Another Faith Crisis Letter

[Anakin7]

        I recently came across this letter on LDS Apologia Facebook page which they have been commenting/responding  -   http://www.letterformywife.com  .Any comments/responses are welcome in your observation. Note to moderators, delete if this thread is not allowed or inappropriate. I apologize in advance. 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptonian 

Edited December 7, 2017 by Anakin7

[clarkgoble]

Were you looking for responses? The letter gets at pretty standard items of discussion. There are fairly standard responses to most of the issues raised.

[Anakin7]

     Yes that would be helpful, in case any member/investigator/critic brings up this letter in conversation with me. I could share it on the Facebook LDS Apologia Board as well. Thank you. 

The Atonement, It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7    

[Calm]

The collection of criticism in a "letter" has become a standard technique for many critics the past few years.  They pretty much address the same arguments, so FairMormon doesn't respond to each individual one, but you can find responses to most, perhaps all on our site.  If someone brings our attention to a new argument or a significant variation, it is usually addressed and added to the list.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Main_Page

Usually easiest to do a Google site search (site:FairMormon.org ) and then a significant search term for a particular argument.

If someone drops a whole letter in your lap, just tell them it is unrealistic to expect you to spend your time answering the whole thing and then for them to seriously engage your response when it is likely the individual is only really interested in part of it and they should therefore put up at most a few of the claims they think are most effective at a time to discuss.

If you then can't find the answer on our site, feel free to write and ask us for help with that specific issue.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Calm

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

   Any comments/responses are welcome in your observation.

The first thought I had was that it's never occurred to me to publish a letter to my wife on the internet.

[Anakin7]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The first thought I had was that it's never occurred to me to publish a letter to my wife on the internet.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

The first thought I had was that it's never occurred to me to publish a letter to my wife on the internet.

I thought that too.  But some people are able to express themselves better through writing.  It may also have been therapeutic for him to do this.  His wife can take her time reading through it and maybe even do her own research.  Maybe he’s tried talking to her and it hasn’t gone well?

But with all those thoughts, I’d still feel funny if my husband did this rather than to just come to me and talk face to face about something that obviously is very important to him.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I thought that too.  But some people are able to express themselves better through writing.  It may also have been therapeutic for him to do this.  His wife can take her time reading through it and maybe even do her own research.  Maybe he’s tried talking to her and it hasn’t gone well?

But with all those thoughts, I’d still feel funny if my husband did this rather than to just come to me and talk face to face about something that obviously is very important to him.

I didn't think the written letter part was too weird, but I would definitely think it was very odd if my husband wrote me a letter than then published it on the internet.  

[smac97]

I'm a bit skeptical.  There isn't really a good faith basis for publishing a letter "to my wife" online, to the entire world.  So the "to my wife" bit (coupled with it being formally published online, anonymously, under a unique URL) comes across as a rhetorical gimmick.  A pretextual excuse to pluck at the ol' heartstrings.  An attempt to evade scrutiny or criticism by hiding behind sentimentality (as in "How dare you critique the heart-felt writings of this man to his wife!  Have you no decency, sir?").  

The letter comes across as a mediocre retread of Runnell's CES letter, which itself was not exactly the pinnacle of critical thought and analysis.  In both instances, the authors pretend (yes, I'm suggesting bad faith here) that there are no substantive responses to the laundry list of cut n' paste complaints.  FAIR.  Jeff Lindsay.  Mormon Interpreter.  Various published books.  These things have been addressed over and over and over.  It is one thing to disagree with those responses, but it is manifestly bad faith to pretend as if they don't exist, and to refuse to interact with them at all.  Runnells' attempt at ignoring these materials was weak.  This fellow really has no excuse at all (in fact, this letter comes across as nearly wholesale plagiarism of Runnell's stuff).

So there is no good faith here.  The "concerns" and "questions" here are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium.

Many are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions/concerns designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.

They are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions" or "concerns."

There is no evidence of a previous good faith effort to "study it out" and pray and ponder about these "questions" as we are commanded in D&C 9, or of a good faith effort to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith."

These "questions" and "concerns" are intellectually dishonest in that they do not engage or address the meaningful information that is already readily available and responsive.  These "questions" instead disregard such resources, or pretend they don't exist, or that they do not provide real and meaningful insights into the "questions" posed.

Again, the letter is a ploy.  It is not presented it good faith.  Sincerity matters.  Good faith matters.  None of these things are present.  The letter is not a genuine effort by the author to convey information to his wife.  He could have done that in any number of ways privately.  His intended audience is . . . struggling Latter-day Saints.  The purpose is to tear down faith.  To sow seeds of doubt and discord.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

Info about the domain:

Quote

Domain name: letterformywife.com
Registry Domain ID: 2119762640_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.namecheap.com
Registrar URL: http://www.namecheap.com
Updated Date: 2017-05-02T22:04:24.00Z
Creation Date: 2017-05-02T18:10:36.00Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2018-05-02T18:10:36.00Z
Registrar: NAMECHEAP INC
Registrar IANA ID: 1068
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse@namecheap.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.6613102107
Reseller: NAMECHEAP INC
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited https://icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: addPeriod https://icann.org/epp#addPeriod
Registry Registrant ID: 
Registrant Name: WhoisGuard Protected
Registrant Organization: WhoisGuard, Inc.
Registrant Street: P.O. Box 0823-03411 
Registrant City: Panama
Registrant State/Province: Panama
Registrant Postal Code: 
Registrant Country: PA
Registrant Phone: +507.8365503
Registrant Phone Ext: 
Registrant Fax: +51.17057182
Registrant Fax Ext: 
Registrant Email: ddebc04e73e341c5b504394d02133a58.protect@whoisguard.com
Registry Admin ID: 
Admin Name: WhoisGuard Protected
Admin Organization: WhoisGuard, Inc.
Admin Street: P.O. Box 0823-03411 
Admin City: Panama
Admin State/Province: Panama
Admin Postal Code: 
Admin Country: PA
Admin Phone: +507.8365503
Admin Phone Ext: 
Admin Fax: +51.17057182
Admin Fax Ext: 
Admin Email: ddebc04e73e341c5b504394d02133a58.protect@whoisguard.com
Registry Tech ID: 
Tech Name: WhoisGuard Protected
Tech Organization: WhoisGuard, Inc.
Tech Street: P.O. Box 0823-03411 
Tech City: Panama
Tech State/Province: Panama
Tech Postal Code: 
Tech Country: PA
Tech Phone: +507.8365503
Tech Phone Ext: 
Tech Fax: +51.17057182
Tech Fax Ext: 
Tech Email: ddebc04e73e341c5b504394d02133a58.protect@whoisguard.com
Name Server: ns1.bluehost.com
Name Server: ns2.bluehost.com
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2017-12-07T02:39:34.08Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit https://icann.org/epp

Registrar: NameCheap Inc.
Whois Server: whois.namecheap.com
Creation Date: 2017-05-02T18:10:36Z
Updated Date: 2017-05-02T22:04:24Z
Expiration Date: 2018-05-02T18:10:36Z

The anonymity of the author, aggressively protected, does not instill confidence in the sincerity or good faith of the project.

[Nevo]

In the conclusion, the author professes an "obsession" with "truthful information. . . real truth, accurate historical facts."

Yet misstatements of fact start on page 1:

Actually, lots of periodicals from the 1830s mention Joseph Smith.

James B. Allen is not a General Authority and has never held the position of Church Historian. The First Vision was referred to (obliquely) in what is now D&C 20—which was published in the 1830s—and was "hand-recorded" in the 1832 History.

[rongo]

When I clicked on the link and it opened the 151 page .pdf, my thought --- in addition to those who asked "Who writes their wife a letter of this nature on the internet?" was:

"151 pages?"

Seriously. I know people with (to them) valid and bona fide concerns and doubts. And anger and a feeling of being betrayed and deceived by the Church. But, most realize that a manifesto-length blasting of the one side of looking at it is not effective *at all* in winning people over to their way of thinking. If anything, it is counter-productive, and doubly so when the tone is caustic and sneering.

I think this is 1000x the case if one were to actually try to convert one's TBM wife by a 151 page manifesto. To say nothing of putting it on the internet. 

No, this is just another attempt to do a CES letter-type dump, couched as a letter from a hurting husband trying to get his wife to see why he doesn't believe and has contempt for the Church. 

People aren't going to read through this. He's a Johnny-come-lately with this type of thing.

[clarkgoble]

Yup now that I've read through more of this it seems like new bottles for old wine. I doubt the sincerity but think this is standard anti-Mormonism dressed up with better marketing. I'll give them credit that they are getting far more effective with this stuff. They realize it's not the content but how it's presented.

Lots of weird things like on page 1 "Former Church Historian James B. Allen, acknowledged that the story of the First Vision was not known in the 1830's. Elder Allen stated that in the 1830s "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it." But that conflates generally known with known - much more of a sneaky persuasive trick than someone being honest with the data. Then he contradicts what he wrote two paragraphs earlier when he mentions the 1832 account and says, "there is no reference to the First Vision in any published or hand-recorded material in the 1830s." Of course there's rather risible irony of complaining about minor contradictions in different accounts when his own paragraphs contradict.

Then he goes on saying, "Using the vast resources of the Church education system, members are not informed of the inconsistencies relating to Joseph’s visions." (Note the tense - he's talking about today) The fact that it's published on lds.org and was published in the Ensign suggests CES is doing a poor job at their conspiracy.

Then there's, "The Church has always taught that the translation process of the Book of Mormon looked like this: Joseph Smith read the golden plates like a book, translating the text out loud to Oliver Cowdery, who served as scribe." Again even a simple search at lds.org would show this false. My favorite is the example from the September 1974 Children's Friend (back when I read it regularly as a kid) 

Quote

 

Because of his spiritual nature and his willingness to learn the truth, Joseph Smith was tested and found worthy to be the translator of the Book of Mormon. To help him with the translation, Joseph found with the gold plates “a curious instrument which the ancients called Urim and Thummim, which consisted of two transparent stones set in a rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate.”

Joseph also used an egg-shaped, brown rock for translating called a seer stone. The translating was done at Peter Whitmer’s home, a friend of the Prophet’s where Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith (Joseph’s wife), one of the Whitmers, or Martin Harris wrote down the words spoken by the Prophet as soon as they were made known to him.

 

At this point it's fairly obvious that he's being intentionally deceiving. (Again ironic given the claims he making of the Church) It's not really worth bothering to go further since the whole thing is a put up.

Edited December 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, Nevo said:

In the conclusion, the author professes an "obsession" with "truthful information. . . real truth, accurate historical facts."

Yet misstatements of fact start on page 1:

Actually, lots of periodicals from the 1830s mention Joseph Smith.

James B. Allen is not a General Authority and has never held the position of Church Historian. The First Vision was referred to (obliquely) in what is now D&C 20—which was published in the 1830s—and was "hand-recorded" in the 1832 History.

I really respect your opinion, and I haven't read this new letter to my wife, but isn't he correct about James B. Allen, just pulled the Wikipedia article on him and it sounds like he worked for the church history department in the 1980s. 

Quote

Starting in 1954, Allen worked for the Church Educational System (CES) in a variety of roles.[10] In Kaysville, Utah he was a seminary teacher, as well as in Cowley, Wyoming,[6] where he was also the coordinator of seminaries from 1955-7.[2] He taught at LDS Institutes of Religion for nine years,[5] and was director of the institutes in Long Beach and San Bernardino, California[10] while pursuing his doctorate at USC.[6]

Allen joined the religion faculty at BYU in 1963, and then the history department in 1964.[10] In the early 1970s was the doctoral major professor and mentor of Ron Esplin, who would become another notable Mormon historian.[14] He was chair of the history department from 1981–1987, and afterward held the Lemuel Hardison Redd Jr. Chair in Western American History, until his 1992 retirement. From 1992-2005, he was a senior research fellow with BYU's Joseph Fielding Smith Institute for Latter-day Saint History, and served on its executive committee for a time.[10]

From 1999-2000, Allen and his wife served as full-time missionaries for the Church Education System at the Boston Institute of Religion. In 2002, he taught in the History Department of Brigham Young University—Hawaii as a volunteer.[10]

Also, the D&C 20 reference to the FV, I know Greg Prince and a couple others who have sited this as evidence of the FV.  I think its less clear myself.  Here is the 1830 version, 

Quote

For after that it truly was manifested unto the first elder that he had received remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world, but after truly repenting, God visited him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all whiteness, and gave unto him commandments which inspired him from on high, and gave unto him power,8 by the means of which was before prepared that he should translate a book;

Now, this could be reference to the FV, the source note in the JSP refers to the 1832 account, but I'm not convinced it is.  I think its possible that Joseph hadn't conceived of an idea of a visionary experience when this April 1830 version of D&C 20.  An important event that I think influenced Joseph wanting to create a more foundational narrative for the beginnings of Mormonism happened in Oct 1830 with the visit of Peter Bauder.  From a FAIR article written by Ron Barney, he states: 

Quote

Peter Bauder, who later wrote about his visit to the Whitmer farm, said that he inquired of Joseph, “searching into the mystery of his system of religion, and had the privilege of conversing with him alone, several hours, and of investigating his writings, church records, &c.” But when Peter Bauder asked Joseph whether he had had an intimate experience with God common to those of the time who professed a special familiarity with Deity, Bauder wrote that Joseph “could give me no christian experience,” meaning clearly that Joseph told him nothing about his First Vision.

Now Barney draws different conclusions about this event than I do, but I think the event is evidence that Joseph hadn't yet considered the importance of developing a compelling narrative for the beginnings of the church.  I believe he began experimenting with narratives with his 1832 account and this continued for the next few years with different versions including the assignment to Cowdery in 1834 to craft an official narrative which uses the Moroni visit as the founding moment of the movement and doesn't anywhere mention a first vision with deity, and then lastly the 1838/39 narrative was crafted very meticulously by a committee to tell a story of persecution and God's explicit blessing of this movement which was in part a push back against all the dissenters from Missouri.  

All my comments are not to prove that Joseph didn't have a visionary experience of some kind, I personally believe he had some experience but perhaps it wasn't a vision of deity in the way it was later crafted.  I just want to recognize the historical events that influenced everything, and to me this version of events makes the most sense based on the history that I've read.  Any thoughts?  

 

 

[hope_for_things]

8 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

        I recently came across this letter on LDS Apologia Facebook page which they have been commenting/responding  -   http://www.letterformywife.com  .Any comments/responses are welcome in your observation. Note to moderators, delete if this thread is not allowed or inappropriate. I apologize in advance. 

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptonian 

I think this kind of a phenomenon is a result of the very strong exclusivity claims of Mormonism, and the clash with the internet age and the access to information that wasn't available to your average Joe in the past.  I don't think we should blame people that come up with these kinds of critiques and call them insincere or mistrust their motives.  The fact that people care this much about the religion they are raised in is a evidence that these people were highly devoted members in the first place.  If someone didn't care much, they wouldn't take the time to write up something like this. 

This is evidence of an unquestioning devotion, and I believe it is also a failure of our church culture to teach critical thinking skills, and one of the cons of the strong exclusivity claim.  I never produced anything like this during my most painful faith crisis phase, but I can empathize with the impulse to do this, and I think we need to consider that Mormonism creates this kind of a phenomenon in the first place. 

I predict that these long letters will continue to be written until the basic criticisms of the church easily available on the internet is known by your average member.  Until average church members become conversant in the topics covered in the essays, there will be people who don't know about these critiques who become shocked and dismayed when learning about them on the internet.  

[Calm]

I believe "church historian" means they work for the Church History Dept of the Church, not that they are historians connected to the Church in some way.  They either hold the calling of Church Historian and Recorder or work under him.

BYU professors don't fit that definition, even for the history dept there.

[Calm]

"I don't think we should blame people that come up with these kinds of critiques and call them insincere or mistrust their motives"

While some may automatically distrust, most I know take a look at the material first.  It is more how some present the reasoning for their work that causes me and most of those I know familiar with the works to doubt sincerity, not the length of it.  Also if they talk about being focused on truth and accuracy and then don't really demonstrate that.

His intro section where he talks about coming across discrepancies while reading Church produced materials while never mentioning any visits to critical sites...as if he noticed all these problems on his own...that is a problem for me.  I highly doubt he stumbled across the claim about The Late War on his own reading of "church-approved" materials.

add-on:  part of the problem is the misrepresentation of his likely path of research, but as I mention below I am also bothered by lack of credit given to secondary sources, even if they are likely critical.  You don't take credit directly or indirectly for someone else's work.  Possibly in my top ten of pet peeves.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

In the conclusion, the author professes an "obsession" with "truthful information. . . real truth, accurate historical facts."

Yet misstatements of fact start on page 1:

Actually, lots of periodicals from the 1830s mention Joseph Smith.

James B. Allen is not a General Authority and has never held the position of Church Historian. The First Vision was referred to (obliquely) in what is now D&C 20—which was published in the 1830s—and was "hand-recorded" in the 1832 History.

"Professor of history emeritus at BYU, D. Michael Quinn"

This is problematic as well, resigning is not the same as retiring and being allowed to keep one's title.

[clarkgoble]

39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Now Barney draws different conclusions about this event than I do, but I think the event is evidence that Joseph hadn't yet considered the importance of developing a compelling narrative for the beginnings of the church. 

With all apologies to the FAIR author, I'm not sure I agree. It's worth also reading the full Bauder account. Note that he explicitly mentions the angel. The question then becomes what "no christian experience" means (and for that matter why Bauder would say that and them immediately mention an angelic visit).  We should note it's a very pejorative account - he considers Joseph blasphemous.  I'd say that "christan experience" would consist of something Bauder would accept as orthodox.

My guess, looking at uses of the term in the early 19th century, is that he's thinking of a charismatic experience. So Rev. John Humphrey wrote, "Men sometimes make light of what is called experimental religion and Christian experience. They call us enthusiasts, when we insist on an individual experience as necessary for understanding the affections of the Christian and the deep things of God." (A Selection from the sermons of Rev. John Humphrey, 315) That this is not what Mormons understand by experience is clear later. "We say of them they are founded upon an individual, incommunicable experience. And as the sinner is to seek for that experience, by supplicating God's grace and obeying the Gospel, so the Christian must rise to the higher and higher joys, by an immediate communion with God." (316) 

An alternative might be Alexander Campbell's frequent use of "Christian Experience" for that moment when a person is born again. Further Campbell argues this can only happen after baptism. (Indeed there was a big series of debates between Campbell and others over this point) Further yet there's then a dispute over which Christian sect can produce it with Campbell arguing Baptists can't.

Without going into the varieties of debate over this experience, I don't think the issue is a vision of God but rather the sort of thing that happens at tent revivals. (With different sects having their own opinion on what counts as authentic) It's hardly surprising that Joseph, whose experience is the dismissal of all that, would not be seen as having such an experience by Bauder. 

So at minimum this is a reference to a technical dispute among the various sects, which ought put our caution up. That's because this experience ends up being the key dispute among sects, which the proponent of each sect usually accusing the others of counterfeits. Given that language, if Bauder thinks Joseph Smith blasphemous then it'd follow he'd accuse him of "no Christian experience."

For those curious a little googling will bring up many of the main texts of these disputes.

Now where I'll agree with the FAIR post is that it seems clear that Joseph didn't tell Bauder of the First Vision or he'd have mentioned it along with the angel. I'm not sure what sect Bauder was associated with. (I couldn't find a good biographical sketch on him) However just because Joseph didn't tell Bauder anything doesn't imply much.

Edited December 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I predict that these long letters will continue to be written until the basic criticisms of the church easily available on the internet is known by your average member.  Until average church members become conversant in the topics covered in the essays, there will be people who don't know about these critiques who become shocked and dismayed when learning about them on the internet.  

I predict these long writings will continue indefinitely since they've been going on since the 1830's in a fairly similar fashion. All that's changed since the days of E. D. Howe are the distribution channels.

41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this kind of a phenomenon is a result of the very strong exclusivity claims of Mormonism, and the clash with the internet age and the access to information that wasn't available to your average Joe in the past.  I don't think we should blame people that come up with these kinds of critiques and call them insincere or mistrust their motives.  The fact that people care this much about the religion they are raised in is a evidence that these people were highly devoted members in the first place.  If someone didn't care much, they wouldn't take the time to write up something like this. 

Clearly they care. Like E. D. Howe or the afore mentioned Peter Bauder clearly cared about Mormons. However attributing this to the internet age seems questionable.

 

Edited December 7, 2017 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

What a dork.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

What a dork.

Having a flashback...

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I really respect your opinion, and I haven't read this new letter to my wife, but isn't he correct about James B. Allen, just pulled the Wikipedia article on him and it sounds like he worked for the church history department in the 1980s. 

I think that says he was chair of the BYU History Department, not the Church History Department. However if you read his BYU page he was the assistant to Arrington as assistant Church Historian during that crucial period when the Church History Department was being modernized.  So I agree calling him a church historian is correct even if it was Arrington who was the Church Historian. That's at best a minor error. Especially compared to the myriad of major errors on nearly every page.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Info about the domain:

The anonymity of the author, aggressively protected, does not instill confidence in the sincerity or good faith of the project.

Internal evidence indicates that the first name of the author is Zachary.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, JulieM said:

I thought that too.  But some people are able to express themselves better through writing.  It may also have been therapeutic for him to do this.  His wife can take her time reading through it and maybe even do her own research.  Maybe he’s tried talking to her and it hasn’t gone well?

But with all those thoughts, I’d still feel funny if my husband did this rather than to just come to me and talk face to face about something that obviously is very important to him.

This is true JulieM...;until I could write to someone that may understand...and even a letter to myself...I could not see my real hurts and why.  If it were me though...in a personal relationship like this, I would have still wrote the letter..to be concise and true...but held her hand as she read it...perhaps not place it on the internet.  But for those who write out feelings and remain anonymous, it is part of a healing process...because we are feeling so alone.