Another Faith Crisis Letter

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

If I understand correctly the ces letter is now in print but my question is why buy it when you can read it online for nothing?

https://cesletter.org/updates/CES-Letter-2.0.html

Apparently Runnels went through and changed a lot of it. 

c/p from link:

Tone:
Jeremy has taken a fine-tooth comb and gone through the entire document many times to identify and change parts of the document that are snarky or hostile in tone.

New Design:
Thanks to the expertise and skills of two designers, CES Letter has been newly designed for both digital and printed versions in addition to the new website. Special thanks to Craig Bishop for the interior layout and to Craig Keeling for the cover and the website design.

Chapter Title pages and quotes:
Quotes have been added to Chapter Title pages before each chapter or section. These quotes are designed to give more context and “ah-ha” moments relative to the topic.

Clearer and simpler graphics:
In preparation for the paperback, new graphic design have been utilized to make the presentation simple and easier to understand and absorb.

"Scriptures" Chapter Removed:
The Scriptures section is where a lot of the tonal problems were in the previous CES Letter. After much thought and evaluation, Jeremy decided that the Scriptures section was redundant and unnecessary as it was a distraction from the core problems that are uniquely Mormon. Many of the issues with the bible and Christianity that were discussed in this section aren’t uniquely Mormon issues and problems.

Inoculation against Mormon apologetics:
In a desire to help readers and investigators to escape the Mormon Apologetic House of Mirrors quicker, Jeremy has added content that gets to the heart of weaknesses of commonly used Mormon apologetic claims and arguments.

Revamped sources and sources system:
Jeremy has added sources that are even more LDS friendly or neutral. Additionally, Jeremy has set up a system to where the sources are redirects through cesletter.org’s server to ensure that there are no dead or weak links in the future. When a source dies, it can quickly be changed for all mediums (paperback, PDF, epub, HTML, etc.) with a single change on the server.

Epilogue with more resources:
To make it easier for readers, new resources such as Frequently Asked Questions, Common Attacks, a centralized Debunking page, an updated Resources page, and a direct link to access to LDS Church essays have been created.

Quick links to new materials:

CES Letter Paperback Book (Now ready to ship!)

CES Letter 2.0 PDF

CES Letter 2.0 ePub

What’s currently being worked on and completed in December 2017:

HTML CES Letter (in final stage production)

Audio CES Letter (in final stage production)

Kindle CES Letter (need help - see below)

Continuation of updating and optimizing website

What Jeremy needs help with:

Kindle:
This has been a struggle. If any of you are Kindle experts and would like to help, please email Jeremy at cesletter@gmail.com with “Kindle” in subject line.

Social Media:
TBM trolls have been leaving 1 star reviews on Facebook. Many were personal attacks against Jeremy which Facebook removed. Please add your reviews to counterbalance the TBM trolls. To leave a review on CES Letter, please go here: Facebook CES Letter Page

 

[Calm]

8 hours ago, cinepro said:

Which of Runnell's claims were "outright wrong" as pointed out in the apologetic responses?

I've had two personal experiences with people reading the CES letter and leaving the Church.  One was a family member who had read the apologetic response but didn't find it convincing, the other was a young woman in my ward who went to college.  A few months after she left, her dad asked me if I had ever heard of the "CES Letter", because his daughter had read it in college and was ready to leave the Church.  I referred him to the apologetic responses.  They weren't convincing and she's out.

 

 

If you mean by "there can't be" is that Godmakers presented easier targets with their fabrications, I agree with you.  It was in my opinion a cartoon effort (and even included a cartoon) which allowed for a more precise response.  Such would provide more opportunities for fully convincing and satisfying rebuttals.

The Ces and other letters provide a much wider range of claims and information where much of the response of the reader to both the claims and the rebuttals depends on what assumptions they hold.  I wouldn't expect everyone to be convinced.  FM estimates around 15% of Runnells' claims to be outright false and 35% to be mistakes (misunderstanding of sources, etc).  That still leaves a lot of opportunity for dissatisfaction.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director/Book_of_Mormon_Concerns_%26_Questions#Response_to_claim:_.222_Nephi_19:1...Joseph_qualified_the_sea_as_the_Red_Sea.22

I do not deny the CES letter has taken out a number of members, including active believers.  Godmakers was targeted, imo, for nonMormons who weren't familiar with the Church**** while the various letters are meant to have impact on believers who have familiarity with traditional LDS beliefs.  Godmakers was more careless with their claims as well as the authors not understanding much of what they were criticizing, therefore rebuttals themselves are more obvious.

****That is why even though it is obviously hopeless in the view of most Mormons who are familiar with it and a number of nonLDS have labeled it as defamatory, etc, it was still one of the most popular teaching aids used in classes about Mormonism in Evangelical churches not so long ago though this may have changed in recent years.

As far as specific falsehoods, the more significant obvious stuff isn't popping into my head as it is not something I ever invested indepth analysis into, which is unfortunately what is required these days for me to retain info.  Nor do I want to spend my evening going through the responses.  I have farmed out that part of my response to others, hopefully they will be available soon and I can post some examples for you.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

I would presume that this number is getting bigger every year, and that it will be greater and greater trouble to the Church as the people who leave continue to be young, and from the kind of "stock" that would be most expected to provide a solid base of tithing, leadership service, and future members for the Church. 

If the number of appeals for help to FM is indicative, I think the CES letter has leveled off and may even be dropping in level of influence.

There are always new criticisms to replace the old unfortunately.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, I'm trying to understand the crux of what you're saying, but I have to admit its passing me by.  I agree with you that the FV accounts were not important theologically to 19th century Mormonism.  Many historians have made this point.  I'm not sure how that hurts the assumptions I'm making about an evolving early church narrative.  Why wasn't the FV narrative important to 19th century Mormons, perhaps because it wasn't emphasized by Joseph or the other early leaders.  The 1838/39 version wasn't even canonized until late 1800s, I think 1880 or 1876 if I remember right.  Still not sure why this lack of importance to 19th century members is somehow hurting the assumptions I've presented, as I never made the case that the vision was "so important".  

The same applies to the Book of Mormon in the 19th century.  It was seldom quoted then, and is looked upon by scholars today as having had some sort of symbolic value in the 19th century.

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I've didn't say these narratives developed in a linear fashion.  I said Joseph was experimenting, and I've called it ad hoc experimentation. 

I'm aware that Luke and the Acts are written by the same author.  Some scholars date them it to 80 - 90 C.E. but some recent scholarship questions that dating and actually thinks they should be dated later.  At any rate, I'm not aware of any scholars that would date them to when Paul was alive, its believed Paul died sometime before 64 C.E. but an exact date is unknown.  

Also, I didn't ever imply that a vision of some sort for Paul didn't occur.  In addition I said that I believe Joseph had some kind of experience (I keep mentioning this because it somehow goes unnoticed as people think I'm somehow attacking Joseph or calling the church a fraud, which I'm not doing.)

We cannot know via professional historical study whether Joseph had any such experience.  Like the Resurrection, we can only have a religious testimony of it by faith.

Like the matter of where the versions of Paul's Vision come from, you miss the point I made.  I did not suggest that Paul wrote them and handed them off to his buddy Luke.  Luke clearly edited versions of that material, which (if Paul actually had such a vision) ultimately came from Paul -- the majority of whose letters and other writings we do not have today.  I also suggested oral tradition.  In the end, we can only know by faith whether Paul actually had such a vision, and indeed which version of it is correct -- if any.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If the number of appeals for help to FM is indicative, I think the CES letter has leveled off and may even be dropping in level of influence.

There are always new criticisms to replace the old unfortunately.

There must needs be opposition . . .

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

..........................................

Social Media:
TBM trolls have been leaving 1 star reviews on Facebook. Many were personal attacks against Jeremy which Facebook removed. Please add your reviews to counterbalance the TBM trolls. To leave a review on CES Letter, please go here: Facebook CES Letter Page......................

Those so-called "TBM trolls" are very likely frightened by Runnells, and will also likely be among the first to apostatize.  If they knew the Gospel, they would not be worried at all.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

.................................................  During these years 1827 - 1832 why wouldn't this story have come up if it was so foundational to Joseph?  ...................

Also, what do you think about my comment that Joseph's pattern for sharing other visionary experiences was completely open, that he frequently shared a plethora of experiences and didn't hold anything back.  Also, what of the point by a Grant Palmer about creating and exaggerating visionary events to bolster his authority?  It seems pretty clear to me that this is what is happening with multiple narratives at the same time.  

.....................................  This could possibly be because the FV narrative wasn't actively promoted by the church and many members weren't even aware of its existence.  Lucy Mack Smith doesn't even bring it up in her history.  It wasn't really on the radar back then.  

These are surely very important points.  Even when people knew of the First Vision, it does not seem to have gotten a lot of attention.  Why?

Same applies to the Book of Mormon:  If it was so important, why weren't people reading and quoting from it as they do today?

What is so different about 20th century Mormons?  Did the pioneering and persecution catch all their attention in the 19th century?  While the 20th century allows us a breather in which to consider these other matters? Or is it all advertising and promotion?  Is perception really everything?

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Manifest - 

Question: why did you choose the adjective form, when "was manifested" is rather unquestionably the past tense of the verb form?

verb

verb: manifest; 3rd person present: manifests; past tense: manifested; past participle: manifested; gerund or present participle: manifesting

1. 1.

   show (a quality or feeling) by one's acts or appearance; demonstrate.

"Lizzy manifested signs of severe depression"

synonyms:

display, show, exhibit, demonstrate, betray, present, evince, reveal, indicate, make plain, express, declare "she manifested signs of depression"

antonyms:

hide

• be evidence of; prove.

  "bad industrial relations are often manifested in strikes"

  synonyms:

  be evidence of, be a sign of, indicate, show, attest, reflect, bespeak, prove,establish, evidence, substantiate, corroborate, verify, confirm;  literarybetoken "disputes and strikes manifest bad industrial relations"

  antonyms:

  mask, deny

• (of an ailment) become apparent through the appearance of symptoms.

  "a disorder that usually manifests in middle age"
• (of a ghost or spirit) appear.

  "one deity manifested in the form of a bird"

Oh, was that why?

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

There just any clear evidence that he's referring to an early visionary experience.

Only if one's hermeneutical approach is to read each passage in isolation and then repeatedly deny that parallel passages are relevant.

The following facts are in view:

1. JS-H and D&C 20 describe a parallel sequence of events culminating in the same event, viz. the appearance of Moroni.
2. Walking backwards through the chain of events in JS-H, we have Moroni's appearance, Joseph sinning, and the First Vision.
3. Walking backwards through the same chain of events in D&C 20, we have Moroni's appearance, Joseph sinning, and Joseph having a remission of his sins "manifested" to him.
4. The manifestation in D&C 20 occupies the same position as the manifestation often called the First Vision in JS-H.
5. Ergo, the manifestation in D&C 20 is a discreet mention of the First Vision.

 

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, the word manifest in this context does not mean a manifestation like vision.

Yes. It does.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You can believe that its connected, thats fine, I can't rule out the possibility, but the evidence for the connection is not clear.

It's clear enough to those of us not desperately in denial.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

He could have repented multiple times throughout these years.

"Could have" is not evidence of anything. Joseph "could have" visited Tibet and met the Dalai Lama; except that he didn't. Haven't you ever heard of Ockham's Razor? It's unsound to hypothesize all kinds of unattested possibilities as if they count against the plain meaning of the text before you.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 We know about the 1826 trial

Why do you keep doing this? I pointed out that it wasn't a trial, but an examination, which is the old term for what is now known as a "preliminary hearing." Why do you insist on blithely repeating a challenged assertion as if nothing had been said?

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

which certainly seems like vain things of the world with treasure digging activities.  While the chronology could fit, its just too vague to be pointing to specific events that would only fit this scenario. 

It's very vague.  You would fit a lot of different events into this vague timeline of someone repenting and then lapsing and then repenting again.  Now, the church has never called D&C 20 a first vision experience to my knowledge, why is that the case.

Why would they? It's only a brief and oblique mention, not an actual description or narrative.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  I'm only aware of a couple historians who've posited this theory.  I wouldn't even say its a mainstream theory within the believing Mormon historian community.  Why is that the case, if its so clear you'd think the church would list it on their website and promote this as evidence for the first explanation of the FV accounts. 

How heavily are you going to rely upon the argument from silence? So heavily that you even have to insist that the record is silent where it manifestly is not?

[kiwi57]

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Now I'm repeating myself.  I quoted Bauder and it says "he could give me no christian experience".  I also explained quoted where Bauder describes what he means by a Christian experience, and I also explained why the reason he couldn't give one is that he didn't have a typical conversion type experience that could be related to Bauder in Oct 1830.  Then I quoted other evidence from different parties that were friends and family of Joseph who corroborate this interpretation.

If you're repeating yourself, it's because you are the one who rests all the weight of your argument upon Bauder's claim of what Joseph "could" do, when in fact all he is really doing is providing his own editorial gloss on what Joseph did do.

It's yet another argument from silence.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

And you call this all evading the question.  You are really getting on my nerves with the way you're trying to conduct conversation here.  I'm just about done responding to you if you keep this up.  Trying to be patient, but you don't seem to want to have a mutually respectful exchange.

I wouldn't get too worked up about "respect" if I were you. I respect you no less than you respect Joseph Smith.

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I didn't intend to get into a debate about the 1826 trial, and thanks for another jab at me for a spelling error, you just can't help yourself when it comes to trying to be disrespectful.  Whether it was a preliminary hearing or a trial doesn't matter much to my point, or whether he was guilty or not doesn't matter either to my point.  I have no bone to pick about those particulars.  This essay does a fairly nice job of comparing the differing accounts, I don't agree with all of it, but I'm assuming you'll be more likely to look at it since the source is FAIR.

Upon what do you base that assumption? I've looked at all the links you've offered me so far. Do you assume that I ignore any source that doesn't agree with me?

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2002/the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith

Note that your source essentially agrees with what I said about the 1826 "trial." But there is more.

This is troubling, hft. You previously quoted the bit from JS Snr about "he trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning him," but you rather pointedly omitted the bit about "both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre." Why was that? Did you omit that because it shows that both father and son already thought of Joseph's gifts as divinely bestowed? Where would they get that idea? Doesn't it rather tend to undermine the use to which you tried to put the portion you quoted?

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its a miss reading of the evidence on your part as they are discussing the origins of the Joseph Smith's searching that lead him to the angel experience from a missionary perspective.  It would be similar to a missionary today teaching the discussions and never mentioning the first vision anywhere in the discussions.

But as others have pointed out in this thread, missionaries didn't teach about the First Vision for at least the first century of the Church's existence. Long after it was published, the missionaries still did without it. Why should their not using it at the earlier period mean anything different than their not using it later?

8 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  Your argument isn't even something the most ardent apologists are advocating, its just a misreading of evidence.

Thank you for your opinion on that subject. If only you showed any inclination to consult the evidence yourself, your opinion might manage to carry some weight.

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with your comments, and I think this supports my idea that he was experimenting with the foundational narrative of the church during this time period.

"Experimenting?" What does that mean, exactly?

10 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

  If you read the newspaper articles from 1832 that I linked to earlier, its clear the official message of the founding of the church as espoused by missionaries centered around the angel and the plates and the coming forth of the BoM as the founding event of the church, but I think Joseph's 1832 FV account indicates that there is another experience that he was trying to formulate.

"Trying to formulate?"

Or do you mean - fabricate?

I very respectfully suggest that your a priori assumption that the First Vision did not happen determines the range of possibilities you are prepared to consider.

Why don't you try this little thought experiment: Consider the possibility that Joseph told the truth about the First Vision. In all the accounts. Now, what problems does that cause with any of the evidence before you?

I suggest that it causes none.

I also point out something else, and I hope you don't feel all disrespected: Joseph demonstrated his sincerity about as convincingly as is humanly possible, in that he died maintaining his testimony, when he could have abandoned the whole project at any time, and thus saved his life. Don't you think that kind of sincerity deserves a hearing?

 

[kiwi57]

10 hours ago, Hestia said:

Scott is banned from the thread for personal insults.  Others could soon be following him.

Well, call me gobsmacked.

[Bobbieaware]

13 hours ago, Hestia said:

Scott is banned from the thread for personal insults.  Others could soon be following him.

I’ve read all of Scott’s contributions to this thread and, at least as far as I can tell, there’s only one post of his that could even remotely be considered insulting. I guess on this board there's little to no differentiation made between a mild observation pertaining to another board participant’s style of engagement and stinging words that are deliberately calculated to personally attack and hurt another’s feelings. Good natured humor often comes with a knowing wink and a gentle prod. 

Edited December 9, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[hope_for_things]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We cannot know via professional historical study whether Joseph had any such experience.  Like the Resurrection, we can only have a religious testimony of it by faith.

Like the matter of where the versions of Paul's Vision come from, you miss the point I made.  I did not suggest that Paul wrote them and handed them off to his buddy Luke.  Luke clearly edited versions of that material, which (if Paul actually had such a vision) ultimately came from Paul -- the majority of whose letters and other writings we do not have today.  I also suggested oral tradition.  In the end, we can only know by faith whether Paul actually had such a vision, and indeed which version of it is correct -- if any.

I think we can have some level of confidence about the likelihood of historical events especially in the 19th century with the amount of evidence we have available to evaluate, but not 100% confidence.   

As for the Paul vision we have much less evidence to evaluate, so it is more a matter of faith.  However, this is an interesting comment in lieu of the other thread I started where I’m asking what exactly we should have faith in.  I would assert that faith in any particular version of the Paul vision or even the Joseph Smith vision is not really very important for our spiritual growth and I think it’s actually a misapplication of the principle of faith in general which is to lead us to God and not to tell us the accuracy of history. 

[carbon dioxide]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There must needs be opposition . . .

It would be nice if there was equivalent opposition to the opposition.  Too often it seems the Church opposition to the opposition is simply to ignore the opposition which rarely is effective.

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Duncan said:

If I understand correctly the ces letter is now in print but my question is why buy it when you can read it online for nothing?

Because Jeremy Runnells wants to monetize his letter.  He wants to profit from it.  In-print versions make him money (not sure how much, tho).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

DUP

Edited December 9, 2017 by smac97

[Robert F. Smith]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because Jeremy Runnells wants to monetize his letter.  He wants to profit from it.  In-print versions make him money (not sure how much, tho).

Thanks,

-Smac

He also gets donations.  So he could make a cottage industry of it, the way the Tanners did.

[Jeanne]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because Jeremy Runnells wants to monetize his letter.  He wants to profit from it.  In-print versions make him money (not sure how much, tho).

Thanks,

-Smac

An honest question...I promise.  But what is the difference between this...and selling books and Deseret Books?

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Because Jeremy Runnells wants to monetize his letter.  He wants to profit from it.

Which he has every right to try and do.  I wouldn’t contribute, but don’t see much difference than what others do with trying to profit from their writings.

[Vanguard]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

An honest question...I promise.  But what is the difference between this...and selling books and Deseret Books?

Ha! Great question, Jeanne. In a very real sense there isn't much of a difference. I say more power to Mr. Runnells though. If he is on the cusp of something that will generate an honest living for himself then he should go for it. To the extent he postures too much as "genuinely concerned for the well-being of his former fellow members" and that he is primarily motivated to sell his materials for this reason, I say he is practicing the art of good salesmanship and will approach his work with that in mind. Similarly, if the books sold at Deseret have the proceeds going toward the material betterment of the authors than yes, they too are "working the trade" as Mr. Runnells is. And I don't have a problem with any of it. ; )

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think we can have some level of confidence about the likelihood of historical events especially in the 19th century with the amount of evidence we have available to evaluate, but not 100% confidence.   

As for the Paul vision we have much less evidence to evaluate, so it is more a matter of faith.  However, this is an interesting comment in lieu of the other thread I started where I’m asking what exactly we should have faith in.  I would assert that faith in any particular version of the Paul vision or even the Joseph Smith vision is not really very important for our spiritual growth and I think it’s actually a misapplication of the principle of faith in general which is to lead us to God and not to tell us the accuracy of history. 

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.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

An honest question...I promise.  But what is the difference between this...and selling books and Deseret Books?

 

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Which he has every right to try and do.  I wouldn’t contribute, but don’t see much difference than what others do with trying to profit from their writings.

No problem with that at all.  If there must needs be opposition, then it perforce must be self-supporting.  Some may be bothered that it seems like a missionary effort for Runnells, but that is every bit as legitimate as the LDS missionary effort.  However, it should be pursued in an honest and transparent way in both instances.  Deliberate lies and deceit should have no place in either effort.

[Hestia]

7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I’ve read all of Scott’s contributions to this thread and, at least as far as I can tell, there’s only one post of his that could even remotely be considered insulting. I guess on this board there's little to no differentiation made between a mild observation pertaining to another board participant’s style of engagement and stinging words that are deliberately calculated to personally attack and hurt another’s feelings. Good natured humor often comes with a knowing wink and a gentle prod. 

 

8 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Well, call me gobsmacked.

Banning Behaviors
Insulting language, or statements meant to do nothing more than provoke others
Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons)
Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content)

Scott's offense-"When I first encountered HFT on this board, I noticed that quirk in him. He will act like a perturbed middle-school teacher trying to get linear equations into the thick heads of the obtuse students in his remedial math class who just won't see the objective reality of his hard-and-fast conclusions. Yes, it is arrogant and off-putting, but at length amusing in a way."

It's embarrassing that adults have to this outlined for them, but here you go.  Now stop derailing the thread.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

An honest question...I promise.  But what is the difference between this...and selling books and Deseret Books?

I think not all authorial efforts are created equal.  So if a Latter-day Saint sought to make money by writing things which defame and tear down the sacred and cherished beliefs of others, I think I would take exception to that.  Same goes for Mr. Runnells' writings.

Meanwhile, Deseret Books sells materials which explain and analyze our faith and history, which edify and uplift and defend.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think not all authorial efforts are created equal.  So if a Latter-day Saint sought to make money by writing things which defame and tear down the sacred and cherished beliefs of others, I think I would take exception to that.  Same goes for Mr. Runnells' writings.

Meanwhile, Deseret Books sells materials which explain and analyze our faith and history, which edify and uplift and defend.

Thanks,

-Smac

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?