I see that why me thought of this as well.

Edited June 17, 2014 by calmoriah

[Tacenda]

http://mormonstories.org/jeremy-runnells-and-his-letter-to-a-ces-director/

 

I'm awaiting the interview with Brad Kramer and his rebuttal  to the issues Jeremy has put forth.

 

My thought after listening to Jeremy is that he is in the middle of the faith crisis...it feels raw.  All of these issues mirror so many that are going through it.  Maybe he can come out on the other end eventually.  It happens.  So many apologists have urged people like him and myself....to not stop searching, but what are we to find from the search?  Just a better way to believe?  Is this what the Richard Bushman's and Terryl Given's have done?  Just believe.....

[DBMormon]

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.

Mormon Expression did an interview with Jeff Lindsay... an frankly they were quite rude to him.

[Tacenda]

Mormon Expression did an interview with Jeff Lindsay... an frankly they were quite rude to him.

Oh I can only imagine.  They are beyond trying to convince that Mormonism is true. Why would he go on that show?  Poor guy, I don't think I'd survive in a room with John Larsen, I would be considered too TBM.  He was walking into a war zone!!  IMO, of course.   ETA:  DB, I didn't see the interview, are you sure it was Mormon Expression?     

Edited June 19, 2014 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

http://mormonstories.org/jeremy-runnells-and-his-letter-to-a-ces-director/

 

I'm awaiting the interview with Brad Kramer and his rebuttal  to the issues Jeremy has put forth.

 

My thought after listening to Jeremy is that he is in the middle of the faith crisis...it feels raw.  All of these issues mirror so many that are going through it.  Maybe he can come out on the other end eventually.  It happens.  So many apologists have urged people like him and myself....to not stop searching, but what are we to find from the search?  Just a better way to believe?  Is this what the Richard Bushman's and Terryl Given's have done?  Just believe.....

 

Kevin Christensen wrote a wonderful piece on this letter on mormoninterpreter

Edited June 19, 2014 by Duncan

[stemelbow]

Oh I can only imagine.  They are beyond trying to convince that Mormonism is true. Why would he go on that show?  Poor guy, I don't think I'd survive in a room with John Larsen, I would be considered too TBM.  He was walking into a war zone!!  IMO, of course.   ETA:  DB, I didn't see the interview, are you sure it was Mormon Expression?

http://mormonexpression.com/?s=jeff+lindsay

[Anakin7]

Jeremy Runnels is planning to rebut/refute the paper in the near future.

 

In His Debt/Grace

     Anakin7

[iamse7en]

Kevin,

 

Runnells is looking for crowd-sourced help on his rebuttal to your essay posted at Mormon Interpreter. Click below for some entertaining comments.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/28t5js/ces_letter_author_crowdsourcing_request_please/

Edited June 23, 2014 by iamse7en

[Calm]

It is reddit, so be prepared for language.