smac97 Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 43 minutes ago, cinepro said: Just so I'm clear, do you take similar exception to books and shows (like Leah Remini's) that "tear down" Scientology? I am not looking for things about which to take exception. I am generally indifferent to Scientology, so I have not given Leah Remini's oppositional efforts much thought. My general sense is that her grievances are more about the conduct of the Church leaders and members. I think the alleged misbehavior and controversies in that group substantially serious and offensive to personal liberty and lawful society. So I do not object to substantive critiques of that religion. I think there would be quite a bit of umbrage taken if certain favored groups had their religious beliefs and practices singled out for public scorn and ridicule. There seems to be very few popular efforts to profane and ridicule and criticize, say, the spiritual/religious beliefs of Native Americans, or Tibetan Buddhists. I confess that I hold Mormons and former Mormons to a different, higher standard than other people. I have generalized concerns about the coarsening of discourse in our society, and about the lack of respect and decorum so frequently demonstrated against some less popular religious groups. But as for LDS beliefs in particular, and as for current and former Latter-day Saints, I have some specialized concern about these folks and their efforts against the LDS Church. I think the LDS Church is resilient, and that its doctrines and practices can and will withstand reasonable and reasoned scrutiny and critique (much of it is a matter of faith, and hence not really falsifiable or testable). However, the keeping of covenants made in the Church is of particular and singular importance to me. A person who joins, and then leaves, Scientology has not, in my view, broken covenants recognized/authorized/mandated by God. A person who joins, and then leaves, the LDS Church, has abandoned such covenants. And when that person not only leaves, but also actively works against the LDS Church, I am concerned for that person. And when that person not only leaves, and not only actively works against the Church, but also seeks to make money from that effort, there is a compounding effect. Fortunately, I don't really have to sweat this too much. Mr. Runnells and the author of the "letter" under discussion here are not within my stewardship. They have made public statements, and I am as at liberty as anyone else to critique those statements. But I make no claims as to their standing before God, except to express generalized concern about them. 43 minutes ago, cinepro said: If you met Leah Remini, would you tell her to be quiet and leave Scientology alone? I'm generally indifferent to Scientology. I have concerns, as a member of society generally, about many of the allegations made against the Church of Scientology. Their religious beliefs are odd, but I am content to let them believe as they wish. But it is their conduct, including potentially serious violations of civil law and generalized notions of decency, that I find most disturbing. I hope law enforcement is investigating such matters as they deem appropriate and fair. If I had friends or family members involved in Scientology, I would probably be more active in opposing their purported misbehavior. But as for their beliefs, nah, I'll leave them alone. Thanks, -Smac 4
cinepro Posted December 9, 2017 Posted December 9, 2017 After spending some time reading the FAIR response to the "Letter to My Wife", I think I've figured out what the problem is. The "Letter to My Wife" (and presumably the "CES Letter") are written in such a way that they can be easily read. Many comments I've seen refer to people reading them in one long sitting, or over just a few days. I don't know if it's the information itself or the format, but for people that find it interesting, it can be very compelling. Each chapter combines facts (or "facts") with a narrative and context that strongly counters what many people learned from the Church itself. The FAIR responses, on the other hand, are laborious. They try to address each claim piecemeal. While the info and arguments may be valid, they are tedious to read and much less convincing in that format. Even if a specific point is countered, it is so sliced-and-diced that the counterargument is easily compartmentalized. If FAIR wants to counter the effectiveness of these documents, it will take another document of equal length and presentation that doesn't just counter the individual claims made in the "CES Letter" or "Letter to My Wife." It will need to be a document that presents the case for the Church as a counterpoint, and makes a case for how the Church has presented its history as well. All of the necessary info is probably already on the FAIR website, and maybe books have been written that do this already. But they're not as accessible or widely distributed as these other documents. It needs to be put into a PDF and organized as a contextualized narrative that can be read in one sitting. I don't know if it will do any good in the end. Maybe such a document could never be as convincing. But it would have to be much more effective than the current strategy. 3
carbon dioxide Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, cinepro said: If FAIR wants to counter the effectiveness of these documents, it will take another document of equal length and presentation that doesn't just counter the individual claims made in the "CES Letter" or "Letter to My Wife." It will need to be a document that presents the case for the Church as a counterpoint, and makes a case for how the Church has presented its history as well. All of the necessary info is probably already on the FAIR website, and maybe books have been written that do this already. But they're not as accessible or widely distributed as these other documents. It needs to be put into a PDF and organized as a contextualized narrative that can be read in one sitting. I don't know if it will do any good in the end. Maybe such a document could never be as convincing. But it would have to be much more effective than the current strategy. Perhaps somebody could compose a "Letter to my husband" that reverses all the arguments and why the issues presented on the wife letter are not a big deal or problem in the format that you suggest. Not a letter of mockery or contention but one of love and concern that a wife would have for her husband. Keep links to a minimum as not a lot of people want to be clicking to different places. It probably will be longer as it usually requires more material to correct a false assertion than to make a false assertion. So if 151 pages are good then 200-250 pages in a reply letter would seem to be in order. Edited December 10, 2017 by carbon dioxide
Calm Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 4 hours ago, cinepro said: After spending some time reading the FAIR response to the "Letter to My Wife", I think I've figured out what the problem is. The "Letter to My Wife" (and presumably the "CES Letter") are written in such a way that they can be easily read. Many comments I've seen refer to people reading them in one long sitting, or over just a few days. I don't know if it's the information itself or the format, but for people that find it interesting, it can be very compelling. Each chapter combines facts (or "facts") with a narrative and context that strongly counters what many people learned from the Church itself. The FAIR responses, on the other hand, are laborious. They try to address each claim piecemeal. While the info and arguments may be valid, they are tedious to read and much less convincing in that format. Even if a specific point is countered, it is so sliced-and-diced that the counterargument is easily compartmentalized. If FAIR wants to counter the effectiveness of these documents, it will take another document of equal length and presentation that doesn't just counter the individual claims made in the "CES Letter" or "Letter to My Wife." It will need to be a document that presents the case for the Church as a counterpoint, and makes a case for how the Church has presented its history as well. All of the necessary info is probably already on the FAIR website, and maybe books have been written that do this already. But they're not as accessible or widely distributed as these other documents. It needs to be put into a PDF and organized as a contextualized narrative that can be read in one sitting. I don't know if it will do any good in the end. Maybe such a document could never be as convincing. But it would have to be much more effective than the current strategy. Thanks for the suggestion, I will pass it on. I think Shaken Faith Syndrome does this to some extent, we do need to have something free and online and easy to access. 2
Calm Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) I forgot about this...tell me what you think, cinepro (and anyone else): https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Bamboozled-by-the-CES-Letter-Final1.pdf Edited December 10, 2017 by Calm 1
smac97 Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, cinepro said: After spending some time reading the FAIR response to the "Letter to My Wife", I think I've figured out what the problem is. The "Letter to My Wife" (and presumably the "CES Letter") are written in such a way that they can be easily read. I think the organization and style and content are all a bit more nefarious than that. A sensational accusation will often get a lot more attention than the measured and substantive and reasonable response thereto. Folks often don't have much of an attention span these days. It's a lot more exciting to real a salacious accusation than a mundane denial and explanation. Quote Many comments I've seen refer to people reading them in one long sitting, or over just a few days. Reading a laundry list of shallow accusations is easy. Understanding things like context and nuance and complexity and history and culture takes time and effort and study and patience. Let me illustrate with a somewjat extended comparative situation. As an attorney, I regularly litigate against pro se litigants (people representing themselves rather than hiring an attorney) in lawsuits pertaining to foreclosure disputes (I represent the lenders / loan servicers / foreclosure trustees). It is a rather common (perhaps even predominant) characteristic of these folks to file a lawsuit that is full of bombast and The-Bank-Done-Me-Wrong! hyperbole, and very often eerily identical rhetoric to other lawsuits filed in preceding months. As it turns out, there are so-called "experts" who go online and peddle all sorts of How-To-Beat-The-Bank-And-Get-Your-House-For-Free nonsense. The homeowner, usually already in arrears on their payments and so not predisposed to be happy with the bank, is a natural audience for these hucksters. Moreover, the online "experts" write in such a way as to make the homeowner feel totally vindicated in his dislike of the bank, and also that there is an inexorable and undeniable set of arguments that destroy the bank's position, such that the homeowner gets his house for free! Yay! The reality, however, does not match up to what the "experts" promise. The bank hire attorneys, who are well-versed in the law, to present argument to the judge, who is also well-versed in the law. And then, pretty much every time, the bank wins. The "experts" various shrill declarations cannot overcome a reasoned and researched and informed explanation of the relevant principles of law. In other words, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." That is what these self-described "experts" are providing. A lot of talk that is long on vitriol and short on substance. I tend to think that people like Jeremy Runnells and the author of the "letter" under discussion are like the above-referenced online "experts" in nonjudicial foreclosure law. They aren't, really, experts at all. The author of the "letter" here did nothing more than compile a bunch of criticisms from numerous websites, showing a prodigious talent for using CTRL C + CTRL V along the way. That's about it. No real study or thought. No rigorous analysis. No investigation into relevant areas of scholarship and study. No interaction at all with LDS scholarship on these issues, much of which has been readily available online for years (which makes that lack of interaction all the more egregious and dissembling and intellectually dishonest). Readers of the "CES Letter" are, I think, much like the homeowners described above: people who have essentially been duped into listening to self-appointed and self-promoting "experts" who in truth are nothing of the sort, and whose writings are long on bombast and short on substance. Quote I don't know if it's the information itself or the format, but for people that find it interesting, it can be very compelling. Each chapter combines facts (or "facts") with a narrative and context that strongly counters what many people learned from the Church itself. Yeah, facile persuasiveness is also what the self-appointed Save-Your-Home-From-Foreclosure "experts" are good at. Quote The FAIR responses, on the other hand, are laborious. Yep. Short questions about complex issues will often necessarily require long answers. FAIR is interested in providing informed and substantive responses out there. Runnells and the author of the "letter" under discussion, meanwhile, only want to throw out glib accusations, simplistic and uninformed claims, and generalized potshots. Reading the FAIR responses takes time. And effort. And thought. And perhaps additional study of materials and resources. Quote They try to address each claim piecemeal. While the info and arguments may be valid, they are tedious to read and much less convincing in that format. Even if a specific point is countered, it is so sliced-and-diced that the counterargument is easily compartmentalized. Yep. The glib potshot is easier to digest. Doesn't make it more nutritious, though (pardon the mixed metaphor). Quote If FAIR wants to counter the effectiveness of these documents, it will take another document of equal length and presentation that doesn't just counter the individual claims made in the "CES Letter" or "Letter to My Wife." It will need to be a document that presents the case for the Church as a counterpoint, and makes a case for how the Church has presented its history as well. Mr. Runnells has been 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. All of these remarks about Mr. Runnells' letter were published well before his disciplinary council. And yet Mr. Runnells is running around insisting that he's never received an answer to them. That the Church has been "ignoring" his questions for "3 years." Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Runnells claims to have asked his SP to "identify error or mistakes in the CES Letter, or on the website, is incorrect so {he} can publicly correct it." In his various responses to FAIR, Christensen and Peterson (here, here and here), he does not appear to give any substantive reconsideration to his letter based in response to the points raised by these folks. I acknowledge that Mr. Runnells posted a list of 17 trivial "errors" he made in his letter, but he then triumphantly declares that the balance of his letter, "95%," consists of "correct claims." He declares his opinion to be "correct" at pretty much every turn. Such self-congratulatory validation is rather problematic. Quote All of the necessary info is probably already on the FAIR website, and maybe books have been written that do this already. But they're not as accessible or widely distributed as these other documents. It needs to be put into a PDF and organized as a contextualized narrative that can be read in one sitting. Well, this is part of the problem. Runnells and the "letter" author have taken an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink approach. Yes, these "letters" can be read in one sitting, but they are shallow and simplistic. They cover a huge swath of varied and complex topics. They are merely questions (well, really they are accusations with question marks added on the end). The answers require context. Information. Knowledge. None of that is forthcoming in the cobbled-together compendiums being offered up here. Acquiring a well-reasoned and well-informed understanding of the issues under discussion takes real time and effort. Informed and reasoned responses cannot "be read in one sitting." Quote I don't know if it will do any good in the end. Maybe such a document could never be as convincing. But it would have to be much more effective than the current strategy. "The current strategy" is to provide informed and reasoned scholarship regarding the various issues presented in these "letters." Unfortunately, a lot of people are perhaps a bit too willing to take the "easy way" of accepting a "narrative that can be read in one sitting" (the letters), while thereafter being less willing to devote the necessary time and effort to actually understand the substantive responses on these varied and complex issues (in addition to continuing to seek spiritual guidance and insights). The "one sitting" is easy. The other thing is time-consuming and requires patience and real effort. Thanks, -Smac Edited December 10, 2017 by smac97 2
cinepro Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: "The current strategy" is to provide informed and reasoned scholarship regarding the various issues presented in these "letters." If the current strategy is working, then stick with it. But from what I've seen, it isn't working. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter how well intentioned and well thought out it is, or how beautiful and deep the analogy is that explains why the CES Letter and "Letter to My Wife" just shouldn't be as convincing as they are. You've given an eloquent and convincing explanation of why the situation should be different than it is, with a nice side-helping of blaming the people who find those letters convincing. Your analogy about the self-representing foreclosees would be more apt if it ended with you saying "in spite of all this, I lose to these people all the time!" But I'm guessing you don't lose to them, so it isn't really applicable. Because FAIR and the Church loses to these letters all the time. To expand on my point from another direction, over the years we've seen the Church conduct focus-groups and send up trial balloons as they try different ways of getting the message out. Social media, Facebook, different Sunday School lesson formats, commercials, videos, "Face to Face" programs etc. There isn't just one way to respond to these "letters." And while these people may exist, I haven't met anyone who was initially bothered by the CES Letter or "Letter to My Wife" and then found their concerns resolved by the FAIR site. So it might not hurt to try a response in a different format, because I don't think it would hurt anything. Edited December 10, 2017 by cinepro 3
Calm Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 1 hour ago, cinepro said: If the current strategy is working, then stick with it. But from what I've seen, it isn't working. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter how well intentioned and well thought out it is, or how beautiful and deep the analogy is that explains why the CES Letter and "Letter to My Wife" just shouldn't be as convincing as they are. You've given an eloquent and convincing explanation of why the situation should be different than it is, with a nice side-helping of blaming the people who find those letters convincing. Your analogy about the self-representing foreclosees would be more apt if it ended with you saying "in spite of all this, I lose to these people all the time!" But I'm guessing you don't lose to them, so it isn't really applicable. Because FAIR and the Church loses to these letters all the time. To expand on my point from another direction, over the years we've seen the Church conduct focus-groups and send up trial balloons as they try different ways of getting the message out. Social media, Facebook, different Sunday School lesson formats, commercials, videos, "Face to Face" programs etc. There isn't just one way to respond to these "letters." And while these people may exist, I haven't met anyone who was initially bothered by the CES Letter or "Letter to My Wife" and then found their concerns resolved by the FAIR site. So it might not hurt to try a response in a different format, because I don't think it would hurt anything. It works for some from what we hear reported, not for others. This should not be surprising given peoplelearn and experience things differently. 1
kiwi57 Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 9 hours ago, cinepro said: Just so I'm clear, do you take similar exception to books and shows (like Leah Remini's) that "tear down" Scientology? If you met Leah Remini, would you tell her to be quiet and leave Scientology alone? I fail to see why you expect defenders of the Church of Jesus Christ to express opinions about the activities of people unrelated to the Church. I can't speak for Smac, but I've never heard of Ms Remini. I don't consider myself qualified to express an opinion about her activities, and I'm not interested enough to go looking her up to find out what she does. And I also think Smac is right on the money.
kiwi57 Posted December 10, 2017 Posted December 10, 2017 On 12/10/2017 at 11:41 AM, cinepro said: After spending some time reading the FAIR response to the "Letter to My Wife", I think I've figured out what the problem is. The "Letter to My Wife" (and presumably the "CES Letter") are written in such a way that they can be easily read. Many comments I've seen refer to people reading them in one long sitting, or over just a few days. I don't know if it's the information itself or the format, but for people that find it interesting, it can be very compelling. Each chapter combines facts (or "facts") with a narrative and context that strongly counters what many people learned from the Church itself. The FAIR responses, on the other hand, are laborious. They try to address each claim piecemeal. While the info and arguments may be valid, they are tedious to read and much less convincing in that format. Even if a specific point is countered, it is so sliced-and-diced that the counterargument is easily compartmentalized. If FAIR wants to counter the effectiveness of these documents, it will take another document of equal length and presentation that doesn't just counter the individual claims made in the "CES Letter" or "Letter to My Wife." It will need to be a document that presents the case for the Church as a counterpoint, and makes a case for how the Church has presented its history as well. All of the necessary info is probably already on the FAIR website, and maybe books have been written that do this already. But they're not as accessible or widely distributed as these other documents. It needs to be put into a PDF and organized as a contextualized narrative that can be read in one sitting. I don't know if it will do any good in the end. Maybe such a document could never be as convincing. But it would have to be much more effective than the current strategy. As I read your post, I'm reminded of the following quote from Catholic apologist Karl Keating: Quote It must be admitted they enjoy a certain tactical (if short-term) advantage in that they can get away with presenting bare-bones claims such as these; they wear out Catholicism's defenders by inundating them with short remarks that demand long explanations. To the extent that the anti-Mormon "letter" fad relies upon this "shotgun blast" tactic, then it enjoys a certain advantage in an age when many people have attention spans the length of a tweet. But there will always be those with a little more mental stamina; and they will first see through the specious claims, and then they will see through the tactic.
smac97 Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 18 hours ago, cinepro said: If the current strategy is working, then stick with it. But from what I've seen, it isn't working. The results have been mixed, I think. 18 hours ago, cinepro said: If it isn't, then it doesn't matter how well intentioned and well thought out it is, or how beautiful and deep the analogy is that explains why the CES Letter and "Letter to My Wife" just shouldn't be as convincing as they are. I'm not sure what "shouldn't" means here. 18 hours ago, cinepro said: You've given an eloquent and convincing explanation of why the situation should be different than it is, Well, no, I have given an explanation of my assessment of why the situation is what it is. 18 hours ago, cinepro said: with a nice side-helping of blaming the people who find those letters convincing. I'm not out to blame here. But there is an elephant in the room here. It should be addressed. That elephant is . . . members giving too much credence to contrived, cobbled-together laundry list complaints and criticisms about the Church, while not giving enough time and effort to understand the often substantive and complex responses to those complaints and criticisms. I have had a few personal experiences with this sort of issue. I won't go into the details, but suffice it to say that I have seen the above elephant more than once. 18 hours ago, cinepro said: Your analogy about the self-representing foreclosees would be more apt if it ended with you saying "in spite of all this, I lose to these people all the time!" My clients usually win on the law and the facts because ultimately, the dispute is resolved by a judge who is well-informed as to the arguments and theories of both sides. The analogy has limited utility in that regard, since an individual who has a concern about or dispute with the Church does not submit arguments to a judge. He just . . . makes up his own mind. Nevertheless, the analogy is apt to the extent is stands for the proposition that pro se litigants make a serious mistake when they rely on a bunch of superficial, uninformed legal advice from self-proclaimed "experts" that, in the end, does not withstand scrutiny, or else is significantly overstated, reliant on errant arguments and data, etc. The same goes, I think, for people who rely on superficial, uninformed dreck like the CES letter of the letter under discussion, and then make very significant decisions based on that material without giving the Church's position a fair shake. 18 hours ago, cinepro said: But I'm guessing you don't lose to them, so it isn't really applicable. Because FAIR and the Church loses to these letters all the time. The hucksters who fool homeowners into relying on crappy legal advice succeed. All the time. They make money scamming people into buying into their advice, which involves radical measures like defaulting on their home loans (or not curing their defaults), filing series of bankruptcy petitions, suing the bank, and so on. These actions are not wise. All of this destroys the person's contractual relationship with the bank, with the ultimate consequence of the homeowner losing his/her house. Meanwhile, the bank has lost a borrower and a performing asset, but they usually carry on. Similarly, Jeremy Runnells and the author of the letter under discussion also succeed in fooling some members into relying on crappy, superficial laundry list complaints like the CES letter. For whatever reason, these guys want to alienate members of the LDS Church from the Church. Unfortunately, they sometimes succeed at getting members to resort to radical measures such as publicly speaking out against the Church, resigning their membership in the Church, and so on. These actions are not wise. All of this destroys the individual's covenant relationship with God, which exists by virtue of the ordinances administered by and through the Church. The Church will carry on, but the loss of these individuals is nevertheless tragic. So that's the analogy. Yes, the Church "loses" members who foolishly rely on horrible advice, just like banks who "lose" borrowers who also rely on horrible advice in that context. The loss of members of the Church in this circumstance is tragic, and I think the hucksters will eventually be held to account for their misconduct. 18 hours ago, cinepro said: To expand on my point from another direction, over the years we've seen the Church conduct focus-groups and send up trial balloons as they try different ways of getting the message out. Social media, Facebook, different Sunday School lesson formats, commercials, videos, "Face to Face" programs etc. There isn't just one way to respond to these "letters." I quite agree. 18 hours ago, cinepro said: And while these people may exist, I haven't met anyone who was initially bothered by the CES Letter or "Letter to My Wife" and then found their concerns resolved by the FAIR site. I have known many such people. However, I think the level of "bother" with these folks has usually been relatively low, and inversely proportional with the overall health of their attitude toward and relationship with the Church. That is to say, people whose faith answers to the description in Ether 12:4, and who have had the patience and willingness to listen to substantive responses to the issues raised by Runnells and his ilk, tend to have more measured, stable, and informed reactions to those issues. 18 hours ago, cinepro said: So it might not hurt to try a response in a different format, because I don't think it would hurt anything. Certainly. Thanks, -Smac
bluebell Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/9/2017 at 3:41 PM, cinepro said: After spending some time reading the FAIR response to the "Letter to My Wife", I think I've figured out what the problem is. The "Letter to My Wife" (and presumably the "CES Letter") are written in such a way that they can be easily read. Many comments I've seen refer to people reading them in one long sitting, or over just a few days. I don't know if it's the information itself or the format, but for people that find it interesting, it can be very compelling. Each chapter combines facts (or "facts") with a narrative and context that strongly counters what many people learned from the Church itself. The FAIR responses, on the other hand, are laborious. They try to address each claim piecemeal. While the info and arguments may be valid, they are tedious to read and much less convincing in that format. Even if a specific point is countered, it is so sliced-and-diced that the counterargument is easily compartmentalized. If FAIR wants to counter the effectiveness of these documents, it will take another document of equal length and presentation that doesn't just counter the individual claims made in the "CES Letter" or "Letter to My Wife." It will need to be a document that presents the case for the Church as a counterpoint, and makes a case for how the Church has presented its history as well. All of the necessary info is probably already on the FAIR website, and maybe books have been written that do this already. But they're not as accessible or widely distributed as these other documents. It needs to be put into a PDF and organized as a contextualized narrative that can be read in one sitting. I don't know if it will do any good in the end. Maybe such a document could never be as convincing. But it would have to be much more effective than the current strategy. I think that sometimes too, some of the Fair articles make too big of a deal of the stuff that people (those who are convinced by the CES letter-type stuff) find the least important. For example, the Fair article's rebuttal of Runnel's CES letter spends time on what most of these kinds of people would consider insignificant issues-that Runnel says there were no contemporary articles about the First Vision in 1830 for instance even though there were. It can read like someone trying to waste time and fill space with easy wins rather than engaging the real meat of the doubts. (That's not what I think the FAIR articles are doing, but I do think it can make it easier for some people to dismiss the articles without engaging them). 3
Atheist Mormon Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/7/2017 at 1:20 PM, 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. Not only that it is totally retarded.......
cinepro Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/9/2017 at 7:17 PM, Calm said: I forgot about this...tell me what you think, cinepro (and anyone else): https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Bamboozled-by-the-CES-Letter-Final1.pdf That's actually pretty good. It should probably be more widely distributed. 1
clarkgoble Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 Been having trouble in this thread with posts going through. Several didn't. Anyway, if you want to rhetorically answer these things then you do an over the top response much like Nibely did back in the day. While from a more objective standpoint that avoids answering every charge and will anger everyone because it's exactly what they accuse apologetics of always doing, the reality is that it's more effective than point by point answers. Don't get me wrong. Point by point answers are the more honest approach. But Cinepro is completely right that from a practical standpoint it doesn't work too well. 1
Kenngo1969 Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) On 12/9/2017 at 3:41 PM, cinepro said: After spending some time reading the FAIR response to the "Letter to My Wife", I think I've figured out what the problem is. The "Letter to My Wife" (and presumably the "CES Letter") are written in such a way that they can be easily read. Many comments I've seen refer to people reading them in one long sitting, or over just a few days. I don't know if it's the information itself or the format, but for people that find it interesting, it can be very compelling. Each chapter combines facts (or "facts") with a narrative and context that strongly counters what many people learned from the Church itself. The FAIR responses, on the other hand, are laborious. They try to address each claim piecemeal. While the info and arguments may be valid, they are tedious to read and much less convincing in that format. Even if a specific point is countered, it is so sliced-and-diced that the counterargument is easily compartmentalized. If FAIR wants to counter the effectiveness of these documents, it will take another document of equal length and presentation that doesn't just counter the individual claims made in the "CES Letter" or "Letter to My Wife." It will need to be a document that presents the case for the Church as a counterpoint, and makes a case for how the Church has presented its history as well. All of the necessary info is probably already on the FAIR website, and maybe books have been written that do this already. But they're not as accessible or widely distributed as these other documents. It needs to be put into a PDF and organized as a contextualized narrative that can be read in one sitting. I don't know if it will do any good in the end. Maybe such a document could never be as convincing. But it would have to be much more effective than the current strategy. On 12/9/2017 at 8:17 PM, Calm said: I forgot about this...tell me what you think, cinepro (and anyone else): https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Bamboozled-by-the-CES-Letter-Final1.pdf 1 hour ago, cinepro said: That's actually pretty good. It should probably be more widely distributed. A few years ago, on a similar subject, I said this: Quote This isn't intended as a criticism of you specifically and personally, [Screen name redacted]. It's simply a general observation of one advantage enjoyed by doubters, critics, skeptics, the disaffected, et cetera (pick your word) over believers: unfortunately, sound bites are more effective at luring those who are on the fence into disbelief than substantive analysis is at persuading those who are on the fence to believe, but it's not possible to refute sound bite criticisms with sound bite rebuttals in return. Critics know this, and they take full advantage of it. Edited December 11, 2017 by Kenngo1969 1
Calm Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 2 hours ago, cinepro said: That's actually pretty good. It should probably be more widely distributed. I am wondering if the title is offputting? I think part of the success of the 'letter' methodology is the softer, gentler approach in most of them. In fact, it appears to me each new version works at toning down negativity at least to begin with, or at least appearing to be genetically positive (the term "letter" rather than "paper", "commentary", or "manifesto" is more personal and positive, expresses a desire for communication, correspondence, for example) otoh, a little humor and sharp wit helps keeps people's interest.
stemelbow Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/9/2017 at 8:04 PM, Calm said: Thanks for the suggestion, I will pass it on. I think Shaken Faith Syndrome does this to some extent, we do need to have something free and online and easy to access. I believe I offered similar suggestions years ago. That's ok. I dont' think the Shaken Faith syndrome type of response works the best either. I'll offer my criticisms of Ash's piece here too.
Tacenda Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/9/2017 at 11:26 PM, Calm said: It works for some from what we hear reported, not for others. This should not be surprising given peoplelearn and experience things differently. It's evident that there are no answers for the most part. That's the hard part for people to get over. You know me, I'm reading sites all the time with people that stumbled across something/or shown something they weren't aware of. All it takes for many is to read the letters or something on the internet while searching for something else and then that sparks them to read more and pretty soon (happened to me) they're reading everything they can get their hands on. And I think sometimes the thing that actually seals the deal is when they read that what they read is true when they read the gospel essays. So in one way the gospel essays can be ultimately blamed or basically the truth is to be blamed.
Calm Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Tacenda said: It's evident that there are no answers for the most part. If you mean the 2+2=4 type of answer I would agree. If you mean credible possibilities for historical questions, I would disagree. Edited December 11, 2017 by Calm 1
stemelbow Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/9/2017 at 8:17 PM, Calm said: I forgot about this...tell me what you think, cinepro (and anyone else): https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Bamboozled-by-the-CES-Letter-Final1.pdf I'll start off by commenting on the first chapter. I'm surprised to see him come off as trying to paint the CES Letter and author as one pulling a ruse and stuck in black and white thinking when it seems the whole of the chapter is hypocritical on those points. He starts off by pointing out how the CES letter over-inflates or tries to trick the reader by suggesting some level of agreement between FAIR's response and the CES Letter. I think Ash is exactly right to do so', I'd say. There's nothing unique about the criticisms in the CES Letter as we all know, and there's little reason to see each and every point raised in it as fact. It is largely interpretation. Here is Ash: Quote I don’t doubt that the author of the CES Letter is sincere and believes that the Church is false. His story, sadly, is not unique. He discovered troubling information that sent his religious worldviews into a downward spiral. The arguments listed in the CES Letter indicate that this author, like many people in the world today, instinctively approached his beliefs from within a black and white framework. This framework unfortunately created a stumbling block to an accurate assessment of the troubling issues and ultimately contributed to a collapse in testimony. Hurt by feelings of betrayal, and believing that the Church had lied, the author probably created the CES Letter with sincere hopes of helping other people get out of the same situation. As discussed in #1, however, facts don’t speak for themselves. They must be interpreted, and the CES Letter seems to intentionally twist every interpretation to maximize a negative portrayal of the Church. Unwary members who haven’t yet entertained a religious worldview that sees the various shades of gray in understanding prophets as mere mortals with divinely-called positions, can be conned, scammed, bamboozled, and victimized by a storm of scholarly-sounding negative interpretations that seem to undercut their beliefs. Here, to me, he offers a very black and white explanation of the motivations of another, while complaining that the author is stuck in black and white thinking. By saying "CES Letter seems to intentionally twist every interpretation to maximize a negative portrayal of the Church" he seems to be exaggerating the whole CES letter effort because we all know there is far more negative he could have put in there. "Maximize a negative portrayal of the Church"? What does that mean? Is he trying to maximize a negative portrayal of the CES Letter in response? if Runnels maximized and lived only in this black and white world he's being accused of, the whole letter, the whole enterprise would come off a lot more silly to me. No one, at least not one who is taken seriously, that I've seen, has ever really viewed the Church in wholly negative ways. The whole point of the CES Letter is to identify his own criticisms of the Church he once loved. For doing so, Ash it appears, is accusing him of living in a black and white world, claiming for himself a land of gray. It is exactly the problem he identified with the CES letter claiming so much agreement between he and FAIR on the "facts". It's not the content of the letter that's the problem it's the intention of the author who thinks his interpretations are all inviolable, or something. Kind of a weird starting point to his criticisms, I'd say, consider he just tried to make the same complaints about the CES Letter and its author. Is there some trick in this: Quote Critics, including those who created the CES Letter, similarly spin an overall negative picture of the Church by only listing what they see as the negative aspects of Mormonism (which, as my booklet will show, are debatable). Not only is the overall picture framed in bad light, but each individual accusation is interpreted and presented in the most negative way possible in the hopes that they will be able to accrue enough unfavorable features about Mormonism—like the list of negative qualities of dihydrogen monoxide—that someone who doesn’t know better will accept those interpretations as representative of the big picture. I mean, I think Ash genuinely has decided that the letter itself is about as negative as possible--which I think is pretty silly as we all know there are many more criticisms of the Church that are not listed in the CES letter and we all can imagine a far more negative way to interpret each issue. But by complaining that the letter does what it was intended to do, he is saying that it is like people (for some reason Runnels became a "those who created the CES Letter") trying to trick others into banning water. Seriously? Runnels tells the reader what the letter is intended to be--a list of criticisms "I’ve decided to put down in writing just about all the major concerns that I have"? Ash again: Quote This doesn’t mean that the Gospel is gray or complicated. On the contrary. The Gospel is simple and is adapted to all who desire to taste of God’s goodness—even if they are weak in mind or spirit. The Gospel is simple so that those who desire, who put their faith in God, can feel the Spirit even if they are unable to understand or explain why the plates were written on metal, or why Joseph was commanded to practice plural marriage, or why Moses cursed the Egyptians with plagues. The Gospel is simple because the rest of the stuff can be confusing and ambiguous. What does saying the gospel is simple because the other stuff can be confusing have to do with this? Did he just lay out his critique that Runnels is/was stuck in black and white thinking therefore his letter has problems, and suggest Runnels pulled a ruse by saying his criticisms are all agreed upon by FAIR? If so, then what is he doing' different from that? His whole set up is that he doesn't think it necessary to address the letter point by point, which is fine, but that his conclusion is the letter is nothing but a ruse--as he spelled out a few different parables. If he wants to point out the interpretations differ, and credible so, many experts in certain fields disagree as they interpret, fine. Do so. But don't pretend that just because you disagree with some of the interpretations, that the whole enterprise is a ruse, or that the "facts" part of this can't possibly be a concern to people.
Calm Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 "Runnels became a "those who created the CES Letter" Iirc, Runnells asked for help creating the letter originally and got a lot of input from others, but I may be confusing the timeline, 1
hope_for_things Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 On 12/9/2017 at 11:40 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Dealing with likelihood is not the same as certainty. It is certain, for example, that Joseph Smith and Abraham Lincoln were assassinated. Less certain are all the circumstances of their early lives. Historians consider it certain that a guy named Jesus lived in a particular time and place, and he seems to have been some sort of Wunderrebbe. Beyond that it is difficult to get much agreement. We know that visions, witch hazel rods, and seerstones were a normal part of Joseph's environment, so that the appearance of them in his personal bio should not spark surprise. Indeed, such fantastic tools were characteristic of biblical times as well, so that one should not get overly concerned with there presence -- as though they besmirch true religion. The earliest Christian documents we have are Pauline letters, so that we are obtaining thereby the most authentic insights on early Christianity. If Paul had been an agent of the Sanhedrin in persecuting the Christian community, a very effective way of stopping him would have been an extraordinary vision and temporary blindness. He would have been very foolish to lie about his earlier status as a Pharisaic rabbi trained by the great Gamliel. Any lie of that sort would have destroyed his credibility. Too many people knew the immediate circumstances. Moreover, his letters show his sophistication in rabbinic reasoning. The Gospels come into being decades later, and we cannot determine their accuracy at all. I think when it comes to ancient history that there are degrees of likelihood and confidence with respect to evaluating the evidence. For example the work that the Jesus seminar has done to look at various statements within the gospels and evaluate the likelihood of which statements can be attributed to Jesus and which are less likely. Can you clarify your final statement that we cannot determine the accuracy of the gospels because they came into being decades later. Because I'm not familiar with biblical scholars taking this position. They have developed methods that are well accepted and have various degrees of accuracy.
Tacenda Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I think when it comes to ancient history that there are degrees of likelihood and confidence with respect to evaluating the evidence. For example the work that the Jesus seminar has done to look at various statements within the gospels and evaluate the likelihood of which statements can be attributed to Jesus and which are less likely. Can you clarify your final statement that we cannot determine the accuracy of the gospels because they came into being decades later. Because I'm not familiar with biblical scholars taking this position. They have developed methods that are well accepted and have various degrees of accuracy. I was surprised and relieved to hear of these methods as well. I wish we would discuss more on this in our Sunday talks/lessons. Also, what Christ went through when he was crucified. It may be a topic for another thread, but the LDS don't really discuss the extent of what Jesus went through.
stemelbow Posted December 11, 2017 Posted December 11, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: "Runnels became a "those who created the CES Letter" Iirc, Runnells asked for help creating the letter originally and got a lot of input from others, but I may be confusing the timeline, Alright. No big deal anyway.
Recommended Posts