Letter To A Ces Director Problematic

[Jeanne]

Does any adult join a church they believe is wrong?

I think so.  Some people just need to belong somewhere.  Of course, this does not mean that they will put in a lot of time, effort and dollars to a church, but I think a lot of people remain in the LDS and/or Catholic Church because of the belonging to a community of people. 

[Gervin]

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?  

When I read your post #202, I got it; you were speaking generally about what you perceived as a trend or modus operandi.  But at least the responses validate your observation: when given a specific question ["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?"] the responder simply provides a half-dozen links (one of which has an additional 100+ links) as his "answer."  So abstract as to be of no value whatsoever.  MO in action.

[bluebell]

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?  

 

It's really not weird.  They are just the rules of the board.  Any time you claim something is a fact, you have to be able to support it with specific references (it doesn't matter who is making the claim, everyone MUST answer CFRs if they get them).

 

If you make a claim that is so broad that it will be difficult for you to answer the CFR, then your only recourse is to retract the claim, or do the work and provide the references to support the claim.  Simply saying "BOM historicity" is not an answer to a CFR because you have no provided any references (CFR stands for Call For References, after all).  

 

If you were writing a research paper with the topic "Standard Anit-Mormon Fare Has Never Been Adequately Addressed" and the paper consisted of the phrase "BOM Historicity" and that was it, it wouldn't fly.  It won't fly here as an answer to a CFR either.  

[Gray]

It's really not weird.  They are just the rules of the board.  Any time you claim something is a fact, you have to be able to support it with specific references (it doesn't matter who is making the claim, everyone MUST answer CFRs if they get them).

 

If you make a claim that is so broad that it will be difficult for you to answer the CFR, then your only recourse is to retract the claim, or do the work and provide the references to support the claim.  Simply saying "BOM historicity" is not an answer to a CFR because you have no provided any references (CFR stands for Call For References, after all).  

 

If you were writing a research paper with the topic "Standard Anit-Mormon Fare Has Never Been Adequately Addressed" and the paper consisted of the phrase "BOM Historicity" and that was it, it wouldn't fly.  It won't fly here as an answer to a CFR either.  

 

Well, how would they demonstrate that it's never been adequately addressed? You can't prove a negative. Also, "adequately" is subjectively. I'm not sure how I would answer the CFR, myself. Should they post every apologetic article on BOM historicity and say, "this is inadequate"? 

[churchistrue]

It's really not weird.  They are just the rules of the board.  Any time you claim something is a fact, you have to be able to support it with specific references (it doesn't matter who is making the claim, everyone MUST answer CFRs if they get them).

 

If you make a claim that is so broad that it will be difficult for you to answer the CFR, then your only recourse is to retract the claim, or do the work and provide the references to support the claim.  Simply saying "BOM historicity" is not an answer to a CFR because you have no provided any references (CFR stands for Call For References, after all).  

 

If you were writing a research paper with the topic "Standard Anit-Mormon Fare Has Never Been Adequately Addressed" and the paper consisted of the phrase "BOM Historicity" and that was it, it wouldn't fly.  It won't fly here as an answer to a CFR either.  

ftr, I prefaced the claim that standard anti-mormon fare hasn't been adequately addressed with "my perception is".  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well, how would they demonstrate that it's never been adequately addressed? You can't prove a negative. Also, "adequately" is subjectively. I'm not sure how I would answer the CFR, myself. Should they post every apologetic article on BOM historicity and say, "this is inadequate"?

I don't think its that hard. Nevo provided one example. For another example consider Jeremy's claim:

"Despite Joseph’s claim that this record was written by Abraham “by his own hand, upon

papyrus,” scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated and have dated it

in 1st century CE, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it."

Fair Mormon's response:

Although many Latter-day Saints (including perhaps Joseph Smith) have assumed the phrase “by his own hand, upon papyrus” meant Abraham himself physically wrote the papyri that came into the Prophet’s possession, the phrase itself is actually found in texts from ancient Egypt and Israel, and should be taken to mean no more than attributing authorship to an individual.

Fair Mormon's response begs the question. It assumes that midway through the current header of the Book of Abraham, Joseph started a translation of the book itself. This is not apparent from reading the header, and is not consistent with any other headers in the scriptures that I am aware of. So Jeremy's critique is that Joseph believed the papyrus was a holograph from Abraham when that is impossible. FairMormon's response is to tacitly assume the header is not from Joseph and ignore Jeremy's critique. Jeremy's critique doesn't even need the header from the book of Abraham to be from Joseph Smith. Joseph apparently made many other similar statements. As an example Josiah Quincy and Charles Francis Adams reported Joseph Smith pointing out Abraham's autograph and handwriting. So the criticism is that Joseph Smith believed and taught he had a holograph from Abraham. The apologetic response doesn't seem to address this concern at all, but rather goes off on a side tangent.

Edited September 8, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

Well, how would they demonstrate that it's never been adequately addressed? You can't prove a negative. Also, "adequately" is subjectively. I'm not sure how I would answer the CFR, myself. Should they post every apologetic article on BOM historicity and say, "this is inadequate"? 

 

Really broad claims are almost impossible to give references for, which is probably why Juliann questioned CIS's use of such general statements.

[bluebell]

ftr, I prefaced the claim that standard anti-mormon fare hasn't been adequately addressed with "my perception is".  

 

Then perhaps that's not what Juliann was requesting a reference for.  I just used that as example since you provided it as one.

[churchistrue]

Then perhaps that's not what Juliann was requesting a reference for.  I just used that as example since you provided it as one.

I'm not completely sure, myself.  I asked her, but she got mad and said I was dodging.  She scares me, and I didn't want to anger her further.  So I took my best guess.

[Nevo]

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.

 

I agree. Unfortunately, FairMormon's response to the CES Letter is the sort of the thing that gives Mormon apologetics a bad name. There's obfuscation, misdirection, exaggeration, and outright fabrication in places (as I noted yesterday). It's disappointing. I assume some of the lack of nuance is due to the format, but still . . . wasn't this thing vetted? Are there no moderate voices left at FairMormon?

 

Consider another example.

 

Jeremy Runnells wrote:

 

"Pomeroy Tucker was born in Palmyra, New York in 1802, three years before Joseph Smith. He is considered to be a contemporary source. This is what he said about Joseph Smith: 'Joseph ... had learned to read comprehensively ... [reading] works of fiction and records of criminality, such for instance as would be classed with the 'dime novels' of the present day. The stories of Stephen Burroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest charms for his expanding mental perceptions' (Mormonism: Its Origin, Rise, and Progress, p.17).

Some apologists say that Tucker’s Mormonism: Its Origin, Rise, and Progress is anti-Mormon and thus anything in the book cannot be trusted. The problem with this premise is that LDS scholar and Church history compiler B.H. Roberts quoted Tucker for background information on Joseph and FairMormon has an article where they quoted Tucker 4 times from his book as support for Joseph and even referred to Tucker as an “eye witness” to Joseph and his family. Is Tucker’s peripheral information only useful and accurate when it shows Joseph and the Church in a positive and favorable light?"

 

FairMormon responded: "Tucker has repeatedly been shown by historians to be an unreliable source concerning details of Joseph Smith's early life." The accompanying link displays the headline "Pomeroy Tucker was highly biased and unreliable." It goes on to dispute Runnells's claim that Tucker is a contemporary source because his book wasn't published until 1867. It concedes that a FairMormon article once cited Tucker, but insists that it was "only to establish a timeline for event in the 1810s. None of [Tucker's] other claims are treated as credible and multiple observations indicated he was highly biased and not reliable." Tucker's claim that Joseph Smith’s polygamous “children could not be enumerated with any degree of accuracy" is cited as proof that "Tucker was capable of over-the-top allegations that were devoid of any connection to reality." He's also "undeniably . . . antagonistic."

 

In other words, Tucker is neither a contemporary source nor a credible source and we can safely discount most, if not all, of what he says. No responsible scholar would use Tucker for anything other than establishing a timeline. That's clearly the message that FairMormon is trying to convey. Down at the bottom of the page, however, there is the briefest of acknowledgements that "his claims should not be dismissed out of hand."

 

Contrast FairMormon's heavy-handed attempt to "impeach the witness" with Richard Lloyd Anderson's more measured assessment of Tucker's value as a source:

 

Historical sources, like the people who make them, are rarely either completely perfect or totally unreliable. The bread and butter work of the historian is less the divining of bias than a careful reading of his documents to determine just what is said, whether his source is in a position to know the information related, and to what extent each one tells a partial or complete story. . . .

 

Although but weakly living up to the subtitle ("Personal Remembrances and Historical Collections Hitherto Unwritten"), Tucker does relate much valuable information concerning the period of the publication of the Book of Mormon. He also claims knowledge of the Smiths 'since their removal to Palmyra from Vermont in 1816 and during their continuance there and in the adjoining town of Manchester.' There is no reason to question this firsthand contact, provided one is on guard not to take his western New York prejudice for fact. It is to his credit that he could at least distinguish between the two. He repeats tattered stories about Joseph Smith's dishonesty, only to admit in 'common fairness' that such allegations were 'not within the remembrance of the writer.' Although Tucker is content to repeat the armchair observations about the laziness of the Smiths, every one of his specific descriptions proves the opposite.  Most of Tucker's unattributed particulars of the Smiths' early Palmyra life are probably based on his observation. His negative material from Palmyra is generally traceable to known statements, and the 'hitherto unwritten' incidents are typically details of human interest. The descriptions of the Smiths in Palmyra prior to 1820 tend to belong to this category."

 

— Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences," BYU Studies 9, no. 3 (1969): 373, 382–383.

 

 

According to Anderson, then, Tucker is a firsthand source for the Smith's pre-1820 activities and is generally reliable when reporting his own observations and not relying on "known statements" such as the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits. Tucker, in fact, inadvertently confirms the circumstances of the First Vision (the main subject of Anderson's article). FairMormon's response to the CES Letter, on the other hand, allows no such nuances. Tucker is biased and unreliable. Full stop. It also wants to convey the impression that Tucker isn't credible because his recollections were published "decades . . . after the described activities occurred." By that standard, Lucy Smith's memoir would also be suspect. These sorts of arguments smack of desperation and tend to confirm the impression many have that apologetics is basically a dishonest enterprise.

Edited September 8, 2015 by Nevo

[Tacenda]

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?  

Next time, just say IMO at the end...In My Opinion, works every time! 

[bluebell]

I'm not completely sure, myself.  I asked her, but she got mad and said I was dodging.  She scares me, and I didn't want to anger her further.  So I took my best guess.

 

She scares you?  

[bluebell]

Next time, just say IMO at the end...In My Opinion, works every time! 

 

Words to live by.  

[Calm]

I'm not completely sure, myself. I asked her, but she got mad and said I was dodging. She scares me, and I didn't want to anger her further. So I took my best guess.

You attributing anger to her response is silly. Why in the world would she get angry over a post by a stranger on a message board?

Are you an adult? Familiar with the internet and talking with others on it? If so, why then does she scare you? Serious question...

Edited September 8, 2015 by calmoriah

[Kevin Christensen]

I agree. Unfortunately, FairMormon's response to the CES Letter is the sort of the thing that gives Mormon apologetics a bad name. There's obfuscation, misdirection, exaggeration, and outright fabrication in places (as I noted yesterday). It's disappointing. I assume some of the lack of nuance is due to the format, but still . . . wasn't this thing vetted? Are there no moderate voices left at FairMormon?

 

Consider another example.

 

Jeremy Runnells wrote:

 

"Pomeroy Tucker was born in Palmyra, New York in 1802, three years before Joseph Smith. He is considered to be a contemporary source. This is what he said about Joseph Smith: 'Joseph ... had learned to read comprehensively ... [reading] works of fiction and records of criminality, such for instance as would be classed with the 'dime novels' of the present day. The stories of Stephen Burroughs and Captain Kidd, and the like, presented the highest charms for his expanding mental perceptions' (Mormonism: Its Origin, Rise, and Progress, p.17).

Some apologists say that Tucker’s Mormonism: Its Origin, Rise, and Progress is anti-Mormon and thus anything in the book cannot be trusted. The problem with this premise is that LDS scholar and Church history compiler B.H. Roberts quoted Tucker for background information on Joseph and FairMormon has an article where they quoted Tucker 4 times from his book as support for Joseph and even referred to Tucker as an “eye witness” to Joseph and his family. Is Tucker’s peripheral information only useful and accurate when it shows Joseph and the Church in a positive and favorable light?"

FairMormon responded: "Tucker has repeatedly been shown by historians to be an unreliable source concerning details of Joseph Smith's early life." The accompanying link displays the headline "Pomeroy Tucker was highly biased and unreliable." It goes on to dispute Runnells's claim that Tucker is a contemporary source because his book wasn't published until 1867. It concedes that a FairMormon article once cited Tucker, but insists that it was "only to establish a timeline for event in the 1810s. None of [Tucker's] other claims are treated as credible and multiple observations indicated he was highly biased and not reliable." Tucker's claim that Joseph Smith’s polygamous “children could not be enumerated with any degree of accuracy" is cited as proof that "Tucker was capable of over-the-top allegations that were devoid of any connection to reality." He's also "undeniably . . . antagonistic."

 

In other words, Tucker is neither a contemporary source nor a credible source and we can safely discount most, if not all, of what he says. No responsible scholar would use Tucker for anything other than establishing a timeline. That's clearly the message that FairMormon is trying to convey. Down at the bottom of the page, however, there is the briefest of acknowledgements that "his claims should not be dismissed out of hand."

 

Contrast FairMormon's heavy-handed attempt to "impeach the witness" with Richard Lloyd Anderson's more measured assessment of Tucker's value as a source:

 

 

 

According to Anderson, then, Tucker is a firsthand source for the Smith's pre-1820 activities and is generally reliable when reporting his own observations and not relying on "known statements" such as the Hurlbut-Howe affidavits. Tucker, in fact, inadvertently confirms the circumstances of the First Vision (the main subject of Anderson's article). FairMormon's response to the CES Letter, on the other hand, allows no such nuances. Tucker is biased and unreliable. Full stop. It also wants to convey the impression that Tucker isn't credible because his recollections were published "decades . . . after the described activities occurred." By that standard, Lucy Smith's memoir would also be suspect. These sorts of arguments smack of desperation and tend to confirm the impression many have that apologetics is basically a dishonest enterprise.

Then how about offering to improve the FAIR Response on points that you find problematic and for which you can offer help? That, I think, is more productive than dismissing the whole effort.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[stemelbow]

Then how about offering to improve the FAIR Response on points that you find problematic and for which you can offer help? That, I think, is more productive than dismissing the whole effort.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

I read him as doing just as you suggest--pointing out that which he finds problematic. I don't see that as dismissing the whole effort.

[provoman]

Words to live by.

He did live by those words. Juliann "You are in the wrong forum if you think you can endlessly state "opinions" without backing them up when asked." So now on this board we have to reference our statements that are OBVIOUSLY and CLEARLY stated as an opinion?

[provoman]

You attributing anger to her response is silly. Why in the world would she get angry over a post by a stranger on a message board?

Are you an adult? Familiar with the internet and talking with others on it? If so, why then does she scare you? Serious question...

There is good reason to attribute "anger" to her responses. She ignores what is clearly stated as an opinion, and demands references for a clearly stated opinion. That is not the only aspects, her responses appear to anger driven. And that is my opinion.

[CA Steve]

Then how about offering to improve the FAIR Response on points that you find problematic and for which you can offer help? That, I think, is more productive than dismissing the whole effort.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Why is it Nevo's responsibility to provide any corrections at all? This thread is about problems with the CES letter and has evolved into Fair's responses to it. Then when people were giving ambiguous responses on both sides about how they felt about the overall response Fair presented, you and others asked for specific problems with that response. Nevo provided a specific response. It is a bit disingenuous to respond to him by asking to offer to correct the problems, when he gave exactly the response requested.

Edited September 8, 2015 by CA Steve

[Ares]

Personal sniping noted...