Letter To A Ces Director Problematic

[Robert F. Smith]

TheSkepticChristian has asked me to post this new topic based on the extensive debunking by FAIRMORMON at http://debunking-cesletter.com/ of the ever-changing "Letter to a CES Director."

 

TheSkepticChristian finds that that letter "is full of bad arguments and patternicity," and calls particular attention to what the FAIRMORMON debunking says at the end:

"By academic standards, The CES Letter is inadequate. It makes numerous non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature has said on these matters. Due to their biases and incomplete representations of the topics they address, such publications are often classified as spin or propaganda by scholars" 
 

Does FAIRMORMON do an adequate job in this case, or do you find it lacking in some way?

[bluebell]

To play devil's advocate, I doubt the writer of the CES letter was trying to write anything that would hold up under 'academic standards.'  

 

Writing something that is up to academic standards is a whole process and involves some serious intent.  It's been a while since i've read the CES letter but if i remember right i got the impression that it was written from a personal viewpoint, more along the lines of an editorial or something similar.

[ALarson]

To play devil's advocate, I doubt the writer of the CES letter was trying to write anything that would hold up under 'academic standards.'  

 

Writing something that is up to academic standards is a whole process and involves some serious intent.  It's been a while since i've read the CES letter but if i remember right i got the impression that it was written from a personal viewpoint, more along the lines of an editorial or something similar.

This is what I remember too.  He was asked to write down his questions and concerns in a letter.  Nothing to be peer reviewed.

 

I do think that the same accusations have been leveled at FairMormon too (using info that hasn't been peer reviewed, etc.).  So it seems to go both ways maybe?

 

Here's what I found as to why he wrote it:

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 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.

 

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[rockpond]

TheSkepticChristian has asked me to post this new topic based on the extensive debunking by FAIRMORMON at http://debunking-cesletter.com/ of the ever-changing "Letter to a CES Director."

 

TheSkepticChristian finds that that letter "is full of bad arguments and patternicity," and calls particular attention to what the FAIRMORMON debunking says at the end:

"By academic standards, The CES Letter is inadequate. It makes numerous non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature has said on these matters. Due to their biases and incomplete representations of the topics they address, such publications are often classified as spin or propaganda by scholars" 

 

Does FAIRMORMON do an adequate job in this case, or do you find it lacking in some way?

 

I've never taken the time to read the entire CES Letter.  Just not a priority for me.  But, in seeing this thread I was curious about the FAIRMORMON response.

 

Again, I don't have the time to study the entire response so I skimmed down til I found a page that caught my attention.  So I found myself looking at page 35 which has the graphic comparing Joseph Smith to Warren Jeffs.  I read the FAIRMORMON comments and it seems that they miss the mark and are just diversions from the points that Runnels was making.

[Bob Crockett]

"non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature"

 

A whole lot wrong with this phrase.  

 

First, I think it condescending and unpersuasive for an apologist to argue that a critic has ignored some obscure FARMS article published 20 years ago.

 

Second, I don't think criticism and apologia in religion are subject to true peer review.   

[HappyJackWagon]

"non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature"

 

A whole lot wrong with this phrase.  

 

First, I think it condescending and unpersuasive for an apologist to argue that a critic has ignored some obscure FARMS article published 20 years ago.

 

Second, I don't think criticism and apologia in religion are subject to true peer review.   

I think Bob nails it.

 

The Letter to  CES Director comes off as overly negative in my opinion BUT it does raise some good points. I can't open the link posted above but I've read previous FAIR Rebuttals which were not pursuasive. They often used the tactic of attacking Runnels and his methodology and bias without addressing many of the issues.

 

Frankly, if there were good answers for many of the points the CES letter makes, it wouldn't have nearly the traction it does.

[CA Steve]

I wonder how the Church essays would fare if they were sent out to non-LDS scholars for independent peer review?

[ALarson]

I think Bob nails it.

 

The Letter to  CES Director comes off as overly negative in my opinion BUT it does raise some good points. I can't open the link posted above but I've read previous FAIR Rebuttals which were not pursuasive. They often used the tactic of attacking Runnels and his methodology and bias without addressing many of the issues.

 

Frankly, if there were good answers for many of the points the CES letter makes, it wouldn't have nearly the traction it does.

This is what I have seen too.  I can't speak authoritatively about this because I only read a little more than half of the original CES letter.  I thought it was well written for what it was, but I also didn't agree with all of the conclusions.

 

I tried to read some of the rebuttals and found more personal attacks (from both sides) than substance and it was just very negative.  

 

I actually think that Runnels and FairMormon agree on much of the information, but then disagree on how it's presented or the conclusions.  In his original letter, Runnels does a great job of at least expressing what his doubts and questions arose from and I think that was his purpose in writing the letter.

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

I think that Runnels has now teamed up with others who are helping him write some big rebuttal (to FairMormon and to Brian Hales) that is touted as saying that it's going to blow them (Hales and FairMormon) out of the water with all the new evidence and info and sources.  I saw this posted awhile ago on another site (where the person helping Runnels posts).  I've read some of his "previews" posted by him and I thought it was pretty tedious and difficult to weed through.  I also didn't see much that was new, but maybe they're saving that? 

 

ETA:

As I think about this, the rebuttal being written may just for Brian Hale's work (?)  I'd post what was written about it if I could find it, but I think that would be against board rules maybe.  A search would probably bring up the info.

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[Buckeye]

To play devil's advocate, I doubt the writer of the CES letter was trying to write anything that would hold up under 'academic standards.'  

 

Writing something that is up to academic standards is a whole process and involves some serious intent.  It's been a while since i've read the CES letter but if i remember right i got the impression that it was written from a personal viewpoint, more along the lines of an editorial or something similar.

 

Bingo. The very name of the document shows what it is. Runnels was asked (by his father, I believe) if he would put down his doubts in a letter to be taken to his CES director. That's exactly what he did. 

[bluebell]

I think that Runnels has now teamed up with others who are helping him write some big rebuttal (to FairMormon and to Brian Hales) that is touted as saying that it's going to blow theim (Hales and FairMormon) out of the water with all the new evidence and info and sources.  I saw this posted awhile ago on another site (where the person helping Runnels posts).  I've read some of his "previews" from him and I thought it was pretty tedious and difficult to weed through.  I also didn't see much that was new, but maybe they're saving that? 

 

This is the rub with stuff like this.  A lot of the issues are not simple and can't be answered or rebutted with a few sentences, however, the more bloated either side gets the less effective it is. 

 

I think that FM fell into the trap of throwing absolutely everything they could find at the CES letter, regardless of how relevant it was.  It wouldn't be surprising if Runnels and company does the exact same thing back.

[Kevin Christensen]

I think FAIRMormon does excellent work. I did read the CES Letter carefully, and responded personally for the Interpreter. I have an essay responding to Johnny Stephenson's part one response to my Interpreter essay coming out in a few weeks. I do think FAIRMormon should add Neal Rappleye's two part response. He is very well informed and insightful.

The one way to make the author and his defender's happy would be to uncritically capitulate and donate.

If the church educational system could somehow ensure that members were only taught by omniscent people from omniscient sources that had the power to squeeze everything into our unresisting heads regardless of our individual effort so that we'd never be troubled or disturbed or have a moment's doubt or concern about anything, in short, so that we'd never experience a trace of opposition in anything, let alone opposition in all things, then, perhaps, entitlement would be satisified, and victimhood nullified.

If Jesus hadn't said, "Ask and ye shall recieve, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you," but rather, "It's my moral obligation, and that of my servants and the church, to do everything for you," then perhaps foundation of the complaints would be firm and stable rock, rather than the unstable location subjected to pounding surf and winds and rain they have chosen and about which they complain bitterly.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited September 3, 2015 by Kevin Christensen

[Guest]

To play devil's advocate,.

I remember something I used to hear all the time growing up, it states..."Anytime you n assumed the role of Devil's Advocate, they have assumed an indefensible position". I think the problem might be (with FAIRMONRMON") when in the realm of apologetics; no matter the faith. It often happens that when all of the arguments are in, no clear conclusion is ever met. Even with the laws or mathematics of physics it is the same. I watched the movie, "The Theory of Everything", the other day about the life of Steven Hawking, were he sought to explain the theory of time and celestial mechanics, to improve on what was already known for others (Einstein for one) only to (in theory) disprove himself and Einstein...moving back and forth. The very same thing happens everyday in the world of apologetics. I used to hear Pastors read scripture and then tell why it does not really mean this, moving then to the "original Greek", only to have another weeks later returning to the translation as the correct interpretation...each time the goalpost was moved. As it relates to the Book of Mormon, it was not taken from any known language that we know of today. Thankfully this is not the case with the D&C, what it says it means. In short te Book of Mormon must be taken for it words exactly as written (excluding of course the chapters of Isaiah in 2 Nephi, which can help with other chapters), but the Bible or any other ancient text can be agrugued and re-argued all the way back through a number of languages. So what ever this letter's intention; why pick on or point out the conclusions of "FAIRMONRMON", why not speak of all apologetics under the same criticism? No absolutes will ever be reached until the "Word" itself (Christ) is once again upon the earth to tell us himself. I fear that so many faiths and so many may be shocked to know how far from the mark they were. Edited September 2, 2015 by Pa Pa

[Bob Crockett]

I think FAIRMormon does excellent work.

 

I certainly agree with that.  I wish somehow the website was more aesthetically accessible.  Just like the Church's website is too aesthetically pleasing to the point that I have a hard time finding things quickly, FAIR's is a little primitive.  But, FAIR's work is well-done and deep.

[carbon dioxide]

I remember just skimming through the letter a while back and from what I remember, there really was nothing new or different in that letter than what can be found in pretty much any anti-Mormon source whether it be the Tanners or the Walter Martins of the world.  It just a fresh repackaging of the same old stuff.  Did I miss anything that was new or original to the CES letter that is not found somewhere else?

[stemelbow]

I think that FM fell into the trap of throwing absolutely everything they could find at the CES letter, regardless of how relevant it was.  It wouldn't be surprising if Runnels and company does the exact same thing back.

I agree. Battling on every hill turns me off quickly.

[Brian 2.0]

I remember just skimming through the letter a while back and from what I remember, there really was nothing new or different in that letter than what can be found in pretty much any anti-Mormon source whether it be the Tanners or the Walter Martins of the world.  It just a fresh repackaging of the same old stuff.  Did I miss anything that was new or original to the CES letter that is not found somewhere else?

 

Nothing new, just a one-stop-shop for all the "issues".  It is definitely having an effect.  I don't go to church anymore so I don't see the effects in the pews but I know of two fully active families that are close friends that read the letter in the past 6 months and are no longer attending now.  

 

So for someone like them it was a huge dumptruck of issues they never really knew much about.  And when they realized it wasn't "anti-mormon lies" it hit them hard.  And the church essays and FAIR responses to try and provide better context for those issues was simply insufficient for them.

[carbon dioxide]

Nothing new, just a one-stop-shop for all the "issues".  It is definitely having an effect.  I don't go to church anymore so I don't see the effects in the pews but I know of two fully active families that are close friends that read the letter in the past 6 months and are no longer attending now.  

 

So for someone like them it was a huge dumptruck of issues they never really knew much about.  And when they realized it wasn't "anti-mormon lies" it hit them hard.  And the church essays and FAIR responses to try and provide better context for those issues was simply insufficient for them.

That was my impression after a 5-10 minutes skimming of it.  Same old stuff just another person throwing it out there.  I think one big problem in society today people just want fast answers to issues and they have little patience.  They expect all their answers to given quickly or expect to understand things fast and if not they give up.  I think it will only get worse as time goes on as people just are given things quickly than they just don't understand concepts like patience and hard work.  I know many times in my life I was presented a problem I could not answer at the moment but I was patient that eventually find the answer.  Sometimes I found the answer a few years later.  For a lot of people, especially the younger crowd addicted to their smartphones, such a concept is foreign to them.  If they can't google the answer in a few minutes, the answer does not exist. 

Edited September 2, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[JAHS]

I certainly agree with that.  I wish somehow the website was more aesthetically accessible.  Just like the Church's website is too aesthetically pleasing to the point that I have a hard time finding things quickly, FAIR's is a little primitive.  But, FAIR's work is well-done and deep.

I agree. Simpler is better; especially when you want to find information on a specific topic quickly.  Usually I just go straight to the site map instead of the front page.  https://www.lds.org/help/sitemap?lang=eng

[ALarson]

I remember just skimming through the letter a while back and from what I remember, there really was nothing new or different in that letter than what can be found in pretty much any anti-Mormon source whether it be the Tanners or the Walter Martins of the world.  It just a fresh repackaging of the same old stuff.  Did I miss anything that was new or original to the CES letter that is not found somewhere else?

That was my experience too, but I think much of the information is new to many church members when they read it.  And, much of the information is on FairMormon too (not just anti sites).  Just different presentation and different conclusions, IMO.

[Thinking]

"By academic standards, The CES Letter is inadequate. It makes numerous non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature has said on these matters. Due to their biases and incomplete representations of the topics they address, such publications are often classified as spin or propaganda by scholars"

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was a letter to a CES director and not a submission to a scholarly journal.

[TheSkepticChristian]

The Letter to  CES Director comes off as overly negative in my opinion BUT it does raise some good points. I can't open the link posted above but I've read previous FAIR Rebuttals which were not pursuasive. They often used the tactic of attacking Runnels and his methodology and bias without addressing many of the issues

 

I think the author of the CES letter doesn't deserve to be a paid critic because he made a lot of bad points. I am not defending FairMormon, I disagree with FairMormon on a lot of stuff, but Jeremy keeps defending his patternicity and bad assumptions. For example, he insist that Joseph Smith had sex with Helen.  He is free to believe that, but it is obviously no obvious.

 

.  So I found myself looking at page 35 which has the graphic comparing Joseph Smith to Warren Jeffs.  I read the FAIRMORMON comments and it seems that they miss the mark and are just diversions from the points that Runnels was making.

and what is wrong with polygamy?

Is there evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with 14 yr olds?

Is there evidence that Joseph Smith was abusive?

 

I am not defending FairMormon,some of their answers are not good, but I see nothing wrong with Joseph Smith's polygamy

 

That was my impression after a 5-10 minutes skimming of it.  Same old stuff just another person throwing it out there.  I think one big problem in society today people just want fast answers to issues and they have little patience.  They expect all their answers to given quickly or expect to understand things fast and if not they give up.

 

So do you follow FairMormon's advice on other subjects?

 

 

non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was a letter to a CES director and not a submission to a scholarly journal.

 

No, but many of his arguments probably won't survive peer-review. 

Just like many of FairMormon's arguments won't survive peer-review.

Edited September 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Wiki Wonka]

That was my impression after a 5-10 minutes skimming of it.  Same old stuff just another person throwing it out there.  I think one big problem in society today people just want fast answers to issues and they have little patience.  They expect all their answers to given quickly or expect to understand things fast and if not they give up.  I think it will only get worse as time goes on as people just are given things quickly than they just don't understand concepts like patience and hard work.  I know many times in my life I was presented a problem I could not answer at the moment but I was patient that eventually find the answer.  Sometimes I found the answer a few years later.  For a lot of people, especially the younger crowd addicted to their smartphones, such a concept is foreign to them.  If they can't google the answer in a few minutes, the answer does not exist. 

 

There always has been, and always will be, a "Letter".

 

In 2006, when one of my children left the Church, it was because of a letter called "Why I No Longer Believe" by Michael White (written in 2002 and revised in April 2005). The letter is very much like the "CES Letter". It is a "laundry list" of issues. The author portrays himself as a super believing Mormon who idolized Joseph Smith until everything came crashing down.

 

In the future there will, without a doubt, be yet another "Letter" that replaces the current "CES Letter." Unfortunately, some of today's generation makes life-altering decisions based upon internet memes. They want all of their answers in one sentence or less.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Wiki Wonka

[ALarson]

I think the author of the CES letter doesn't deserve to be a paid critic because he made a lot of bad points. I am not defending FairMormon, I disagree with FairMormon on a lot of stuff, but Jeremy keeps defending his patternicity and bad assumptions. For example, he insist that Joseph Smith had sex with Helen. 

Does Runnels really "insist" that Joseph had sex with Helen Mar Kimball?  (I don't think I read that far).

Edited September 2, 2015 by ALarson

[Wiki Wonka]

Does Runnels really "insist" that Joseph had sex with Helen Mar Kimball?  (I don't think I read that far).

 

This passage from the original April 2013  "CES Letter" doesn't say he had sex with her, only that Joseph's association with her made him a pedophile:

 

The "CES Letter" says: "Joseph was 37-years-old when he married 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, twenty-three years his junior. Even by 19th century standards, this is pedophilia."

 

The term "pedophilia" is defined as "psychosexual disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child of the same or the opposite sex". Pedophilia requires that the adult involved have sexual acts with a prepubescent child.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Wiki Wonka