There is no such thing as valid criticism of the LDS Church

[Five Solas]

On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.  He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness.  He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”

In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given.  So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here.  How do you feel about critics?  Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains?  Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)?  Have a go & don’t hold back.  We critics know how some of you feel already.

;0)

--Erik

______________________________________________

She appears composed, so she is, I suppose
Who can really tell?
She shows no emotion at all
Stares into space like a dead china doll

--Elliott Smith, "Waltz #2"

[carbon dioxide]

9 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.  He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness.  He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”

In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given.  So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here.  How do you feel about critics?  Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains?  Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)?  Have a go & don’t hold back.  We critics know how some of you feel already.

;0)

--Erik

______________________________________________

She appears composed, so she is, I suppose
Who can really tell?
She shows no emotion at all
Stares into space like a dead china doll

--Elliott Smith, "Waltz #2"

I would agree that Jeremey Runnells lacks original criticism.  At least in his CES letter what exactly is in that letter that is not found found in other anti-LDS sources?  If it is all the same, it is not original. 

I do appreciate critical viewpoints of the Church as it can stimulate thought and discussion.  My testimony is much stronger as a result of looking at critical views and looking at all the different ways to look at an issue.  If people are simply given softball topics and answers, they will never be prepared for difficult issues when they arise.  I would call a critic and even an LDS member a zombie if all they do is repeat a response on an issue that has not been thought out first.  Usually they can be called a zombie when they can't speak beyond a few sentences of a talking point. 

Edited September 4, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[SamuelTheLamanite]

20 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.  He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness.  He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”

In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given.  So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here.  How do you feel about critics?  Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains?  Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)?  Have a go & don’t hold back.  We critics know how some of you feel already.

Anti-mormons are big fans of historical "truth", they don't realize that Satan changed some historical diaries, letters, newspapers, and documents just like he did with the 116 pages.  Anti-mormons have nothing new and will never demonstrate the church is false because it is true.  

Edited September 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.  He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness.  He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”

In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given.  So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here.  How do you feel about critics?  Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains?  Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)?  Have a go & don’t hold back.  We critics know how some of you feel already.

I am not sure that namecalling ("zombies") is helpful.

However, I think the proposition that "critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat 'same old claims'" is, in the main, very true.  It is quite rare for me to come across a criticism or argument that I have not seen dozens upon dozens of times before.  Jeremy Runnells is a textbook example of a critic who indulges in nothing but lazy thinking.  His CES letter is nothing more than a protracted exercise involving

• A) googling websites critical of the Church;
• B) exercising tremendous skill in the use of CTRL+C and CTRL+V;
• C) compiling complaints and criticisms (the "same old claims") into an incredibly longwinded diatribe dishonestly presented as a sincere request for information; and
• D) studiously ignoring (as in acting as if they do not exist) the many, many treatments of these claims from various resources (FAIR, Jeff Lindsay, Daniel Peterson, and oh so many more).

The problem here is that Mr. Runnells was provided answers to the questions he asked.  Extensively.  Take a look at FAIR's responses to the letter.  And Mr. Runnells knew about and extensively responded to FAIR's treatment of his letter well before his disciplinary council.  Kevin Christensen also responded extensively to the letter (at least twice, in fact), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well (well, sorta - he had a fellow critic write the response for him).  Daniel Peterson has also addressed the letter (not in a point-by-point kind of way, but rather from a "let's take a step back and look at the broader picture" kind of way), and Mr. Runnells responded to that as well.  

In other words, here is where I think we can detect some bad faith in Mr. Runnells.  He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.  He is not looking for information.  He is looking for validation.  If Mr. Runnells was really interested in a good faith discussion about his letter, he would not have written the letter in such a deliberately offensive, risible, and profane manner.  He would not have written it in such a mishmash, throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-how-much-of-it-sticks, death-by-a-thousand-paper-cuts kind of way.  He would not have been so demonstrably hostile and angry to the responses he claims to have wanted to receive.  

Mr. Runnells is not alone this repeating-ad-nauseam-the-same-old-claims-and-not-engaging-LDS-scholarship-and-responses schtick.

As for "disregard{ing} evidence," that is a bit more arguable.  I think it would perhaps be better to day that critics do not find evidences favoring the LDS position to have sufficient probative value.  That is, they do not necessarily "disregard" such evidences wholesale (although certainly some critics do that), but instead do not attribute the same amount of probative value to such evidences as faithful Latter-day Saints do.  That's pretty much to be expected.  It is human nature to interpret evidence in ways most favorable to our preconceived notions.  In law school, I had a professor who regularly and strongly cautioned us against the tendency to use "rose colored glasses" when looking at the factual elements of, or legal authorities about, a particular legal dispute.  I think the same concept applies to both Latter-day Saints and their critics.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 4, 2017 by smac97

[cdowis]

I still remember the days when sisters were not asked to give the closing prayer in sacrament meeting.  We recently had a sister speak in stake priesthood meeting.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

If it is all the same, it is not original.

40 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti-mormons have nothing new and will never demonstrate the church is false because it is true.  

Does an argument have to be new or original to be valid?

[Glenn101]

After some though I opted for number two. But in reality they seem to be few and far between. There really is no valid criticism of LDS doctrine because it comes via prophets. The choice is to believe or disbelieve whether the prophet was speaking for the Lord. Most of the critical attacks on the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham seem to focus on one or the other item and ignore any contrary facts that may exist or claim that the critic is not under any burden to provide evidence for his theory. It is enough for so many of them to say that "It could have been this or that thing..."

It seems that today most of the criticism is internal. And often, the way it is presented, in blogs and forums, it is more subversive than persuasive. One of our frequent posters, 3DOP recently made a comment that most of the anti-mormons are not external critics any longer, but are members.

The church history critics are the most fun. They are able to make character and policy judgments from a far place with a few facts so they suppose and without having been involved in the activities themselves nor knowing any of the people involved.

There have been valid criticisms in the past from without and within as to how some local leaders responded to things such as spousal or child abuse. Those criticisms have been noted and policies instituted to correct those problems.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Does an argument have to be new or original to be valid?

Nope. It needs to be evidence based, whether old or new. Cutting and pasting a series of old arguments which have already been addressed is something that is not considered a valid criticism.

Glenn

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

On another thread an LDS poster alleged critics of the LDS Church endlessly repeat “same old claims” and disregard evidence.  He cited Jeremy Runnells as an example to demonstrate critics lack originality and any thoughtfulness.  He went on to liken critics of the LDS Church to “zombies.”

In the face of my challenge, he enjoyed significant support from fellow LDS and many likes/rep points were given.  So I thought it would be worth a poll to the broader audience here.  How do you feel about critics?  Are they like zombies and the only surefire way to neutralize them by complete physical destruction of their brains?  Or might they serve an occasional useful purpose (besides kindling)?  Have a go & don’t hold back.  We critics know how some of you feel already.

;0)

--Erik

______________________________________________

She appears composed, so she is, I suppose
Who can really tell?
She shows no emotion at all
Stares into space like a dead china doll

--Elliott Smith, "Waltz #2"

Propagating a critical mind is not a bad thing, but rather healthy.  Some critics are not original and do sound like tiresome, old recordings the worn out arguments. On the other hand, some individuals have reflected critically on Church history and current Church actions.  Many fail to reflect on their own perspective - you move a little bit and the once criticism no longer holds sway.  Conversely, moving another way and it takes on new value and importance to the individual. 

For me personally it comes down to what type of person I choose to be.  Do I want to follow the Savior or do I follow after him begrudgingly?  I have never been impressed with Thomas in the NT whereas I really marvel at the faith of the women who went to the crypt in search of their Lord and Savior. 

Yes, at heart I am skeptical of most things, but when I choose to follow after I usually do it with both feet walking in one direction.  That is not to say that I do not have doubts, but that I allow my doubts to percolate along as I search after holiness and righteousness.

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti-mormons are big fans of historical "truth", they don't realize that Satan changed some historical diaries, letters, newspapers, and documents just like he did with the 116 pages.  Anti-mormons have nothing new and will never demonstrate the church is false because it is true.  

CFR that Satan magically changed historical documents.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

47 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Does an argument have to be new or original to be valid?

Anti-Mormons cherry pick them, it's  confirmation bias. 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

15 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

CFR that Satan magically changed historical documents.

I don't know about "magically", but D&C says, "because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written..For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to translate"

It had to look real and original, or else it wouldn't fool anyone. In the 19th century (even today) there was no technology to make such changes without a trace. Satan had to give power to someone, just like he gave the Egyptians power to create serpents, see Exodus 7.  

Do you believe the changes  to the 116 pages were obvious? 

Edited September 4, 2017 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Cutting and pasting a series of old arguments which have already been addressed is something that is not considered a valid criticism.

"Redirect your Honor?

"No. The defense already addressed that. Move along."

[Danzo]

In my experience, faithful members are constantly criticizing the church.  Just the morning in PEC, we criticized the way certain activities were being planned. We criticized a recent boundary change, discussing whether we would add people back to the ward who couldn't travel to the new meeting location.  In Sunday school we were critical on the way we as church members were teaching and treating our children ( this was from a lesson put out by the church).  In priesthood, we were critical and there was a great discussion on improving missionary work in the ward. Afterwards, there was a brief meeting with a newly called ward missionary, a faithful member who has served as bishop and in stake presidencies. We were critical about the involvement of full time missionaries (not enough) and we decided to run our own ward mission and not rely on the full time elders .

For me criticism is part of the church. We try not to be negative about it, but we are constantly looking for things and ways to improve.

[Thinking]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Anti-Mormons cherry pick them, it's  confirmation bias. 

Perhaps the critics just cherry pick what happened to be left out of the official narrative.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

Does an argument have to be new or original to be valid?

No but has gotten Jeremy too much attention for doing pretty much nothing.   Basically all he did was take a chewed up piece of gum on the bottom of a chair, repackaged it in a new wrapping and gave it out for new people to chew.

Edited September 4, 2017 by carbon dioxide

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure that namecalling ("zombies") is helpful.

Of course, Five Solas, who is referring to me in the OP, has somewhat garbled what I said (not an uncommon thing when it comes to anti-Mormon discourse).

The zombie imagery had to do not with critics themselves but with the arguments they often repeat again and again ad nauseam. 

What I did was to paraphrase the joke that Daniel Peterson made years ago in (I think it was) an article in the old FARMS Review of Books on the Book of Mormon. Professor Peterson likened the apologetics work of himself and Bill Hamblin to an imaginary movie called "Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell."**

The point he was making, of course, is that the bulk of their claims and attacks keep surfacing again and again despite having been soundly refuted on multiple prior occasions, and the attackers seem never to take cognizance of the rebuttals that have already been made. The arguments are like zombies in horror movies who, no matter how many times you shoot, beat or stab them in fending them off, never lie down but just keep coming. 

I thought, and still think, it was a clever -- and apt -- bit of imagery. Which is why I will quote it from time to time. In the thread to which Five Solas refers, I thought of an alternate name: "Night of the Living Dead: Anti-Mormon Edition." 

Apparently, Five Solas fails to see the humor in it and has taken umbrage. 

**In fact, Dan himself revisited the joke during his 2014 FairMormon Conference presentation wherein he addressed the Runnells screed in some detail:

Quote

This is his fourth objection: Book of Mormon Geography, and he uses Vernal Holley, who relied on the Solomon Spalding theory of the Book of Mormon, which has been exploded, detonated so many times that it’s exasperating to see it keep coming back. I’ve mentioned, I think, here before that Bill Hamblin and I have wanted to do a film that we call tentatively, “Bill and Dan’s Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.” The idea is that these just keep coming back. I mean, you shoot them between the eyes and they don’t stop because there’s no brain in there, right? And, to see the Spalding manuscript theory just keep coming and coming, but the methodological problems with Vernal Holley’s maps are multitudinous and we published an article in the old FARMS Review clear back at the very beginning in 1989 showing some of those problems. For one thing, he goes to a map of the northeastern United States. He goes through all the toponyms, the place names there, and then he tries to find things in the Book of Mormon that are vaguely familiar. They sound sort of the same, but some of them are really a stretch. Jacobsburg, well that’s Book of Mormon Jacobugath. Antioch, that’s Anti-Anti. My favorite, Sherebrook, which becomes the Book of Mormon Shurr. Well, they’re not very good parallels, but, the other thing is, they’re in the wrong places. The Book of Mormon says where they are. They’re not in the same relationships on the map. It’s just…you know, if you take a long enough list of place names, you’ll find parallels, especially if you’re “loosy-goosy” about it. You’ll find parallels with just about anything. This is easily done. I could show you words that definitely come from Arabic that occur in English, that have no relationship. They’re vaguely similar. They’re totally different definitions.

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[carbon dioxide]

30 minutes ago, Danzo said:

 

For me criticism is part of the church. We try not to be negative about it, but we are constantly looking for things and ways to improve.

Yes.  If I criticize my boss at work for a decision or action she has taken, that does not mean I think she is a bad boss or that she does not make good decisions.  I think it is possible to criticize the Church on an issue here and there while sustaining the leaders of the church and the church as a whole.  The issue is really the intent of the criticism.  It is simply to tear down or to seek to make good changes to make things better.  Also those who make criticism must be willing to take criticism in return. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

"Redirect your Honor?

"No. The defense already addressed that. Move along."

Your analogy fails.

In a court of law, posing questions that have already been answered would draw an "asked and answered" objection from the opposing attorney, which would be sustained by the judge.

[Danzo]

32 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Yes.  If I criticize my boss at work for a decision or action she has taken, that does not mean I think she is a bad boss or that she does not make good decisions.  I think it is possible to criticize the Church on an issue here and there while sustaining the leaders of the church and the church as a whole.  The issue is really the intent of the criticism.  It is simply to tear down or to seek to make good changes to make things better.  Also those who make criticism must be willing to take criticism in return. 

I often feel that what some like to label criticism could better be described as an attempt toward persuasion, proselyting, or otherwise attempt at conversion to their cause.

[Thinking]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your analogy fails.

In a court of law, posing questions that have already been answered would draw an "asked and answered" objection from the opposing attorney, which would be sustained by the judge.

The problem with the asked and answered attitude that so many defenders have is that frequently the one asking the question has just learned about that particular controversy and is met with condescension for not having embraced the apologists' arguments already.

[MiserereNobis]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

He is plainly not looking for answers.  He is looking for argument.

Last week I taught my students an excerpt from Plato's Gorgias. What you say was the entire point that Plato/Socrates was trying to make about rhetoric: truth is more important than argument, but rhetoric seems to equate the two.

In all fairness to rhetoric I also included an excerpt from Aristotle's Rhetoric that argues (among other things of course) that truth is actually a rhetorical strategy; if you want to make a good argument, then the truth is an excellent persuasive method.

[thatjimguy]

I think a lot of what the church has done in the past ten years as far as placing the essays and such, are a direct result of people having unfiltered questions.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

I don't know about "magically", but D&C says, "because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written..For he hath put into their hearts to do this, that by lying they may say they have caught you in the words which you have pretended to translate"

It had to look real and original, or else it wouldn't fool anyone. In the 19th century (even today) there was no technology to make such changes without a trace. Satan had to give power to someone, just like he gave the Egyptians power to create serpents, see Exodus 7.  

Do you believe the changes  to the 116 pages were obvious? 

And who is going to look at the pages and verify that the handwriting is not authentic?  Why not be clever and, for the purpose of inspection,  some pages of  the entire document was re-written, instead of making changes on the original document???  That would be stupid and too obvious.

It would be a simple thing to simply PUBLISH the completely re-written 116 pages and the public would accept it.  This is not the 20th century, you know.  A newspaper can publish anything it wants, JS can complain and nobody will believe him.  No investigation, and nobody would know how to verify whether the handwriting in the re-written document is authentic -== the technology, the art of handwriting analysis,  did not exist at that time even if someone were to bother to check it.

This is the flaw in the antiMormon "black hole" argument.

It is not magic, it is not Satan.  This is just another antiMormon argument which is garbage and nonsense.

Edited September 4, 2017 by cdowis

[Physics Guy]

I didn't think Runnells was claiming any originality. I thought he was just collating standard questions, with the original goal of getting an official answer rather than rebuttals by apologists who only spoke for themselves.

I don't know if it's reasonable to expect a church to provide official answers to critical questions about its teachings, but it's understandable to want official answers. Doubting one's faith is a bit like feeling unwell and worrying that you may have a fatal disease. Reading through a string of amateur apologists whose answers may be unconvincing and are never authoritative must be like getting a series of divergent opinions from a series of doctors. You start to wish you could get a definite diagnosis from a certified specialist, even if the news will be bad.

Doctors are probably also frustrated by patients who just won't stop complaining, who insist that their medications aren't helping and they're still feeling sick. I'm sensing some frustration from apologists at how the same old questions keep getting asked over and over again, even after they've been answered—at least for some values of "answered".

Why do the questions keep coming back, though? Is it really all the fault of the questioners, for being lazy or stupid or wicked? I suppose that could be. There aren't really that many people spending time critiquing the LDS church, and maybe the ones that do are are just the inevitable fraction of embittered wackos that no church of this size can avoid. Some Mormon apologists seem to be pretty generous-minded, though, so I doubt that's the only hypothesis Mormons consider. What other problems could there be?

One that occurs to me is that apologetics in Mormonism inherently has a tougher row to hoe than in other faiths. The crucial founding events of the LDS faith all occurred less than two-hundred years ago—nearly in modern times—instead of being safely buried deep in the past. Joseph Smith is open to question in ways that Mohammed isn't. And yet Mormons don't reap the corresponding PR advantages of a modern religion that makes good sense to modern minds, because the Book of Mormon is set in ancient times. Its characters say and do things that seem problematic today. So there's a lot more tension between ancient and modern in Mormonism than I see in other faiths, and it's probably harder to offer answers that work on both sides.

Edited September 4, 2017 by Physics Guy