Letter To A Ces Director Problematic

[Calm]

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?

Probably the fact he didn't mention some of the evidences and got other stuff wrong. Just guessing, Kevin can correct me.

[Calm]

I'm not sure FAIR is really doing any good with this.

Thank you for your input. Others have told us we are on target and helped them a lot, so I don't think any major approach change will occur, but if you have examples you believe are snark or errors, we would love to hear from you. There is a contact us option on our website.

PS to everyone: just my usual reminder that it is now FairMormon, just might help searching.

[churchistrue]

Probably the fact he didn't mention some of the evidences and got other stuff wrong. Just guessing, Kevin can correct me.

What's an example of an evidence he didn't mention or something he got wrong?  I can think of several reasons for that other than he failed to review pro-LDS sources on these issues.  

[churchistrue]

Thank you for your input. Others have told us we are on target and helped them a lot, so I don't think any major approach change will occur, but if you have examples you believe are snark or errors, we would love to hear from you. There is a contact us option on our website.

PS to everyone: just my usual reminder that it is now FairMormon, just might help searching.

ftr, I didn't say FAIR was publishing errors.  I think most of what it's done with Runnels is in two categories: 1) arguing over minor points--this is fine. If FAIR feels a responsibility that's fine I guess.  But I think it does less good than FAIR thinks it does.  2) arguing interpretation of the facts.  This is not a scholarly process.  People are able to sort through the facts and form their own conclusions.

[Teancum]

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 someone 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 ChristensenCanonsburgh, PA

FWIW.... ? Not much.

Is FAIR peer reviewed as they argue the CES letter is not? Nope. Bob Crockett"s summary is spot on that came on page one of this thread.

The rest of your post is simply to blame the questioning member for not doing their own homework or being hopelessly naive to think a church that promotes and expects the utmost of honesty and integrity from its members would provide more on its own than a almost mythical faith promoting founding narrative.

It's and old and tiresome poor argument and rebuttal.

[mfbukowski]

FWIW.... ? Not much.

Is FAIR peer reviewed as they argue the CES letter is not? Nope. Bob Crockett"s summary is spot on that came on page one of this thread.

The rest of your post is simply to blame the questioning member for not doing their own homework or being hopelessly naive to think a church that promotes and expects the utmost of honesty and integrity from its members would provide more on its own than a almost mythical faith promoting founding narrative.

It's and old and tiresome poor argument and rebuttal.

Well at least you are predictable.

[Teancum]

Well at least you are predictable.

As are you. If you can cogently rebut my point feel free. But the real life stories of many disaffected members backs is up.

Course they were all just lazy piles and could not be bothered to do their own leg work. Yet when they did and they had questions and became disaffected well it was simply their own fault. The church they trusted bears no responsibility.

The recent essays show maybe the church leaders have finally learned to give more full disclosure.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Teancum

[TheSkepticChristian]

What's an example of an evidence he didn't mention or something he got wrong?

 

Read post 28 and 44. 

His letter is also full of parallelism (or patternicity), that guy seriously doesn't deserve to be a paid critic.

The CES letter only gives ammo to the LDS defenders.

 

 

Is FAIR peer reviewed as they argue the CES letter is not? Nope.

 

In defense of FAIR, at least FAIR is not claiming they have obvious facts.

 

"Delusion is believing when there is an abundance of evidence against something" - CES letter

 

History is not about obvious facts, and I personally think History is a waste of time

 

"Let me begin by explaining in simple terms what it is that historians do. Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past. We can’t really know the past because the past is done with" - Bart Ehrman

 

Science is much better

Edited September 3, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Teancum]

Read post 28 and 44. 

His letter is also full of parallelism (or patternicity), that guy seriously doesn't deserve to be a paid critic.

The CES letter only gives ammo to the LDS defenders.

 

 

 

In defense of FAIR, at least FAIR is not claiming they have obvious facts.

 

"Delusion is believing when there is an abundance of evidence against something" - CES letter

 

History is not about obvious facts, and I personally think History is a waste of time

 

"Let me begin by explaining in simple terms what it is that historians do. Historians try to establish to the best of their ability what probably happened in the past. We can’t really know the past because the past is done with" - Bart Ehrman

 

Science is much better

Personally I am no fan of Runnel's letter.

[juliann]

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.

 

It "feels" snarky?  Just the existence of a rebuttal is a deal breaker? You haven't even read the rebuttals, have you. 

[Tacenda]

As are you. If you can cogently rebut my point feel free. But the real life stories of many disaffected members backs is up.

Course they were all just lazy piles and could not be bothered to do their own o leg work. Yet when they did and they had questions and became disaffected well it was simply their own fault. The church they trusted bears no responsibility.

The recent essays show maybe the church leaders have finally learned to give more full disclosure.

Yep, can vouch for that. The essays are a great start, but afraid it's too late for many. I wonder if the church just throws their hands up on these people or do they care to figure a way to keep them in.

[carbon dioxide]

Yep, can vouch for that. The essays are a great start, but afraid it's too late for many. I wonder if the church just throws their hands up on these people or do they care to figure a way to keep them in.

We know that not everyone in the Church is going to make it.  Some will fall away and some are just waiting for a good excuse to fall away.  Some may come back when they figure out that the grass on the other side of the fence is not greener.  Some will come back when things take a big downturn in the world.  Its easy to give up in a time of peace and prosperity.  When war, disaster, and destruction are more likely, people turn back to the things that are more important as their is no peace and safety in the secular things the world offers them.  Better to come to the Lord without being compelled but some people will have to be compelled.  That way works also.

 

We have been told that we must get our own testimonies.  We can't live on borrowed light forever.  If one has a testimony, a CES letter will not cause one to fall.  It might bring some issues but one will withstand it all.  I don't accept the notion of one getting a testimony of the BOM, the restoration, and all that and then throwing it all away over some issues like polygamy.  If on has built their foundation on a good foundation, it will last.  If one has a sandy foundation, the CES letter takes the house down but if it was not that it was going to be something else down the road.

Edited September 3, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Well, of course, I didn't say that.  Reread what I wrote and you will see that I did not recommend decades of scholarly study through the masters or doctoral level.  It would be absurd to expect that of any ordinary adherent of any faith, and I find it astonishing that you could so misread what I wrote.

 

What is the alternative I offered?  Ordinary prayer, scripture-reading, and interaction with your fellow Saints, along with consultation with the Holy Spirit.  If that doesn't do it for you, you may need to leave for another denomination, or leave religion entirely.  It is a personal choice, very much in line with the probationary state we find ourselves in during this life.  It is a test which secular intellectual efforts cannot be expected to solve.

 

What does Jeremy Runnells offer in his so-called Letter to a CES Director?  A rehash of the same inaccurate anti-Mormon nonsense which has been around for many years.  How could anyone know that?  Well, without any advanced training, Runnells has now made it a full-time job, just like Jerald and Sandra Tanner used to do.  Just like them, he makes nearly every mistake it is possible to make in carrying on his polemic attack on Mormonism.  It has become a way of life for him, and whether his accusations are accurate or not is of very little importance to him.  No apologist or critic should ever allow himself to become simply a bottom-feeder, but that is precisely what has happened to Runnells.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Yep, can vouch for that. The essays are a great start, but afraid it's too late for many. I wonder if the church just throws their hands up on these people or do they care to figure a way to keep them in.

The available information is more than adequate for any fair-minded person to make a reasonable decision pro or con.  Mormonism and the members of the Mormon Church are certainly stable enough to weather the storms which confront it, just as they have in the past.  I don't see the Brethren throwing up their hands in any fashion, although the difficulties confronting many other faiths are indeed gargantuan, and many of them are receding into major decline.  This has not happened for the Mormon tradition, and is not likely to in the near future.  The statistics simply do not support that.

[churchistrue]

Read post 28 and 44. 

His letter is also full of parallelism (or patternicity), that guy seriously doesn't deserve to be a paid critic.

The CES letter only gives ammo to the LDS defenders.

 

 

Kevin Christensen implied Runnels approach was incomplete because he apparently ignored some (according to him) important sources and techniques.  The Helen Mar Kimball issue here may be evidence Runnels is manipulating the issue, but certainly not evidence that he spent a few hours reading anti-Mormon sites, copy/pasted, and didn't even bother researching sources, reading pro-LDS arguments, or applying any analytical reasoning to his study.

 

Please don't assume that just because a critic disagrees with you and doesn't write in a scholarly, footnoted method that their study is incomplete and they have no ability to apply logic and analysis to the issues and come to a reasonable conclusion. 

[churchistrue]

Well, of course, I didn't say that.  Reread what I wrote and you will see that I did not recommend decades of scholarly study through the masters or doctoral level.  It would be absurd to expect that of any ordinary adherent of any faith, and I find it astonishing that you could so misread what I wrote.

 

What is the alternative I offered?  Ordinary prayer, scripture-reading, and interaction with your fellow Saints, along with consultation with the Holy Spirit.  If that doesn't do it for you, you may need to leave for another denomination, or leave religion entirely.  It is a personal choice, very much in line with the probationary state we find ourselves in during this life.  It is a test which secular intellectual efforts cannot be expected to solve.

 

 

You still seem to be saying that the only two alternatives are 1) decades of scholarly study to a doctoral level--in this case you're allowed to use your brain 2) use your heart/Spirit because your brain isn't capable. 

[churchistrue]

It "feels" snarky?  Just the existence of a rebuttal is a deal breaker? You haven't even read the rebuttals, have you. 

I didn't say the existence of a rebuttal was a deal breaker.  Maybe that was poor word choice that made you think that.  It was a way of saying that FAIR's debunking article can do more harm than good.  Because of two things 1) because it's so thorough and long yet only clearly wins on minor points, the major points are either inadequately addressed or becomes a matter of interpretation--you can't debunk interpretation--so the end result is "wow I guess Runnels was pretty much accurate"  2) the snarkiness can emotionally turn the person away from the LDS view, making the new information even more difficult to process.

 

Yes, I think the whole affair contains snarkiness on both sides.  

 

And why do we again go to the "you haven't even read"?  There always seems to be this assumption that if you disagree you must be dumb, you must not be well read, you must not be a scholar.

[Teancum]

Well, of course, I didn't say that.  Reread what I wrote and you will see that I did not recommend decades of scholarly study through the masters or doctoral level.  It would be absurd to expect that of any ordinary adherent of any faith, and I find it astonishing that you could so misread what I wrote.

 

What is the alternative I offered?  Ordinary prayer, scripture-reading, and interaction with your fellow Saints, along with consultation with the Holy Spirit.  If that doesn't do it for you, you may need to leave for another denomination, or leave religion entirely.  It is a personal choice, very much in line with the probationary state we find ourselves in during this life.  It is a test which secular intellectual efforts cannot be expected to solve.

 

What does Jeremy Runnells offer in his so-called Letter to a CES Director?  A rehash of the same inaccurate anti-Mormon nonsense which has been around for many years.  How could anyone know that?  Well, without any advanced training, Runnells has now made it a full-time job, just like Jerald and Sandra Tanner used to do.  Just like them, he makes nearly every mistake it is possible to make in carrying on his polemic attack on Mormonism.  It has become a way of life for him, and whether his accusations are accurate or not is of very little importance to him.  No apologist or critic should ever allow himself to become simply a bottom-feeder, but that is precisely what has happened to Runnells.

Robert I agree people should not be rash nor quick in decisions about their personal faith decisions, it is a serious matter.

Regarding your last paragraph I know it is a summary of your thoughts and opinion on Runnells. But I am not sure I would agree everything in his letter, even though I noted I am not a fan of it, is simply innacurate anti-Mormom nonsense. I find such a dismissal as blatant as what you are accusing him and the Tanners of. This is the problem I suppose when both sides hold passionate views and passionately defend and argue them. We all do it in one way or another.

[Kevin Christensen]

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?

I saw a clear difference between someone like John Charles Duffy who provides sources from boths sides, and Runnells who provides sources from one side and ignores much that I see as important..

If I'd seen evidence that Runnells had explored both sides, I could have commented on that. What I could and did comment on are the evidence he provided and the differences between Runnells and people like Jeff Lindsay who deal with the same questions and come up with vastly different answers.

What I find is that the Jesus was on to something important and significant with the Parable of the Sower. Soil and nurture does make a difference in the harvest from the same seed.

"Know ye not this parable?" he asked? "How then will ye know all parables?"

In the case of Duffy, I found that it was not a matter of the evidence he surveyed, but the organizing metaphors he uses to value the evidence. The metaphor becomes the soil in which he plants the seeds.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[Kevin Christensen]

FWIW.... ? Not much.

Is FAIR peer reviewed as they argue the CES letter is not? Nope. Bob Crockett"s summary is spot on that came on page one of this thread.

The rest of your post is simply to blame the questioning member for not doing their own homework or being hopelessly naive to think a church that promotes and expects the utmost of honesty and integrity from its members would provide more on its own than a almost mythical faith promoting founding narrative.

It's and old and tiresome poor argument and rebuttal.

You miss the point. FAIR regularly uses source material that has been professionally published and peer reviewed. The CES Letter uses MormonThink.com which uses, for example, Charles Larsen's 1990 claims about what Facsimile 1 really looked like. And Charles Larsen published his claims in what Egyptological Journal? And he studied Egyptian where exactly?

If someone wants to recycle Larsen's recycled material, is it not appropriate for a reader who has read, say Egyptologist Gee's Review from 1992 as at least worth a mention?

Is it blaming the questioning member for not doing their homework if I simply point out the consequences of not doing homework and the benefits of doing homework as represented in the real life examples of people who did do their homework? Is a realistic and practical demonstration somehow unethical?

When I was a teenager, an MIA theme was, "There is a law irrevokably decreed before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated. And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which is it predicated."

That means, if I want to be prepared and get the benefit, I do my homework. I don't just gather excuses such as "The dog ate it," or "My Sunday School teachers had not trained at Cambridge" and self rightiously proclaim that I am a victim of circumstance and deserve compensation.

When I was a child, Paul says, I thought as a child. When I became a man, nothing changed because nothing should ever have to change. Is that what he should have said?

A viable church would see to it that no one ever has to do anything important and significant on their own, but should provide it all free of charge and without requiring any personal effort.

A viable church would so control discourse within its society that no erroneous thoughts are ever uttered, nothing would need to be unlearned, and nothing discovered could ever supercede any previous thoughts.

Is that the standard you want to promote? Good luck with that. It's not the kind of soil from which I expect a particularly bountiful harvest.

Just saying.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

[Tacenda]

Truth in lending....truth in religion....

 

same concept, different scenerios. 

 

Truth in Lending Act

The Truth in Lending Act (TILA) of 1968 is United States federal law designed to promote the informed use of consumer credit, by requiring disclosures about its terms and cost to standardize the manner in which costs associated with borrowing are calculated and disclosed.

 

Truth in Religion Act

The Truth in Religion Act.....fill in the blanks.

 

The operative word here is informed.  I wasn't informed before my 8th year of life of Joseph's Smith's dealings and so forth.  How was I to make the right decision without this?  Also, for the older pre-member, whatever age that would be.  There must be a pamphlet or something.  Or a class or lessons for pre members to peruse before joining a church.  If the truth in lending act can occur for disclosure before someone makes a commitment, shouldn't a person who joins a religious institution that asks for tithes and offerings, and promises members that their place in heaven is assured by their faithfulness to it's doctrine or covenants get that disclosure also?  Both will indebt that person to the institution in some way.  The banking institution may be for as long as 30 years.  The religion institution could be for a lifetime.   

 

 

 

 

[churchistrue]

I saw a clear difference between someone like John Charles Duffy who provides sources from boths sides, and Runnells who provides sources from one side and ignores much that I see as important..

If I'd seen evidence that Runnells had explored both sides, I could have commented on that. What I could and did comment on are the evidence he provided and the differences between Runnells and people like Jeff Lindsay who deal with the same questions and come up with vastly different answers.

What I find is that the Jesus was on to something important and significant with the Parable of the Sower. Soil and nurture does make a difference in the harvest from the same seed.

"Know ye not this parable?" he asked? "How then will ye know all parables?"

In the case of Duffy, I found that it was not a matter of the evidence he surveyed, but the organizing metaphors he uses to value the evidence. The metaphor becomes the soil in which he plants the seeds.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Sure, I agree with you on the seed/soil metaphor, but you said a lot more than that.

 

overlooked and/or ignored many of the standard sources on topics that he addresses, including both original documents and important scholars.

 

 

not bother with serious LDS scholarship

 

 

 

There is a big difference in seeking out of the best books, and trusting MormonThink to select and digest everything worth knowing for you.

 

 

There's kind of a default assumption I see with LDS apologist types that someone who buys into the critic point of view must not have studied enough or read pro-LDS sources.  That assumption doesn't help matters any, IMHO.

[Calm]

"There's kind of a default assumption I see with LDS apologist types that someone who buys into the critic point of view must not have studied enough or read pro-LDS sources"

Generally only for those who don't mention them or do mention them in an inaccurate way and, from what I've seen, for mostly those who rely on the critics as reliable and credible authorities (for most apologists in my experience; some few apologists and more wannabe apologists who don't do the study themselves label all critics relatively useless or liars, etc.). Some critics are quite credible, many are not and who a questioner chooses as their primary authorities, especially to share with others, does seem to me to be a good indicator of the kind of critic she favours and thus one can judge the likelihood of in-depth study of the more credible critics as well as LDS sources for contrast because if they studied and understood their studies at the least they would favour the better critics.

Which would make the conversations much more interesting and worthwhile imo.

Edited September 3, 2015 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

I'm going to try and explain my perspective a little more. I don't get the effort to seemingly jump on everything the letter says. for instance, after the cover page, then the next page there is a quote from President J. Rueben Clark. Instead of leaving it alone, FAIRM types out, "The truth cannot be "harmed" but it can be misreprestend" and then has a link that lists other rebuttals. Shoot the quote is fine, why act as if it is something to address? Then on the other side of the page it starts in on paintings from Rembrandt and Picasso, following the link it starts in on pieces of the letter that presumably come up in the letter. Why? Address the points as they come. This starts out battling on every front "how dare he actually quote a GA before he even starts the letter". It makes it appear FAIRMormon has a problem with him quoting a GA.

Then we list the contents and FAIRMomon takes issue with concerns being "quite uneven". What? Who cares? Why even comment on that? Of course all concerns are unevenly addressed. That's how life is. No need to state the obvious as if that's some point to address.

The next page, starting the introduction. I see a mess with FAIR circling and drawing attention to certain statements, but not in one case would I see FAIR's complaints about his words substantive.

Going further is so much of the same. "let's circle this and talk about that". The letter's cool in that it brings up topics to discuss. I wish FAIR was better at addressing the letter in that way rather than making it feel like "no matter what the letter says we will challenge it".

To me FAIR's Response is more of a mess as the letter itself, which, in the end, I'd say means it's counterintuitive. Somehow after all the review, the letter is more professional sounding than FAIR, which is a terrible shame. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that. Many who love the letter, see it as the means to learning all this new stuff, see the rebuttals about as I do. it's easy for them to do so.

[Kevin Christensen]

Sure, I agree with you on the seed/soil metaphor, but you said a lot more than that.

There's kind of a default assumption I see with LDS apologist types that someone who buys into the critic point of view must not have studied enough or read pro-LDS sources.  That assumption doesn't help matters any, IMHO.

You did notice that I referred to John Charles Duffy as someone who made a visible and well documented effort to consider a wide variety of perspectives?

I have given a great deal of thought over many years as to why people come to different conclusions. That has been an ongoing theme in my essays since my first publication in 1990.

For instance, here: http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1436&index=8

Or here:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

And this:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets/Seeing_the_truth

It's important, I think, to provide specific examples, and not overgeneralize about either skeptics, or "LDS apologist types". That's why I consider 16 personality types, and the nine position Perry Scheme,

and consider a range of factors regarding selectivity, time, context, and subjectivity, and paradigm choice.

But those who live in the house of faith in the long run tend to have a better grasp on the construction and foundation of that house than those who simply pass by or through. Those who give the issues more time and thought acquire the advantages that time and thought bestow.

That's just the nature of the situation.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburgh, PA

Edited September 3, 2015 by Kevin Christensen