Letter To A Ces Director Problematic

[Wiki Wonka]

I realize you did qualify your statement with "some" but I'm not to fond of sentiments like this.  I know a good deal of people that left the church these past 10 years.  None of them did it quickly and ill-informed.  A lot were years of reading and reading and reading, most of the time diving into the scriptures and church sources much more than they did before they had questions.  Leaving the church is a really tough thing to actually do, it's a HUGE deal.  Most people that I know tried to find new paradigms, new contexts, read FAIR responses and church essays, they were looking for ways to believe it all still... but the answers/responses/etc just came up short for them.  

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I've had relatives leave the Church - there is nothing easy about it.

 

Unfortunately, lately I've been hearing primarily about the ones that spend a few hours reading one thing, and then decide to alter the course of their lives as a result.

 

I used to work in the semiconductor industry analyzing failing devices. After a few years of that, you tend to develop the thinking that every device produced by the company has some sort of problem. It isn't actually true, it is just the perception that develops after having dealt with only one type of thing for too long. (The comparison to failing semiconductors is not intended in any way to mean anything in relationship to people seeking information or leaving the Church - it is just a convenient analogy). I encounter people who don't read beyond the bold headings, and for whom footnotes are a distraction. 

Edited September 2, 2015 by Wiki Wonka

[Nevo]

Again, late hostile sources are not reliable!

 

The source may be hostile (though not to Helen), but it is not late.

[Brian 2.0]

Unfortunately, lately I've been hearing primarily about the ones that spend a few hours reading one thing, and then decide to alter the course of their lives as a result. 

 

Sort of like how my wife wants to instigate far too bold changes to the food in our house after listening to one "nutritional expert" on the Today show.  uuuuuurrrrrrrr. 

[carbon dioxide]

As others have pointed out, it's a little disingenuous (and silly) to expect the CES Letter to be something it never pretended to be.

 

Imagine if a non-member acquaintance of yours said "Hey Carbon Dioxide, I understand you are Mormon.  Would you be interested in sending me a letter describing why you believe in Mormonism, focusing more on the evidences and facts above and beyond the spiritual experiences?"

 

So you prepare "Letter To An Inquisitive Friend".  It describes all the things you find personally convincing about LDS truth claims, including facts and evidences about The Book of Mormon and early Church history.  What would that letter look like?  Would it be similar to reasons other LDS give for believing?  And if so, should your friend dismiss it as "just another LDS throwing it out there"? Would it contain a lot of new and innovative ideas that aren't available anywhere else?

 

Suppose your letter (which you took a lot of time preparing, sourcing and formatting) turned out to be a really, really good presentation that reflected the feelings of a lot of other LDS.  So much so, that they started sharing it as representative of many of the reasons they too believe.  Obviously this wasn't your intent, but that wouldn't be a bad thing, right?

 

And what if you got some stuff wrong?  What if some of the sources turned out to be not so good (as has happened many times over the years)?  What if you were writing the letter before the Kinderhook Plates were debunked and you included those as supportive evidence?  What if you included Quetzalcoatl, and had to be smacked down by Brant Gardner?  And as a result, people are accusing you of lying, of your whole letter being of doubtful veracity.  And even your motives being questioned...?

 

I suspect you would be a little miffed. 

 

The biggest mistake being made with the CES Letter is that it is obviously being used (and attacked) as something it (probably) was never intended to be. 

 

At most, it's only value to me would be as a good summary of what some LDS in the early 2010s were/are struggling with, and as a predictor for the subjects of future Church essays.  Other than that, it seems some apologists have to try and make it into something it was never intended to be in order to tear it down.

I understand that.  I would not expect the author to have 100% or even 25% original content.  It just gets so much attention when there is little new in it.  As for me if I was going to write a letter to a friend, I would focus on a select number of issues and not only provide the most accurate LDS view to those issues that I could but also provide the best counterargument that those issues that I could as well.  I go into the task believing that my friend might research those issues and find counter arguments.  So I would rather be proactive and address those upfront then have to deal with them later.

[halconero]

Many people here are defending the lack of peer-reviewed sourcing and academic methodology due to the essay's origin as a set of questions, concerns, and doubts in response to a CES director. That may be what it was, but it is not what it is currently.

I semi-frequently peruse the exmormon subreddit on reddit, currently the largest exmormon forum, simply because I find their generally obsessiveness over everything Mormon results in them being a very speedy source of news on the church. From the discussions occurring there, and the participation of "kolobot," Jeremy's username, it's clear that the CES letter has morphed beyond an informal response to a teacher. It's an active, continuing project with the intent to tear people's faith down. There are numerous discussions about updates to the site, additions to the letter, and its dissemination among members. At this point it's something to be addressed, and held to a higher standard than an informal email to a teacher.

Edited September 3, 2015 by halconero

[cinepro]

Many people here are defending the lack of peer-reviewed sourcing and academic methodology due to the essay's origin as a set of questions, concerns, and doubts in response to a CES director. That may be what it was, but it is not what it is currently.

I semi-frequently peruse the exmormon subreddit on reddit, currently the largest exmormon forum, simply because I find their generally obsessiveness over everything Mormon results in them being a very speedy source of news on the church. From the discussions occurring there, and the participation of "kolobot," Jeremy's username, it's clear that the CES letter has morphed beyond an informal response to a teacher. It's an active, continuing project with the intent to tear people's faith down. They are numerous discussions about updates to the site, additions to the letter, and its dissemination among members. At this point it's something to be addressed, and held to a higher standard than an informal email to a teacher.

 

Well, if that's the case, then I retract my other post. 

 

Of course, it it's a "living" document, then the criticism should only serve to make it better if they use the criticism to improve it.

Edited September 3, 2015 by cinepro

[cinepro]

 

Unfortunately, lately I've been hearing primarily about the ones that spend a few hours reading one thing, and then decide to alter the course of their lives as a result.

 

 

 

Maybe being a member of a Church that glorifies people who make life-altering decisions after reading one thing for a few hours affected their thinking?

[TheSkepticChristian]

The source may be hostile (though not to Helen), but it is not late.

 

Okay, but it is not accurate to say "Helen Mar Kimball's actual words"

We don't know that, but that source is not reliable for many reasons. 

 

Well, if that's the case, then I retract my other post.  Of course, it it's a "living" document, then the criticism should only serve to make it better if they use the criticism to improve it.

 

The stuff I say is not peer-reviewed, but most of the stuff I say doesn't contradict the peer-reviewed literature, especially when I say something about Science. 

Edited September 2, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

Exactly right, and Runnels cites many of his sources.  He does not portray himself as an original researcher, but he does provide a nice packaging of anti-Mormon schlock -- if anyone is interested.

[juliann]

Maybe being a member of a Church that glorifies people who make life-altering decisions after reading one thing for a few hours affected their thinking?

Eh, you are going to have to do better than that. Parley had been seeking spiritual fulfillment since he was 12 years old and was an avid reader of many books. He saw his conversion as completion of a journey not the start of it.

[Calm]

Many people here are defending the lack of peer-reviewed sourcing and academic methodology due to the essay's origin as a set of questions, concerns, and doubts in response to a CES director. That may be what it was, but it is not what it is currently.

I semi-frequently peruse the exmormon subreddit on reddit, currently the largest exmormon forum, simply because I find their generally obsessiveness over everything Mormon results in them being a very speedy source of news on the church. From the discussions occurring there, and the participation of "kolobot," Jeremy's username, it's clear that the CES letter has morphed beyond an informal response to a teacher. It's an active, continuing project with the intent to tear people's faith down. They are numerous discussions about updates to the site, additions to the letter, and its dissemination among members. At this point it's something to be addressed, and held to a higher standard than an informal email to a teacher.

Iirc, he has quit his regular job and is updating it as a full time job and trying to survive on donations as he has a wife and family.

Not saying this is inherently wrong....well, I think if my head was clear I would as I don't approve of antiministries in general (religion ones at least)...just saying I would expect much more.

[juliann]

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:

 

That may be how he started it. But in the meantime he is taking on recognized experts and scholars in an attempt to defend his version of events. At that point, yeah, you had better be using "peer reviewed" academics. 

 

You can't have it both ways. Either make it a declaration of feelings/opinions without appealing to academics... or make it an academically defensible take down of Mormonism that does appeal to academics.

 

This has echoes of the early DNA debacle when Murphy, very untrained in DNA, also made declarations appealing to science. Four actual scientists, with relevant degrees  (which even Southerton lacks) published rebuttals in a Mormon journal. That was followed by the longest silence I think I have ever experienced from the antagonists. Now even Southerton has had to admit that DNA cannot yet determine BOM bloodlines. 

 

That is what is going on here. Runnells has had to admit he needs financial support to maintain his letter as a full time job because he has to support what he is saying. And that is the problem in a nutshell. He has to support it. Sort of like here, a call for references when questionable information is being asserted without documentation. This will likely go back and forth with both sides having to hone their positions....by using those "peer reviewed" sources.  Since that has been used repeatedly to discount pro-Mormon sources it is rich irony that it should be an objectionable requirement when the shoe is on the other foot.

[juliann]

Well, if that's the case, then I retract my other post.  Of course, it it's a "living" document, then the criticism should only serve to make it better if they use the criticism to improve it.

 

Right up to the point where an assertion can't be supported.....

[Robert F. Smith]

I realize you did qualify your statement with "some" but I'm not to fond of sentiments like this.  I know a good deal of people that left the church these past 10 years.  None of them did it quickly and ill-informed.  A lot were years of reading and reading and reading, most of the time diving into the scriptures and church sources much more than they did before they had questions.  Leaving the church is a really tough thing to actually do, it's a HUGE deal.  Most people that I know tried to find new paradigms, new contexts, read FAIR responses and church essays, they were looking for ways to believe it all still... but the answers/responses/etc just came up short for them.  

I just don't buy that, Brian.  Those who have left the LDS faith and who have written about it do not, by and large, indicate an adequate level of knowledge about it.  If they read anything it was superficial stuff (pro or anti) and did not leave them well-informed.

 

Learning about Mormonism at the scholarly level takes decades, and must include formal training under knowledgeable professors.  We should not expect the average Mormon to seek that sort of knowledge when he encounters difficulties with the faith.  What is really at stake is his faith:  Does he have a sure foundation for his faith?  Or is it build on sand?  Has he learned to consult with the Holy Spirit?  Has his faith matured through long years of prayer, scripture-reading, and interaction with his fellow Mormons?  The Brethren are not trained historians and their faith is not informed by systematic consultation with peer-reviewed books and articles.  Some of them might read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling and an article here and there, but do not have time to read widely.  In the past, they would have Hugh Nibley come up to a meeting and ask him questions, but I don't know whether they do something like that now.

 

This life is a test of our faith.  When the figurative winds and waves come, will we be able to withstand such challenges?

[Robert F. Smith]

Heber made the offer for Joseph to marry his 14 year old daughter but that doesn't make it any better.

 

 

ETA- It would be interesting to see how someone like Heber would fit in with today's church. I don't think I'd like him much. Then again, in a different time and culture maybe he wouldn't be so obsequious (You fill in the blank)

Is that what you had in mind?

[Wiki Wonka]

Maybe being a member of a Church that glorifies people who make life-altering decisions after reading one thing for a few hours affected their thinking?

 

It looks to me like Parley started searching at age 12, and joined the Church at age 23:

 

"Parley became a religious seeker, beginning a serious study of the scriptures at age 12. As he grew older, he wondered at the discrepancies between biblical teachings and contemporary churches. Desiring to follow God, Parley joined a Baptist church at age 18, though he remained dissatisfied."

[Wiki Wonka]

Iirc, he has quit his regular job and is updating it as a full time job and trying to survive on donations as he has a wife and family.

 

Ouch! Sounds like a "resume killer."

[churchistrue]

I just don't buy that, Brian.  Those who have left the LDS faith and who have written about it do not, by and large, indicate an adequate level of knowledge about it.  If they read anything it was superficial stuff (pro or anti) and did not leave them well-informed.

 

Learning about Mormonism at the scholarly level takes decades, and must include formal training under knowledgeable professors.  We should not expect the average Mormon to seek that sort of knowledge when he encounters difficulties with the faith.  What is really at stake is his faith:  Does he have a sure foundation for his faith?  Or is it build on sand?  Has he learned to consult with the Holy Spirit?  Has his faith matured through long years of prayer, scripture-reading, and interaction with his fellow Mormons?  The Brethren are not trained historians and their faith is not informed by systematic consultation with peer-reviewed books and articles.  Some of them might read Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling and an article here and there, but do not have time to read widely.  In the past, they would have Hugh Nibley come up to a meeting and ask him questions, but I don't know whether they do something like that now.

 

This life is a test of our faith.  When the figurative winds and waves come, will we be able to withstand such challenges?

 

 

Learning about Mormonism at the scholarly level takes decades.  And that's your standard of being well-informed enough to make a judgement on whether or not to believe Mormonism?  You can't really mean that.

[Brian 2.0]

Learning about Mormonism at the scholarly level takes decades.  And that's your standard of being well-informed enough to make a judgement on whether or not to believe Mormonism?  You can't really mean that.

 

I think he's more saying that it's almost impossible to be "well-informed" for most people so it shouldn't come into play when making the judgement on whether or not to believe in Mormonism... you should be using faith instead.

[churchistrue]

That may be how he started it. But in the meantime he is taking on recognized experts and scholars in an attempt to defend his version of events. At that point, yeah, you had better be using "peer reviewed" academics. 

 

You can't have it both ways. Either make it a declaration of feelings/opinions without appealing to academics... or make it an academically defensible take down of Mormonism that does appeal to academics.

 

This has echoes of the early DNA debacle when Murphy, very untrained in DNA, also made declarations appealing to science. Four actual scientists, with relevant degrees  (which even Southerton lacks) published rebuttals in a Mormon journal. That was followed by the longest silence I think I have ever experienced from the antagonists. Now even Southerton has had to admit that DNA cannot yet determine BOM bloodlines. 

 

That is what is going on here. Runnells has had to admit he needs financial support to maintain his letter as a full time job because he has to support what he is saying. And that is the problem in a nutshell. He has to support it. Sort of like here, a call for references when questionable information is being asserted without documentation. This will likely go back and forth with both sides having to hone their positions....by using those "peer reviewed" sources.  Since that has been used repeatedly to discount pro-Mormon sources it is rich irony that it should be an objectionable requirement when the shoe is on the other foot.

I think what a lot of people in the apologist world miss, is that most people really don't care about this whole scholarly, peer-review level of discussion.

 

FAIR may torch him to shreds on a million different minor points, but that can be damaging in itself.  If I read CES letter and see a bunch of stuff I never knew before, then I read FAIR's debunking and it feels snarky and most of the points they are winning seem like minor issues, the very existence of FAIR's debunking article sends me further towards the side of the critics.  I'm not sure FAIR is really doing any good with this.

[churchistrue]

I think he's more saying that it's almost impossible to be "well-informed" for most people so it shouldn't come into play when making the judgement on whether or not to believe in Mormonism... you should be using faith instead.

Yes, that's what it sounds like.  So a person should never use their brain in determining religious truths?

[bluebell]

I think what a lot of people in the apologist world miss, is that most people really don't care about this whole scholarly, peer-review level of discussion.

 

FAIR may torch him to shreds on a million different minor points, but that can be damaging in itself.  If I read CES letter and see a bunch of stuff I never knew before, then I read FAIR's debunking and it feels snarky and most of the points they are winning seem like minor issues, the very existence of FAIR's debunking article sends me further towards the side of the critics.  I'm not sure FAIR is really doing any good with this.

 

I think you make an excellent point.

 

Humans, by and large, are big fans of doing dumb things.  We are not known for being logical or reasonable and this is true pretty much regardless of the topic.  Someone will pick a short, easy to understand, simple wrong answer over a long, technical, deep, right answer much of the time. Especially if the wrong answer is witty.  We'll believe anything if it's witty.

 

I think of JC Penny's attempt to get rid of sales and just mark down their clothes so that they were cheap all of the time.  It failed so incredibly miserably that they fired the CEO who came up with the idea.  They discovered that people would rather pay more for something on sale than get it cheap without the coupon.  Our species is so embarrassing sometimes....

[churchistrue]

I noticed that Runnell's overlooked and/or ignored many of the standard sources on topics that he addresses, including both original documents and important scholars. He tends to uncritically cut-and-paste predigested interpretations and selection from standard hostile sources like Mormon Think, and to not bother with serious LDS scholarship, except to complain about it as being different than what he heard in Sunday School..

While interpretations and conclusions do indeed differ, there is much more to the difference than just interpretation of ambiguities. The same seed can indeed produce a vastly different harvest based on soil and nurture. But some of that nurture includes seeking out of the best books words of wisdom. There is a big difference in seeking out of the best books, and trusting MormonThink to select and digest everything worth knowing for you..

My essay is here, specific examples and all:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/

See Neal's response here:

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2014/08/an-open-letter-2-to-jeremy-runnells.html

And a different take on faith journey here:

http://www.studioetquoquefide.com/2015/04/patient-faith-and-expanding-knowledge.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Interesting you would assume that.  Why wouldn't you assume he studied both sides of things and came away with a view different than yours?

[Calm]

Ouch! Sounds like a "resume killer."

I hadn't thought of that. Hopefully for his family he has the type of job that it won't matter.

I think he may have asssumed too much observing the donations Dehlin has received for his work, but that involved a larger and wider assortment of offerings, plus he was one of the first. Now there are a number of similar sites available. Just not that great of an appeal.

[churchistrue]

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.

Yawn, what a waste of time.  Like someone else mentioned in this thread, both sides are generally using the sources.  The difference is the interpretation.  If he "blows FAIR out of the water, no one's really going to notice or care."  Same goes for FAIR blowing Jeremy out of the water.  For the 90% out there trying to figure out the truth, the facts are important, the commentary is ignored.