Letter To A Ces Director Problematic

[VideoGameJunkie]

I just don't want a family reunion with Joseph Smith in heaven and him going; "What was wrong with you?" haha

[Kevin Christensen]

I'll be specific. Jeremy Runnells notes—correctly—that the mention of "Red Sea" in 2 Nephi 19:1 makes no sense and is pretty clearly an error. FairMormon counters that "there is a plausible basis from the ancient world for referring to the sea as the Red Sea," which is completely untrue. Nobody in the ancient world thought that the "sea" in "the way of the sea" (Via Maris) referred to the Red Sea! If you look at a map, it's obvious that the "sea" is the Mediterranean, since that is the body of water that the route follows. D. Charles Pyle's speculations about a connection between the "Way of the Red Sea" and the King's Highway are completely irrelevant since Isaiah 9:1 doesn't refer to either one of them.

...

An error? Why not?

D&C 128:18 " I might have rendered a plainer translation to this, but it is sufficiently plain to suit my purpose as it stands. It is sufficient to know in this case..."

Book of Mormon title page "And now if there are faults, they are the mistake of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgement seat of Christ."

Aand 1 Nephi 19:6-7, "And now if I do err, even did they err of old..." Mormon 8:12-17, "And whoso receiveth this record and shall not condemn it because of the imperfections which are in it shall know of greater things than these."

2 Nephi 31:3 "for he speaking up men according to their language, unto their understanding..."

Also D&C 1, which explicit on the topic of errors among the latter-day leaders.

And when we find the errors we ought to expect if we , what are the implications? Does this mean therefore, that Runnells is always right, that Joseph Smith and the Restoration is a complete fraud and humbug, that there is, as Frank Dreben says in The Naked Gun, "Nothing to see here folks, move along."

Is this a paradigmatic example, from which anyone can safely generalize about the whole? Or might a serious inquirer want to adopt a broader perspective?

In Neal Rappleye's response to Runnells, he points out something very cool about the Book of Mormon, fromThomas Waymount in JBMS 14:1, discussing a passage in Alma 7:11 which quotes Isaiah 53:4 in a way that is different from the KJV including different from quote in Mosiah 14:4. Apparently, when translating the passage in Alma 7:11, Joseph did not realize that it was quotation from Alma, and ended up with a translation that is far closer to the Masoretic Hebrew.

Rappleye:

https://docs.google.com/a/uscstudents.org/file/d/0B5p8Wmings8WNEY4VXNHUkhSVkU/edit

Wayment.

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1399&index=10

The thing is, my expectations of the translation has room for the kind of mistake that Nevo discusses here, and the kind of different opinions that different LDS scholars might take to the issue.

But nothing in the CES letter's approach would lead any of its readers to expect any of the really cool and impressive things about the Book of Mormon. Whether the Old World correlatons, or the New World stuff in Gardner and Sorenson and Clarke and others. Or even my stuff. How well does the CES Letter predict, explain, and account for the kinds of things in my essay in Glimpses of Lehi's Jerusalem? Is there something in this errant word in 2 Nephi 19:1 that accounts for the how well First Temple theology fits with the Book of Mormon?

It's a bit of trivia, of minor interest, helpful for understanding some aspects of the humanity involved, but not helpful in pointing to the divine.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[juliann]

I don't think there's any specific thing.  My reply in post 202 was my general response to apologists who seem so exasperated that the CES letter is getting so much traction.  I replied earlier on my general thoughts towards LDS apologists not being that effective because 1) they don't effectively answer the tough questions and 2) when apologists do stuff like get snarky or tell doubters they're dumb or their concerns are trivial and a sign they really just want to leave mormonism and are looking for the first excuse to leave or whatever, then of course that does more harm than good.  

 

The reason I don't think apologists answer the tough questions (#1 from above) is that those answers don't exist.  There are no answers to BoA problems.  There are no answers to BOM historicity.  There are no answers to polygamy.  It's a very unfortunate position LDS apologists are put in, because I don't think those answers exist.  My solution is to move from a literal paradigm to a more flexible approach to religion, but I know that is not satisfactory to apologists.

 

You really need to stop the lazy broad brush slams on "apologists." What apologists? There is more than one response to the CES letter. I have yet to run into an "exasperated apologist." I think it is more likely Runnells who is exasperated if he has to defend his work full time and beg for money to do it. If it was such a slam dunk that shouldn't be necessary. 

 

Like Kevin asked, if you have a point make it by doing what apologists do....document it so there is something to discuss. Then dispute the documentation. The only snark I'm seeing is from you not your "exasperated apologists" and "I don't think those answers exist" which apparently means everyone else should stop talking about it.

 

So CFR.

[churchistrue]

Juliann, I'm just stating opinion on general issues apologetics, so no source.

[juliann]

Juliann, I'm just stating opinion on general issues apologetics, so no source.

 

You are in the wrong forum if you think you can endlessly state "opinions" without backing them up when asked. Other people are doing it for you so you can too.  CFR.

[Gervin]

I disagree with this generalization.  There are answers that exist to most of the hard questions.   

Correct.  Faithful answers.

[Okrahomer]

Correct.  Faithful answers.

Better faithful than faithless.

[Teancum]

I just put my self in their shoes and nothing has changed.  If someone comes by my house wanting to share what they believe to be true, that is not offensive to me.  If someone spends their time attacking my views then that probably would be offensive.  Giving a one sentence statement of Joseph Smith saying what Jesus told him does not equate to a CES letter or its equivalent.

Have you? So let me ask how would you feel if a child of yours tomorrow converted to be a Southern Baptist or a Muslim?

And really now it is more than one sentence that Jesus allegedly gave to Joseph Smith. The ideas set forth the whole purpose and reason for the church and its existence. The others are all wrong. They have no authority, etc. I never argued that this was the same as the CES letter polemic. I argued that the LDS church takes an aggressive stance as to what it is and has a high focus on converting people to become its members, People of other faiths do find that extremely offensive.

[Gervin]

Better faithful than faithless.

In matters of faith, of course.  The CES letter, however, includes issues both secular and theological.  Responding to the former "in faith" sort of sets secular criteria on its head.

[churchistrue]

You are in the wrong forum if you think you can endlessly state "opinions" without backing them up when asked. Other people are doing it for you so you can too. CFR.

Ok, I'll do my best. What is the CFR for?

[juliann]

Ok, I'll do my best. What is the CFR for?

Now you are just dodging. You have been given ample information. When there is a post followed by a CFR, you need to support what you said in that post. As Kevin already explained:

 

"Be specific about specific questions and the inadequacies of specific responses by specific respondents."

 

That means using lazy terms like "apologists" isn't a substitute for names. Give names and quotes instead of slams that are so general they are meaningless. If you are going to accuse all "apologists" of being snarky, then document it.

[carbon dioxide]

Have you? So let me ask how would you feel if a child of yours tomorrow converted to be a Southern Baptist or a Muslim?

Of course I would feel sad BUT I also know that my children are not my property.  God gave them to me to raise them up so they can be good agents for themselves.  The only person who I can directly determine salvation is myself.   I have told my so tn that if he does not want to go on a mission that it is ok.  I don't want him to go because he feels social pressure or that it is expected of him.  I want him to only go if he knows it is the right thing for him to do.  He needs to have a testimony of it.  Once he turns 18 he is a legal adult and has to make his own decisions.  I will love him regardless.

Edited September 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

And really now it is more than one sentence that Jesus allegedly gave to Joseph Smith. The ideas set forth the whole purpose and reason for the church and its existence. The others are all wrong. They have no authority, etc. I never argued that this was the same as the CES letter polemic. I argued that the LDS church takes an aggressive stance as to what it is and has a high focus on converting people to become its members, People of other faiths do find that extremely offensive.

The doctrine regarding an complete apostasy of the New Testament Church would establish that others would be wrong.  All religions have to have some foundation or reason behind their existence.  I don't find it offensive if non-LDS see the LDS Church to be wrong.  If they believed it was right, they would be LDS.  Missionaries are doing an "aggressive" work but they are not out attacking other faiths.  It least I did not do it on my mission.  Proving another faith wrong does not establish one to be right. 

[churchistrue]

Now you are just dodging. You have been given ample information. When there is a post followed by a CFR, you need to support what you said in that post. As Kevin already explained:

 

"Be specific about specific questions and the inadequacies of specific responses by specific respondents."

 

That means using lazy terms like "apologists" isn't a substitute for names. Give names and quotes instead of slams that are so general they are meaningless. If you are going to accuse all "apologists" of being snarky, then document it.

I'm sorry you think I'm slamming.  I really don't intend to slam anyone.  I never accused all apologists of being snarky.    

 

As for the CFR.  I said "the "copy/paste standard anti-Mormon fare" has never been answered adequately"  I believe that's what Kevin asked for specifics on.  I don't think it's wise to go there.  We all know the list of copy/paste standard anti-Mormon fare.  Are you really asking me for references, or are you just asking me to shut up?  If you want me to shut up, go ahead and say it.  I was only commenting to a group of apologists, because I thought you might value my opinion.  No big deal if you don't want it.

[Teancum]

The doctrine regarding an complete apostasy of the New Testament Church would establish that others would be wrong.  All religions have to have some foundation or reason behind their existence.  I don't find it offensive if non-LDS see the LDS Church to be wrong.  If they believed it was right, they would be LDS.  Missionaries are doing an "aggressive" work but they are not out attacking other faiths.  It least I did not do it on my mission.  Proving another faith wrong does not establish one to be right.

Well I don't know but to tell seem one to leave what they have and believe to join another religion while not a frontal attack sure isn't friendly fire either.

[carbon dioxide]

Well I don't know but to tell seem one to leave what they have and believe to join another religion while not a frontal attack sure isn't friendly fire either.

If I tell someone that a burger joint has the best burgers I have ever tasted and they go try it out and they like the burgers there better than the place they normally go, did I really assault the place they normally go?  In my experience, LDS generally tell people what we believe to be true.  We don't spend a lot of time why someone is wrong.  That usually will result in arguments that accomplish little.  Even when I approach issues like the apostasy, I don't single out any particular group. I keep the issue to be general and I will emphasize that all Churches have truth and good in them. 

Edited September 8, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[juliann]

I'm sorry you think I'm slamming.  I really don't intend to slam anyone.  I never accused all apologists of being snarky.    

 

As for the CFR.  I said "the "copy/paste standard anti-Mormon fare" has never been answered adequately"  I believe that's what Kevin asked for specifics on.  I don't think it's wise to go there.  We all know the list of copy/paste standard anti-Mormon fare.  Are you really asking me for references, or are you just asking me to shut up?  If you want me to shut up, go ahead and say it.  I was only commenting to a group of apologists, because I thought you might value my opinion.  No big deal if you don't want it.

 

  I suspect you will choose to "shut up" rather than join in a discussion. That is your choice. One more time....

 

Again, if you can propose a specific problem, a problem caused by a specific apologists or CES manual, then a specific response is possible. I might even be sympathetic and acknowledge, yeah, that is an unhelpful or maybe even a terrible approach. But without specifics, I've got no seed and no soil. Just yelling and pointing.

 

 

In your own words you describe what you have been doing as "my general response to apologists." So here it is again in a different format if the above is insufficient:

 

1. Propose a specific problem.

2. Name a specific person.

 

Support your "general response."

Edited September 8, 2015 by juliann

[Robert F. Smith]

..................... So let me ask how would you feel if a child of yours tomorrow converted to be a Southern Baptist or a Muslim?

And really now it is more than one sentence that Jesus allegedly gave to Joseph Smith. The ideas set forth the whole purpose and reason for the church and its existence. The others are all wrong. They have no authority, etc. I never argued that this was the same as the CES letter polemic. I argued that the LDS church takes an aggressive stance as to what it is and has a high focus on converting people to become its members, People of other faiths do find that extremely offensive.

Do Mormons indeed claim that other religions "are all wrong," or is that false?  Joseph Smith and his successors have often praised the truths which other religions possess, even if they do not have divine authority.

 

Moreover, do people of other faiths by and large find it "extremely offensive" when members of their families convert to another religion?  Is that actually true?  Early Christians were directed by Jesus to preach the Gospel widely to Jews and Gentiles.  Many converted, and Paul was the point man for the Sanhedrin in persecuting the Christians.  Today some members of the Jewish community are very offended when one of their number is converted to Christianity, and the family might even sit shiva and declare that member of their family dead.  When a Muslim is converted to Christianity, fellow Muslims are so offended that they will often kill the apostate.  But are these the normal feelings of most American and European families?

 

I have already mentioned the Billy Graham Crusades, and there have been many revival preachers in American history.  Are such conversions as result from them extremely offensive?  What about authority:  Roman Catholics claim to have the only priesthood authority and only true church, while Protestants claim the priesthood of the believer -- in addition to splitting along irreconcilable denominational lines.  Are these matters only of LDS offense, or is such loose talk really just hypocrisy?  Do we hear you condemning the Roman Catholic Church for being "extremely offensive" in their absolute claims?

 

You claim that the LDS Church adopts "an aggressive stance" on conversion.  Yet one never sees a Protestant style revival among the Mormons in which there are mass conversions.  Are Mormons truly "aggressive" or is that merely your mischaracterization?  In fact, Mormon missionaries are not aggressive at all.  They are, if anything, far too loose.  They seem to concentrate on finding those people who are "ready" to hear the Gospel.  There are no strong arm tactics, nor phony marketing ploys such as found in Scientology or some MLM scheme.

[Teancum]

Do Mormons indeed claim that other religions "are all wrong," or is that false?  Joseph Smith and his successors have often praised the truths which other religions possess, even if they do not have divine authority.

 

Moreover, do people of other faiths by and large find it "extremely offensive" when members of their families convert to another religion?  Is that actually true?  Early Christians were directed by Jesus to preach the Gospel widely to Jews and Gentiles.  Many converted, and Paul was the point man for the Sanhedrin in persecuting the Christians.  Today some members of the Jewish community are very offended when one of their number is converted to Christianity, and the family might even sit shiva and declare that member of their family dead.  When a Muslim is converted to Christianity, fellow Muslims are so offended that they will often kill the apostate.  But are these the normal feelings of most American and European families?

 

I have already mentioned the Billy Graham Crusades, and there have been many revival preachers in American history.  Are such conversions as result from them extremely offensive?  What about authority:  Roman Catholics claim to have the only priesthood authority and only true church, while Protestants claim the priesthood of the believer -- in addition to splitting along irreconcilable denominational lines.  Are these matters only of LDS offense, or is such loose talk really just hypocrisy?  Do we hear you condemning the Roman Catholic Church for being "extremely offensive" in their absolute claims?

 

You claim that the LDS Church adopts "an aggressive stance" on conversion.  Yet one never sees a Protestant style revival among the Mormons in which there are mass conversions.  Are Mormons truly "aggressive" or is that merely your mischaracterization?  In fact, Mormon missionaries are not aggressive at all.  They are, if anything, far too loose.  They seem to concentrate on finding those people who are "ready" to hear the Gospel.  There are no strong arm tactics, nor phony marketing ploys such as found in Scientology or some MLM scheme.

JS History 1:19

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Well Robert Jospeh Smith says Jesus told him other other religions were wrong. So no what I said was not false. I think you would no better than that.

Sure other religions make strong claims as well. Some seek converts. So what? I did not say that they don't.

Yes many people find prolly ting offensive. Not all do obviously. Is sending out 80,000 persons to seek converts agressive? Yes. But I did not say it is malicious or evil. It is good marketing. It's goal is to persuade others to change their mind and beliefs from one faith to another or from none to something.

The desired results are the same regardless of tactics.

I am simply reppsonding to the tone that the the Mormon church is the object of attacks but is simply benign and passive in its approach to persuade others to its faith. I admired the church does not do polemics like other faiths do. But it does aggressively proselytizing,

One can argue about whether the tactic are appropriate or not. Personally I don't have any problem with the LDS missionary program though I do think what investigators are taught ought to be more comprehensive. But yes the church puts lots of resources into attempting to convert people. It's approach is not benign.

[churchistrue]

  I suspect you will choose to "shut up" rather than join in a discussion. That is your choice. One more time....

 

 

In your own words you describe what you have been doing as "my general response to apologists." So here it is again in a different format if the above is insufficient:

 

1. Propose a specific problem.

2. Name a specific person.

 

Support your "general response."

Juliann, are you asking for a specific response, so you can shoot me down, and feel like you won the battle?  Or are you truly inquisitive about my point of view?  I'm not being hypercritical.  I comment what I see as the general status of apologetics.  The issues are not address adequately, because there are no good, direct, faithful answers.  Examples?  Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon translation, Book of Mormon historicity, polygamy, etc, etc.  Specific examples where they were deemed inadequate?  Myself + thousands of others.  I don't understand what you're doing demanding a CFR here.  Obviously we are not going to resolve all those things in this thread.  This thread is on the CES Letter, which is a laundry list of "standard anti-Mormon rehash", so we are talking kind of generally about the overall strategies, not so much specifically point by point of every issue that makes up the laundry list.  My proposal to resolve the problem, I've already stated previously.  Move from a literal perspective to a metaphorical paradigm where the factual nature of historical origins of religion are irrelevant.  I know that doesn't sit well with literal believing apologists, and I'm not here to duel with you.  I have a common goal, which is to help preserve members' testimonies and grow the kingdom of God.

[Kevin Christensen]

Then what's the answer for why Joseph Smith translated the images of the Book of Abraham so wrong as modern people who can understand Egyptian say it's wrong what he translated.

I start by considering what modern LDS who can understand Egyptian say. That should, at the very least, be something that goes on the balance scale.

For instance, Rhodes here: (click on pdf to view the document).

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2839&index=151

This:

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/historicity-and-latter-day-saint-scriptures/3-historical-plausibility-historicity-book

Gee here:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1098&index=9

Which could lead to considering this stuff:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/people/john-gee/

Or this:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1460&index=7

Or getting acquainted with this guy:

http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/people/hugh-nibley/

I've been paying attention since 1975, and find the ongoing discussion fascinating, and not at all one-sided.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[stemelbow]

Juliann, are you asking for a specific response, so you can shoot me down, and feel like you won the battle?  Or are you truly inquisitive about my point of view?  I'm not being hypercritical.  I comment what I see as the general status of apologetics.  The issues are not address adequately, because there are no good, direct, faithful answers.  Examples?  Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon translation, Book of Mormon historicity, polygamy, etc, etc.  Specific examples where they were deemed inadequate?  Myself + thousands of others.  I don't understand what you're doing demanding a CFR here.  Obviously we are not going to resolve all those things in this thread.  This thread is on the CES Letter, which is a laundry list of "standard anti-Mormon rehash", so we are talking kind of generally about the overall strategies, not so much specifically point by point of every issue that makes up the laundry list.  My proposal to resolve the problem, I've already stated previously.  Move from a literal perspective to a metaphorical paradigm where the factual nature of historical origins of religion are irrelevant.  I know that doesn't sit well with literal believing apologists, and I'm not here to duel with you.  I have a common goal, which is to help preserve members' testimonies and grow the kingdom of God.

I can sympathize somewhat with what you're saying because in my mind I've read many things from "apologists" that I have found unhelpful, see my comments about the response to Letter to CES letter in this thread as an example. But to just generally dismiss a whole discipline seems irresponsible, particularly if there is nothing presented to back it up. As I see it, some apologetic material can be quite helpful, just like some of other disciplines. I realize there is a pile of people out there who hear the word apologist and shutter, thinking no matter what an apologist does it is bad. In that world, calling someone an apologist is meant as a insult. I would say such harshly black and white thinking is the problem, moreso than an apologist getting personal, or trying to battle something on every hill, as the FAIRMormon response seems to do. The way we're going to resolve and move forward is to listen and understand rather than categorize and shout out.

[thesometimesaint]

JS History 1:19

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Well Robert Jospeh Smith says Jesus told him other other religions were wrong. So no what I said was not false. I think you would no better than that.

Sure other religions make strong claims as well. Some seek converts. So what? I did not say that they don't.

Yes many people find prolly ting offensive. Not all do obviously. Is sending out 80,000 persons to seek converts agressive? Yes. But I did not say it is malicious or evil. It is good marketing. It's goal is to persuade others to change their mind and beliefs from one faith to another or from none to something.

The desired results are the same regardless of tactics.

I am simply reppsonding to the tone that the the Mormon church is the object of attacks but is simply benign and passive in its approach to persuade others to its faith. I admired the church does not do polemics like other faiths do. But it does aggressively proselytizing,

One can argue about whether the tactic are appropriate or not. Personally I don't have any problem with the LDS missionary program though I do think what investigators are taught ought to be more comprehensive. But yes the church puts lots of resources into attempting to convert people. It's approach is not benign.

 

Does any adult join a church they believe is wrong?

[Ares]

Juliann, are you asking for a specific response, so you can shoot me down, and feel like you won the battle?  Or are you truly inquisitive about my point of view?  I'm not being hypercritical.  I comment what I see as the general status of apologetics.  The issues are not address adequately, because there are no good, direct, faithful answers.  Examples?  Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon translation, Book of Mormon historicity, polygamy, etc, etc.  Specific examples where they were deemed inadequate?  Myself + thousands of others.  I don't understand what you're doing demanding a CFR here.  Obviously we are not going to resolve all those things in this thread.  This thread is on the CES Letter, which is a laundry list of "standard anti-Mormon rehash", so we are talking kind of generally about the overall strategies, not so much specifically point by point of every issue that makes up the laundry list.  My proposal to resolve the problem, I've already stated previously.  Move from a literal perspective to a metaphorical paradigm where the factual nature of historical origins of religion are irrelevant.  I know that doesn't sit well with literal believing apologists, and I'm not here to duel with you.  I have a common goal, which is to help preserve members' testimonies and grow the kingdom of God.

 

You leveled some specific criticisms and were asked for examples through a CFR.  Provide at least one specific example or don't bother to comment.  You are under the same rules of conduct on this board as other posters.  

[churchistrue]

You leveled some specific criticisms and were asked for examples through a CFR.  Provide at least one specific example or don't bother to comment.  You are under the same rules of conduct on this board as other posters.  

This is getting weird.  You want me to give you specific example to support my claim that I believe "standard anti-Mormon fare" has never been adequately addressed?  OK.  BOM historicity.  Does that help?