Another Faith Crisis Letter

[cinepro]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Not sure if you've seen it,  but Runnels recently released a "CES Letter 2.0", with a softer tone and less snark.  I haven't read it (I actually haven't read the entire original letter either), so I can't vouch for it.

CES Letter 2.0

Quote

The CES Letter is not dramatically different. Folks will still recognize the CES Letter as the CES Letter. What’s different are the following:

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.

 

[hope_for_things]

On 12/8/2017 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding Stephenson, he is a friend of Jeremy Runnells who responded to my Interpreter essay in response to the CES letter.  In turn, I wrote a response to Stephenson's defense for Interpreter which I quoted here.  They paint me as offering schizophrenic arguments and as dishonest, so, if you want to take their word for it...

Kevin,

Hi, sorry that I missed your post before, since you didn't quote me in your response, I didn't get a notification of your post, and I often only check my notifications, but I happened to be scrolling back through all the posts and found your well written response and wanted to make sure I replied.  

On Stephenson and Runnells, I just haven't followed the blow by blow around this topic, I'm not familiar with your response or their critiques in specific, and I'm lost as to why you think I"m taking "their word" for it as I don't even know what their word is.  

On 12/8/2017 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Well I do find Matthew Brown's case that Cowdery used the 1832 account in producing his history very well argued.  And I am an English major, and professional technical writer, and a published scholar, so I do know something about how writing and influence work even with differences. Overall, I find him to be an enlightening source of information and fresh insight. (I like his argument that the "firstly he receiving the testamony from on high" passage in the 1832 account refers to the Father introducing the Son).  Not my only source on the topic.  So we differ again on what is persuasive.  It happens.  But I would encourage people to who have not, to read Brown's books and FAIR presentations for themselves.  Very carefully.

I respect what you're saying, I just didn't find Brown's argument persuasive.  If Cowdery did have the 1832 account when crafting the 1834/35 history, then in some ways I think this complicates the apologetic argument.  By combining thematic elements of Joseph's theophany, with the later story of the angel it shows a more deliberate attempt to craft a particular version of events for specific theological purposes, rather than just a retelling of an authentic experience.  

On 12/8/2017 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

But even with Barker's neglected essay on the Vision early on, there is the equally important essay in Journal of Mormon History, "The Emergence of a Fundamental: that showed that the pedagogical use of the 1838 account began only in the 1870s.  And it was only then that people in the church began using it as though it were the source of various formal teachings. 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/exploring-first-vision/6-emergence-fundamental-expanding-role-joseph-smith-s-first-vision

I haven't read this one, thanks for the link, I will check it out, it sounds interesting.  

On 12/8/2017 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding "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."  

I see the problem in "completely open" and "didn't hold anything back" as both being absolutist phrases that never apply in human practice.  It is simply impossible to communicate completely everything, holding nothing back, producing a chunk of communication that contains everything, holds nothing back, serves every subsequent occasion, and will therefore never be subject to change in details, understanding, or meaning.  Social context, time, preparation, audience, circumstances, memory and interpretation, all color every human event.   Open, yes.  Sharing experiences, yes.  But no one ever holds nothing back because words can't contain everything.  I say that as someone who has taken and passed five polygraphs.  I had to be as completely honest and open as human possible in the circumstances in order to pass.  Stakes were high, honesty essential, and failure was not an option.  But everything does not fit in "Yes" or "No."  We tell what we know and believe using the language and understanding we have at our disposal in addressing the specific audience under the specific circumstances.   But language, and understanding, and audience and circumstances all have effects.

I didn't mean to suggest he was completely forthright about every aspect of his life or that he even could articulate everything in an absolutist sense.  I just find it curious that explicit evidence of this important experience didn't surface in these early years.  I think it reasonable to expect that it would have.  

On 12/8/2017 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

And I do not agree at all with Grant Palmer and do not regard him with the best LDS historians.  When I read his book, I found that every page annoyed me.  He overlooks important scholarship and primary sources chronically and characteristically.   Mark Ashurt McGee (one of the best LDS historians) did give Palmer this much credit in his essay in the Review:

I don't think Grant even considered himself a "historian", and I didn't say anything about him being one of the best.  I mentioned him so you'd know the general idea I was referring to about exaggerating narratives that grew in specificity and in magnitude over time.  Even Richard Bushman comments to that effect in RSR, that the late recollections and growing emphasis on these accounts could represent the possibility of exaggeration or I think he even uses the word fabrication if I'm not mistaken on my recollection.  

On 12/8/2017 at 1:46 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

See Mark Ashurst-McGee, “A One-Sided View of Mormon Origins,” FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): 352.

Joseph Smith's authority, it seems to me was something that he grew with, and it took some time to sort out, learn for himself, and also to explain, over time, to a growing and diverse community that brought differing views and changing circumstances.   It wasn't all settled in the First Vision.  Lots of people have had visions.  Even before the Book of Mormon was published a man knocked on the door of the Smith home and as Hyrum opened the door, asked "Is this a visionary house?"  And he produced a pamphlet with his own vision.  And Hyrum produced some off prints from the still unbound Book of Mormon and thereby converted a visionary.

The main source of authority for Mormonism from the first and to the present, remains the Book of Mormon.  Which is why people like Palmer want to undermine it.  That also removes its authority, and thereby Joseph Smith's.  And thereby the meaning of the covenants that bind members to the community.

I think I read the Ashurt-McGee review before.  I'm not a promoting Palmer's book, its seriously flawed in many ways, although I admire him in other ways and think he was a really good person from everything I've witnessed.  At any rate, I'm not a CES letter promoter either, I've never read the original all the way through, and with all the subsequent updates, its really not something that I honestly care to follow.  I think sometimes people jump to conclusions about points I'm trying to make because they think I'm taking the quick and easy critical perspective and assuming that I'm in lock step with the ExMo crowd and that is absolutely not the case.  I try to formulate my own opinions after considering evidence and I'm open to persuasion, but I don't care about what overtly apologetic or overtly critical camps have setup when it comes to stakes around these arguments.  

Originally I agree with you that the angel story and the coming forth of the BoM was a source story to prove authority and legitimacy.  I don't think its used in the same way today though, I think that the FV has replaced it in many ways, and that the priesthood restoration narratives have also replaced it, and this idea that God has always institutionally called prophets in a hierarchical structure to establish authority.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

I would find those kind of discussions very interesting, but it would require that individuals in class have more open minds than is currently the trend in our culture.  I could see many people getting upset at different perspectives, we see it on this message board frequently enough, there are many who are intolerant of and feel threatened by different views that they consider heretical.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Not sure if you've seen it,  but Runnels recently released a "CES Letter 2.0", with a softer tone and less snark.  I haven't read it (I actually haven't read the entire original letter either), so I can't vouch for it.

CES Letter 2.0

 

Yep, seen it.

"Mormon Apologetic House of Mirrors"

much less snarky 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

Not to go down a tangent, but I think that varies very much ward to ward. Back when the Last Temptation of Christ came out I think a lot of Mormons saw it - and likely were unaware of it's Catholic ties to the stations of the Cross. Everyone discussed it. Since then I've heard a lot on what Christ suffered. However theologically I think Mormons tend to put more emphasis (rightly or wrongly) on the Garden of Gethsemene which they typically see as worse. While despite being widely believed the idea of Christ experiencing everyone's experience in Gethesemene doesn't have a lot of doctrinal basis. Likewise the "blood from every pore" is perhaps more problematic when taken literally than many realize. That said, I've heard tons of talks over the years that focus on what it'd take to bleed from every pore. Often such talks compare and contrast it with the horrible torture with the whipping and crucifixion and say it was worse.

Much of this is just a different rhetorical approach and not really a difference in content. Although I think there's a sense, especially for Catholics, where people seem to vicariously get something out of reading of Christ's torture in a fashion that I suspect many Mormons might find distasteful. (Here not criticizing Catholics but merely pointing out temperament and rhetorical differences and preferences)

While I suspect how it gets talked about at church really varies according to the culture and preferences of each ward, in terms of Church magazines it does get dealt with a fair deal. Especially when the Sunday School study year is focused on the New Testament. 

I'd also suspect that the different focus also is tied to how culturally people view the atonement. While the penal theory definitely is an element to many lay member views of the atonement in Mormonism, I think the idea that Christ literally experienced our sorrows so he could understand and heal us tends to shape Mormon conceptions. Because of that even when the penal theory is given lip service to, most members just don't think of the suffering as paying some punishment in torture set by law that Christ took for us. When the penal theory is embraced, it's usually in some vague metaphysical sense with an emphasis on its infinite nature. (Which typically is just a way of admitting we don't have any idea what's going on but which has the effect of downplaying the whipping and crucifixion as core to the suffering)

Edited December 11, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours 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 think it's quite important to note that all these textual approaches are arguing based upon a paucity of data. i.e. their conclusions really shouldn't be given much weight even if they are arguments to the best data. I'd have much more confidence were there more contemporary writings from Christians living closer in time to Christ. Instead we have only a few texts many of which were written after the initial 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. There's huge mysteries about early Christianity such as the relationship of Jesus' baptism to John's baptism and even what John's tradition consisted of. By and large for every claim of what Jesus really did or did not say we could just as easily say we don't know.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour 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.  

You may want to read the views of non-Mormon scholar Birger A. Pearson, “The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar,” Religion, 25 (Oct 1995):317-338, saying on p. 334, “The fabrication of a non-Jewish Jesus is one particularly pernicious side effect of the Jesus Seminar’s methodology.”  This paper was originally presented at a Biblical Archaeology Society seminar held in Marina Del Rey, California, which I attended.  A 1996 expansion of that article is available online at https://www.scribd.com/document/179421926/1996-Birger-A-Pearson-The-Gospel-According-to-the-Jesus-Seminar .

The methods of the Jesus Seminar are not well-accepted.  The primary failed method they used was to assume as accurate any actions or words of Jesus which would have seemed unique in his day.  While it is clear that Jesus was a powerfully apocalyptical figure conducting himself like an OT prophet," this uniqueness criterion ignores his status as a Jew.  W. P. Weaver says that "the trend in Jesus research is away from this strict criterion and toward locating Jesus precisely within his Judaic context."**  Indeed, Jesus fits the messianic expectations of the Jews of Qumran, the Essenes, to a T -- according to recent Jewish scholarship.***

*  Montefiore, Claude G., "What a Jew Thinks About Jesus," Hibbert Journal, 33/4 (July 1935):511-520.

**  Weaver, "Introduction," pp. 3-4, n. 1, in J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993), citing Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, and E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Phila.: Fortress Press, 1985).

***  Knohl, Israel.  The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mark Taper Foundation Book in Jewish Studies.  Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000; Wise, Michael.  The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ.  S.F.: Harper San Francisco, 1999.

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it's quite important to note that all these textual approaches are arguing based upon a paucity of data. i.e. their conclusions really shouldn't be given much weight even if they are arguments to the best data. I'd have much more confidence were there more contemporary writings from Christians living closer in time to Christ. Instead we have only a few texts many of which were written after the initial 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. There's huge mysteries about early Christianity such as the relationship of Jesus' baptism to John's baptism and even what John's tradition consisted of. By and large for every claim of what Jesus really did or did not say we could just as easily say we don't know.

It would be nice if more contemporary accounts written of Jesus.  I wonder why he didn't see that it was done?  It would have been better still if he personally wrote down what he said so there wouldn't be any confusion.  One wonders why he didn't foresee the problems a lack of his writings or writings of contemporaries would cause?

[ksfisher]

Just now, Exiled said:

It would be nice if more contemporary accounts written of Jesus.  I wonder why he didn't see that it was done?  It would have been better still if he personally wrote down what he said so there wouldn't be any confusion.  One wonders why he didn't foresee the problems a lack of his writings or writings of contemporaries would cause?

Perhaps he foresaw that there would be more problems if he did write things down himself.

There were many instances where the names of apostles or other church figures would be used on documents that they didn't write.  Or where copies of documents they wrote were made but some things were changed.  

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Exiled said:

It would be nice if more contemporary accounts written of Jesus.  I wonder why he didn't see that it was done?  It would have been better still if he personally wrote down what he said so there wouldn't be any confusion.  One wonders why he didn't foresee the problems a lack of his writings or writings of contemporaries would cause?

Why assume he didn't see the problems? I assume he knew it from the beginning and didn't expect "authentic Christianity" to make it past the century mark.

As for why, paper was expensive and Jesus appeared to primarily teach the poor. It's hardly surprising it was a movement focused on an oral tradition rather than a textual tradition. In that context the Book of Mormon warning of textual problems is always interesting. 1 Nephi 13 focuses on how things were true when they "proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew." While the focus is more on the Old Testament I think it applies to the New Testament as well. There are strong indications for instance that Mark was originally an oral gospel performed in front of members. Many elements make much more sense if it were a performance. (For a great podcast on this check out my fellow T&S blogger Julie Smith's recent interview at LDS Perspectives.

[Exiled]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps he foresaw that there would be more problems if he did write things down himself.

There were many instances where the names of apostles or other church figures would be used on documents that they didn't write.  Or where copies of documents they wrote were made but some things were changed.  

I don't know of a reason why more information would be more troubling, especially where some use the lack of writings as evidence that Jesus was pure myth.  It seems that contemporaneous writings and writings from Jesus himself would clear up the mythicists' argument.

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Why assume he didn't see the problems? I assume he knew it from the beginning and didn't expect "authentic Christianity" to make it past the century mark.

As for why, paper was expensive and Jesus appeared to primarily teach the poor. It's hardly surprising it was a movement focused on an oral tradition rather than a textual tradition. In that context the Book of Mormon warning of textual problems is always interesting. 1 Nephi 13 focuses on how things were true when they "proceedeth out of the mouth of a Jew." While the focus is more on the Old Testament I think it applies to the New Testament as well. There are strong indications for instance that Mark was originally an oral gospel performed in front of members. Many elements make much more sense if it were a performance. (For a great podcast on this check out my fellow T&S blogger Julie Smith's recent interview at LDS Perspectives.

Didn't he walk on water and raise Lazarus from the dead?  Surely, he could have had some papyrus made or perhaps something that would last longer than that to preserve his words?  Bart Ehrman often says he had a problem with why God didn't preserve Jesus' words better if Jesus was everything claimed.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Didn't he walk on water and raise Lazarus from the dead?  Surely, he could have had some papyrus made or perhaps something that would last longer than that to preserve his words?  Bart Ehrman often says he had a problem with why God didn't preserve Jesus' words better if Jesus was everything claimed.

With what we have it doesn't seem like he cared much if what he said was written down at all.  Since he spoke in one language and anonymous folks years down the road, decided to tell us quotes from him, we have to also wonder what's been lost in translation.  Not only do we not know what he actually said, like at all, we don't know if the teachings we've received are kind of confused misunderstandings of what he actually taught.  

[clarkgoble]

10 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Didn't he walk on water and raise Lazarus from the dead?  Surely, he could have had some papyrus made or perhaps something that would last longer than that to preserve his words?  Bart Ehrman often says he had a problem with why God didn't preserve Jesus' words better if Jesus was everything claimed.

This seems to conflate whether he could have done it miraculously with why he didn't do it. From a Mormon perspective the apostasy was going to happen and the higher ordinances weren't taught openly. We know that Christ didn't want key things taught openly (see his comments on parables in Mark 4). If he taught them in a veiled form then it's hardly surprising he wouldn't write them down. So instead we get the more generic elements that made it to Mark and the theoretical Q followed up with a radically different gospel with John. I'd say that's good enough for his purposes, much like the Book of Mormon could easily have been a better translation but it was good enough.

Now that raises the question of why on earth God would do that and typically I think the divine hiddenness argument is the usual response. That is God wants there to be enough ambiguity about such matters such that the only way to know is to go to God directly.

[kiwi57]

 

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Not sure if you've seen it,  but Runnels recently released a "CES Letter 2.0", with a softer tone and less snark.  I haven't read it (I actually haven't read the entire original letter either), so I can't vouch for it.

CES Letter 2.0

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.

Yes, it's still crowd-sourced.

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

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.

Oh yes, he's so genuine and sincere about "just wanting answers to his questions." That's why he devotes particular effort to poisoning the well against LDS defenders.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

It would be nice if more contemporary accounts written of Jesus.  I wonder why he didn't see that it was done?  It would have been better still if he personally wrote down what he said so there wouldn't be any confusion.  One wonders why he didn't foresee the problems a lack of his writings or writings of contemporaries would cause?

We always hear these questions about why God didn't do things this way or that.  How do we calculate the economy of God?  Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  Looks to me like Jesus followed the prime directive of his Father in allowing humanity to deal with reality on their own terms.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I think it's quite important to note that all these textual approaches are arguing based upon a paucity of data. i.e. their conclusions really shouldn't be given much weight even if they are arguments to the best data. I'd have much more confidence were there more contemporary writings from Christians living closer in time to Christ. Instead we have only a few texts many of which were written after the initial 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. There's huge mysteries about early Christianity such as the relationship of Jesus' baptism to John's baptism and even what John's tradition consisted of. By and large for every claim of what Jesus really did or did not say we could just as easily say we don't know.

Honestly, I don't get the skepticism about biblical studies.  I don't think you'll find any biblical scholars who would agree with your statement that "their conclusions really shouldn't be given much weight".  As a non-scholar myself, I'm a consumer of the work of their scholarship and I'm in no position to say things like that about their scholarship, how can you logically justify your skepticism?   

I agree that we could have more confidence if there were more contemporary writings, of course.  We could have more confidence with dinosaur paleontology if they can only find more fossils.  But that doesn't mean the existing scholarship is at a position where we shouldn't give it much weight.  I really don't understand your position, its sounds way too dismissive of the scholarship out there, to the point that it strikes me as reckless or agenda driven.  

[Exiled]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

We always hear these questions about why God didn't do things this way or that.  How do we calculate the economy of God?  Isaiah 55:8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord."  Looks to me like Jesus followed the prime directive of his Father in allowing humanity to deal with reality on their own terms.

If we are trying to become like him, it would be nice to be able to calculate the economy of God, however there is a dearth of information about a lot of things with respect to religion and God.  It is as if God didn't want us to rely on him and for us to figure things out for ourselves as you say in the last sentence.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

This seems to conflate whether he could have done it miraculously with why he didn't do it. From a Mormon perspective the apostasy was going to happen and the higher ordinances weren't taught openly. We know that Christ didn't want key things taught openly (see his comments on parables in Mark 4). If he taught them in a veiled form then it's hardly surprising he wouldn't write them down. So instead we get the more generic elements that made it to Mark and the theoretical Q followed up with a radically different gospel with John. I'd say that's good enough for his purposes, much like the Book of Mormon could easily have been a better translation but it was good enough.

Now that raises the question of why on earth God would do that and typically I think the divine hiddenness argument is the usual response. That is God wants there to be enough ambiguity about such matters such that the only way to know is to go to God directly.

Why prophets then?  Why organized religion?  Why the need for someone or some organization to be a go between when we can just go directly to the source?  Doesn't that also support those who don't want to involve the bishop in confessionals?

[ALarson]

 

Quote

Oh yes, he's so genuine and sincere about "just wanting answers to his questions." That's why he devotes particular effort to poisoning the well against LDS defenders.

I doubt he's still stating that he's looking for answers to his questions.  I think that was his original claim, but not anymore from what I've seen.  He has definitely reached a lot of people and exposed many members to the more difficult issues regarding the church and its history. 

I haven't known anyone who was convinced by FAIR's attempts at responding or debunking, but I have seen some who were able to still stay active and continue to have a desire to believe even though things usually changed for them.  Many stay active simply for family reasons (or career or other reasons) and can still believe the church is good even if they no longer believe it's the one and only true church.  A few may even still be able to believe that, but I personally have not seen it after one has been exposed to all the issues that are presented in documents like the CES letter (and this one being discussed on this thread).   

Edited December 11, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may want to read the views of non-Mormon scholar Birger A. Pearson, “The Gospel According to the Jesus Seminar,” Religion, 25 (Oct 1995):317-338, saying on p. 334, “The fabrication of a non-Jewish Jesus is one particularly pernicious side effect of the Jesus Seminar’s methodology.”  This paper was originally presented at a Biblical Archaeology Society seminar held in Marina Del Rey, California, which I attended.  A 1996 expansion of that article is available online at https://www.scribd.com/document/179421926/1996-Birger-A-Pearson-The-Gospel-According-to-the-Jesus-Seminar .

The methods of the Jesus Seminar are not well-accepted.  The primary failed method they used was to assume as accurate any actions or words of Jesus which would have seemed unique in his day.  While it is clear that Jesus was a powerfully apocalyptical figure conducting himself like an OT prophet," this uniqueness criterion ignores his status as a Jew.  W. P. Weaver says that "the trend in Jesus research is away from this strict criterion and toward locating Jesus precisely within his Judaic context."**  Indeed, Jesus fits the messianic expectations of the Jews of Qumran, the Essenes, to a T -- according to recent Jewish scholarship.***

*  Montefiore, Claude G., "What a Jew Thinks About Jesus," Hibbert Journal, 33/4 (July 1935):511-520.

**  Weaver, "Introduction," pp. 3-4, n. 1, in J. H. Charlesworth and W. P. Weaver, eds., The Old and the New Testaments: Their Relationship and the "Intertestamental" Literature, Faith and Scholarship Colloquies (Valley Forge, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1993), citing Charlesworth, Jesus Within Judaism, and E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Phila.: Fortress Press, 1985).

***  Knohl, Israel.  The Messiah Before Jesus: The Suffering Servant of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Mark Taper Foundation Book in Jewish Studies.  Berkeley: U.C. Press, 2000; Wise, Michael.  The First Messiah: Investigating the Savior Before Christ.  S.F.: Harper San Francisco, 1999.

I will take a look, but a question I would ask you when it comes to following scholarship in any discipline.  Do you typically follow the mainstream or do you typically look for flaws in the mainstream approach?  What I find curious with respect to religious scholarship is when people search for the outlier positions to support their skepticism.  This is not to say that the Jesus seminar was perfect or above criticism.  It is to say that when individuals come to the table with preconceived religious paradigms about how the world works, and when scholarship calls certain assumptions into question, that its convenient to point to the critics of the scholarship whenever that criticism supports your preexisting assumptions.  

I just finished reading David Bokovoy's Authoring the Old Testament, and it just reinforced to me how scholarship like the Documentary Hypothesis is not only mainstream biblical scholarship with strong supporting evidence, but that its sad to me how far behind Mormons culture is with respect to understanding the scholarship.  Bokovoy does a nice job of demonstrating how you can re-calibrating theological assumptions to align with the scholarship in a way that's compatible with Mormon teachings.  However, instead of this approach I see many trying to defend old assumptions that don't stand up to scrutiny, or by attacking scholarship and aligning with critics, and we see many critics when it comes to religious scholarship because the truth claims and paradigms for traditions around religious belief are strong.  If this is not what you're doing, can you please explain how what you are doing is different than what I'm pointing out as a concern here.  

 

[Calm]

41 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I doubt he's still stating that he's looking for answers to his questions.  I think that was his original claim, but not anymore from what I've seen.  He has definitely reached a lot of people and exposed many members to the more difficult issues regarding the church and its history. 

I haven't known anyone who was convinced by FAIR's attempts at responding or debunking, but I have seen some who were able to still stay active and continue to have a desire to believe even though things usually changed for them.  Many stay active simply for family reasons (or career or other reasons) and can still believe the church is good even if they no longer believe it's the one and only true church.  A few may even still be able to believe that, but I personally have not seen it after one has been exposed to all the issues that are presented in documents like the CES letter (and this one being discussed on this thread).   

I assume you mean those you know who were exposed to the issues for the first time through the letters.  There are many who have read the letters and not been persuaded by them even on this board.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Calm

[kiwi57]

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I doubt he's still stating that he's looking for answers to his questions.  I think that was his original claim, but not anymore from what I've seen.  He has definitely reached a lot of people and exposed many members to the more difficult issues regarding the church and its history. 

Of course. That was always his goal. The "honestly seeking answers" schtick was pure marketing from day 1.

53 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I haven't known anyone who was convinced by FAIR's attempts at responding or debunking, but I have seen some who were able to still stay active and continue to have a desire to believe even though things usually changed for them.  Many stay active simply for family reasons (or career or other reasons) and can still believe the church is good even if they no longer believe it's the one and only true church.  A few may even still be able to believe that, but I personally have not seen it after one has been exposed to all the issues that are presented in documents like the CES letter (and this one being discussed on this thread).   

I've been exposed to all those issues. Mister Runnells has added nothing at all to the content of anti-Mormon propaganda; merely a slick new marketing ploy.

[ALarson]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

I assume you mean those you know who were exposed to the issues for the first time through the letters. 

Yes.  I doubt many were affected much (or at all) by these letters if they were already familiar with the issues they discuss or present.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Of course. That was always his goal. The "honestly seeking answers" schtick was pure marketing from day 1.

I do think he originally was looking for answers (that may have been before he actually finally wrote the letter to the CES director, iirc).   Most members are looking for answers when they are first exposed to certain issues and I would imagine he's not much different.

 

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

I've been exposed to all those issues. Mister Runnells has added nothing at all to the content of anti-Mormon propaganda; merely a slick new marketing ploy.

Read my response to Calm above as I think that's where you fall (I do too).

But, his letter doesn't merely contain "anti-Mormon propaganda".  It mainly contains facts that I haven't seen disputed (except maybe some nit picky inconsequential criticisms).  However, it's his conclusions that one can disagree with and I do with many....but not all of them.  

He gets a lot right and that's the problem.  Members are swayed by what he presents that is accurate and then continue reading and trust all of his conclusions as well.

Edited December 11, 2017 by ALarson