Another Faith Crisis Letter

[kiwi57]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

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.

The first I heard of Mister Runnells' activities was when he was soliciting crowd-source contributions to his letter around various apostate and anti-Mormon internet fora.

I'm sure that there was a time when he was looking for answers, though.

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

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 some of them....but not all of them.  

Well, facts are facts. Propaganda often has more to do with how facts are packaged and presented than it does with outright lies. It is never just about "getting the facts out there" although that is frequently how it markets itself.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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.

I suspect this as well, although that doesn't mean the inoculation approach will work. After all it may just be that on issues of LGBT, polygamy/polyandry and past racism as soon as people get exposed to it they freak out regardless of how they find out. (I doubt that's the case but it's hard to tell at this stage)

1 hour 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 think a lot of people who aren't troubled find FAIR approach in the broad sense satisfying. They may be unsatisfied with particular answers FAIR provides but find enough that they don't leave. Certainly some don't find FAIR answers satisfying, but often I'm not sure they'd find anything satisfying. 

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

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?  

Because they're often proposing rather strong conclusions from rather limited data. Even if in the big picture (say the Documentary Hypothesis) they're persuasive in the details it seems much more dubious. It's be a different matter were there more data to argue from. But they're recreating the distant past from late texts. I just find it rather unlikely that most of the detailed conclusions are true. Most of it is consensus building but not necessarily strong arguments. Now of course this varies from argument to argument. An argument for a late date of a particular passage of Isaiah due to it containing Aramaic is much stronger than many other arguments. 

As to why, just look at what happens when actual new data appears such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts back in the 50's. Suddenly the theories of the 40's change. If the arguments were strong then we'd expect the theories to remain stable through new discoveries.

 

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Because they're often proposing rather strong conclusions from rather limited data. Even if in the big picture (say the Documentary Hypothesis) they're persuasive in the details it seems much more dubious. It's be a different matter were there more data to argue from. But they're recreating the distant past from late texts. I just find it rather unlikely that most of the detailed conclusions are true. Most of it is consensus building but not necessarily strong arguments. Now of course this varies from argument to argument. An argument for a late date of a particular passage of Isaiah due to it containing Aramaic is much stronger than many other arguments. 

As to why, just look at what happens when actual new data appears such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi texts back in the 50's. Suddenly the theories of the 40's change. If the arguments were strong then we'd expect the theories to remain stable through new discoveries.

Thanks for explaining.  I'm too new to all this scholarship to feel confidence in questioning mainstream scholarship, so I typically try to understand the position rather than question its strength as I just don't feel informed enough to make that kind of judgment.  I'm not familiar with historically how the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi impacted the scholarly consensus.  I imagine that a new scholarly consensus emerged after they reacted and responded to the new evidence.  For me, this is a confidence builder in the scholarly process.  It gives me more confidence that I should follow their research.  But it also tells me there should be a measure of humility when it comes to willingness to adjust to new information as it emerges.   

I don't however feel confident in mistrusting the scholarly consensus, and I'm not persuaded that this is a intellectually smart course to follow.  I respect your opinion, but have to disagree with how you approach this particular issue in your skepticism that I think is unwarranted and may show a lack of understanding of the strength of the evidence, more than it shows a weakness in the actual evidence or methodology.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

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?

Hear, hear!

[Tacenda]

I recently watched "The Case for Christ". A true story about a couple that were Atheist turned Christian. In it the wife becomes a Christian and her husband was set upon proving that there was no Savior, or no Christ. Then he showed there was plenty of proof that He existed and that what the Bible said about Him were true. I was surprised to learn of all that Christ went through leading up to the cross. It was pure torture and I believe LDS are missing out on only focusing on His resurrection or that he suffered in the Garden mainly. 

It's on Netflix, and sorry if this derailed.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Tacenda

[champatsch]

51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It mainly contains facts that I haven't seen disputed (except maybe some nit picky inconsequential criticisms).

Not so fast. Consider #1 under Book of Mormon concerns and questions: "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"  If you go to the link, you find a list of purported errors, several of which aren't errors. For example, seraphims isn't an error, it's an Early Modern English double plural. Languages around the world employ double plurals. Children is historically a double plural. Similarly, chickens isn't an error for chicks. Pleasant pictures isn't an error as a substitute for the possible meaning of images. Satyrs isn't an error for wild goats. So R inflates the number of errors. In response, one might ask, Why are there 1611 King James readings in Book of Mormon Isaiah passages when Joseph Smith didn't have a 1611 King James Bible?

Basically, R is out of his depth here but some of the unsuspecting buy it. There is a lack of understanding of textual analysis and semantics, and no attempt to acknowledge text-critical investigations and data.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

The sources I cited are not outliers, but represent the mainstream in biblical scholarship.  I have been following the mainstream since my first two-semester course in Biblical History and Archaeology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1966.  The Jesus Seminar was never mainstream, but I followed them closely for many years, and have several of their books and newsletters.  They did some very useful research, but they represented the Old School focus on Greek (only one of their number knew Aramaic, and they often ignored him).  When I began studying, the old adherence to Greco-Roman norms in interpreting Jesus was going out of style, and the new emphasis on Judaism was coming in -- along with deep evaluation of the discoveries at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at.  Then too, there was the new collection of documents in Coptic from Nag Hammadi, Egypt.

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I am not sure which yokels you are complaining about here (could you name some of them?), but my friends David Bokovoy, John L. Sorenson, and I are all Mormon scholars who have been applying the Documentary Hypothesis to the Mormon Canon for years.  Perhaps you haven't noticed that the Book of Mormon is an abridgement of other records, and that various editors control the documents used in it, which is also true of the Bible (although it is a broader anthology):

John L. Sorenson, "The 'Brass Plates' and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue, 10/4 (1977):31-39, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_33.pdf .

Robert F. Smith, “A Documentary Analysis of the Book of Abraham,” 2007, online March 2013, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/132279885/A-Documentary-Analysis-of-the-Book-of-Abraham .  This was first written in 1971 and made available to scholars then.

Kevin L. Barney, “Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis,” Dialogue, 33/1 (2000): 57–99, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N01_79.pdf .

Allen Kendall, “The Deuteronomic Contribution to the Brass Plates,” paper presented at the BYU Religious Education Student Symposium, 2016, transcript online at https://rsc-dev.byu.edu/archived/byu-religious-education-student-symposium-2016/deuteronomic-contribution-brass-plates .  He cites Sorenson, Barney, and Bokovoy.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

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.

He does provide the light of Christ to everyone born into this world, and He sends out messengers to preach His Word.  Still we are very much on our own in most respects, and that is part of the testing here in this Estate.  We are supposed to get experience here, to learn about human life, and to take that knowledge with us into the next realm.

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The sources I cited are not outliers, but represent the mainstream in biblical scholarship.  I have been following the mainstream since my first two-semester course in Biblical History and Archaeology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1966.  The Jesus Seminar was never mainstream, but I followed them closely for many years, and have several of their books and newsletters.  They did some very useful research, but they represented the Old School focus on Greek (only one of their number knew Aramaic, and they often ignored him).  When I began studying, the old adherence to Greco-Roman norms in interpreting Jesus was going out of style, and the new emphasis on Judaism was coming in -- along with deep evaluation of the discoveries at Qumran and Wadi Muraba'at.  Then too, there was the new collection of documents in Coptic from Nag Hammadi, Egypt.

I am not sure which yokels you are complaining about here (could you name some of them?), but my friends David Bokovoy, John L. Sorenson, and I are all Mormon scholars who have been applying the Documentary Hypothesis to the Mormon Canon for years.  Perhaps you haven't noticed that the Book of Mormon is an abridgement of other records, and that various editors control the documents used in it, which is also true of the Bible (although it is a broader anthology):

John L. Sorenson, "The 'Brass Plates' and Biblical Scholarship," Dialogue, 10/4 (1977):31-39, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V10N04_33.pdf .

Robert F. Smith, “A Documentary Analysis of the Book of Abraham,” 2007, online March 2013, online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/132279885/A-Documentary-Analysis-of-the-Book-of-Abraham .  This was first written in 1971 and made available to scholars then.

Kevin L. Barney, “Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis,” Dialogue, 33/1 (2000): 57–99, online at https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V33N01_79.pdf .

Allen Kendall, “The Deuteronomic Contribution to the Brass Plates,” paper presented at the BYU Religious Education Student Symposium, 2016, transcript online at https://rsc-dev.byu.edu/archived/byu-religious-education-student-symposium-2016/deuteronomic-contribution-brass-plates .  He cites Sorenson, Barney, and Bokovoy.

Robert, thanks.  I appreciate that, and it will take me some time to read through these links, and I appreciate you sharing them.  I do want to understand some of the more Mormon centric ideas on this subject, and these essays will help.  I can't critique what you're saying about the Jesus seminar not being mainstream.  I'm just not familiar enough with biblical scholarship to make that kind of observation yet.  I will say that I believe the people I've been reading consider it mainstream, however I'm not as familiar with the critics or the deficiencies of a more Greek centered focus either.  

I didn't mean to characterize Mormon scholars as yokels.  I do think there is a distinction that I'm trying to make and I think there is a kind of Mormon scholarship that biases towards a Mormon theological compatibility.  One kind of Mormon apologist exists that attempts to defend every traditional interpretation in correlated Mormonism, but that's not the kind of thinking I'm critiquing here. 

The other thinking is a more open type of bias towards Mormonism that's not as strongly dogmatic about every correlated idea, that's willing to push alternative ideas forward and even critique Mormonism in many ways, but that still has lines that they won't cross with respect to certain theological boundaries.  This is the kind of bias that I'm critiquing with respect to the acceptance of mainstream biblical scholarship.  While I really appreciate people who are open enough to outside scholarship and willing to critique some aspects of Mormon teachings, I also personally don't find this approach fully satisfying on this topic of biblical scholarship. 

I'm personally interested in exploring non-Mormon centric mainstream biblical scholarship.  I want to do this in as unbiased a manner as possible and I realize that saying unbiased is a misnomer of sorts because every human has biases, but because I have a conscious awareness of Mormon scholarly bias as I've explained, I want to avoid that bias as I explore the biblical scholarship.  

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, champatsch said:

Not so fast. Consider #1 under Book of Mormon concerns and questions: "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"  If you go to the link, you find a list of purported errors, several of which aren't errors. For example, seraphims isn't an error, it's an Early Modern English double plural. Languages around the world employ double plurals. Children is historically a double plural. Similarly, chickens isn't an error for chicks. Pleasant pictures isn't an error as a substitute for the possible meaning of images. Satyrs isn't an error for wild goats. So R inflates the number of errors. In response, one might ask, Why are there 1611 King James readings in Book of Mormon Isaiah passages when Joseph Smith didn't have a 1611 King James Bible?

You need to read up on that topic.  There's more there than just what you write about above.  From what I know, it's been conceded that there are errors.

15 hours ago, champatsch said:

Basically, R is out of his depth here but some of the unsuspecting buy it. 

I disagree.  I think he got most of his questions or complaints in his letter accurate.  Once again, it's his conclusions that one can have serious disagreements over.

[ALarson]

16 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I suspect this as well, although that doesn't mean the inoculation approach will work. After all it may just be that on issues of LGBT, polygamy/polyandry and past racism as soon as people get exposed to it they freak out regardless of how they find out. (I doubt that's the case but it's hard to tell at this stage).

I agree.  Time will tell.  I think issues regarding LGBT (and possibly past racism) will be (and already are) bigger issues for the younger generation in the church.  I see a great deal of support for SSM and some outright embarrassment over being a Mormon because of how they feel the gays are treated by the church.  That's the one that'll be interesting to watch, IMO.

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[rongo]

31 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Time will tell.  I think issues regarding LGBT (and possibly past racism) will be (and already are) bigger issues for the younger generation in the church.  I see a great deal of support for SSM and some outright embarrassment over being a Mormon because of how they feel the gays are treated by the church.  That's the one that'll be interesting to watch, IMO.

I think this will result (and is resulting) in a concentration of orthodox, traditional Mormons in the Church as those for whom this is a very big deal go very inactive or leave. While this may result in overall drops in numbers of active, committed members, those who remain so will be more committed than ever. So, I don't think it will have the "leavening" effect that some hope. 

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I agree.  Time will tell.  I think issues regarding LGBT (and possibly past racism) will be (and already are) bigger issues for the younger generation in the church.  I see a great deal of support for SSM and some outright embarrassment over being a Mormon because of how they feel the gays are treated by the church.  That's the one that'll be interesting to watch, IMO.

Yes, I'm very curious as to how it develops because it's an issue where the Church doesn't exactly have a lot of options. I'm glad I'm not having to deal with it.

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think this will result (and is resulting) in a concentration of orthodox, traditional Mormons in the Church as those for whom this is a very big deal go very inactive or leave. While this may result in overall drops in numbers of active, committed members, those who remain so will be more committed than ever. So, I don't think it will have the "leavening" effect that some hope. 

There is indication this is already happening. While people point to the higher retention numbers in the 70's and 80's the fact is the data for then is quite bad (so don't believe those 80-95% retention figures) but also members believed the doctrine far less in those days. It appears that while there is worse retention now than say the 90's that the commitment of those who stay is much higher. (I'd add that even 65-70% retention is extremely high)

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, champatsch said:

Not so fast. Consider #1 under Book of Mormon concerns and questions: "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? A purported ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?"  If you go to the link, you find a list of purported errors, several of which aren't errors. For example, seraphims isn't an error, it's an Early Modern English double plural. Languages around the world employ double plurals. Children is historically a double plural. Similarly, chickens isn't an error for chicks. Pleasant pictures isn't an error as a substitute for the possible meaning of images. Satyrs isn't an error for wild goats. So R inflates the number of errors. In response, one might ask, Why are there 1611 King James readings in Book of Mormon Isaiah passages when Joseph Smith didn't have a 1611 King James Bible?

Basically, R is out of his depth here but some of the unsuspecting buy it. There is a lack of understanding of textual analysis and semantics, and no attempt to acknowledge text-critical investigations and data.

Thanks.  I'm certainly glad we get graced with a post from you once in a while around here.  I get suspicious of questions like this 1769 KJV one...not because I question the questioner, just that they don't really seem to be saying what the conclusion often suggests.  

[Robert F. Smith]

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Robert, thanks.  I appreciate that, and it will take me some time to read through these links, and I appreciate you sharing them.  I do want to understand some of the more Mormon centric ideas on this subject, and these essays will help.  I can't critique what you're saying about the Jesus seminar not being mainstream.  I'm just not familiar enough with biblical scholarship to make that kind of observation yet.  I will say that I believe the people I've been reading consider it mainstream, however I'm not as familiar with the critics or the deficiencies of a more Greek centered focus either.  

I didn't mean to characterize Mormon scholars as yokels.  I do think there is a distinction that I'm trying to make and I think there is a kind of Mormon scholarship that biases towards a Mormon theological compatibility.  One kind of Mormon apologist exists that attempts to defend every traditional interpretation in correlated Mormonism, but that's not the kind of thinking I'm critiquing here. 

The other thinking is a more open type of bias towards Mormonism that's not as strongly dogmatic about every correlated idea, that's willing to push alternative ideas forward and even critique Mormonism in many ways, but that still has lines that they won't cross with respect to certain theological boundaries.  This is the kind of bias that I'm critiquing with respect to the acceptance of mainstream biblical scholarship.  While I really appreciate people who are open enough to outside scholarship and willing to critique some aspects of Mormon teachings, I also personally don't find this approach fully satisfying on this topic of biblical scholarship.

Still not sure what you are saying here, and would appreciate specific examples.

48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm personally interested in exploring non-Mormon centric mainstream biblical scholarship.  I want to do this in as unbiased a manner as possible and I realize that saying unbiased is a misnomer of sorts because every human has biases, but because I have a conscious awareness of Mormon scholarly bias as I've explained, I want to avoid that bias as I explore the biblical scholarship.  

One way to do that is to study under scholars who are not Mormon, which is where I have spent most of my time -- under Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-denominational scholars, who exhibit a wide diversity of views on religion and history.  When you have acquired the necessary scholarly tools, you will be able to explore the entire Mormon Canon (including the Bible) with a reasonable degree of equanimity.

I might suggest an online course beginning soon, just to get you started:  New Testament Course Unit III – “Judaism in the Days of Jesus III: Jesus Among the Rabbis,” Israel Bible Center, details online at https://israelbiblecenter.com/courses/judaism-days-of-jesus-iii-jesus-among-rabbis/ .

[Robert F. Smith]

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

........................................................  He has definitely reached a lot of people and exposed many members to the more difficult issues regarding the church and its history. 

A worthy challenge to one's faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, unless one reads with extreme naivete.

18 hours 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.

FairMormon provides a very restrained and accurate assessment of a wide range of issues, which will naturally appeal to some and not convince others.  To suggest that no one buys their apologetic responses is silly in the extreme.

18 hours ago, ALarson said:

  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 have no doubt that some people find the Runnells CES Letter convincing or devastating to their naive belief-systems, and similar problems face the Protestant community generally -- where apologetics are of even more importance than among Mormons.  The landscape is littered with former evangelicals and former Mormons who were convinced by such shallow attacks.  One has to ask:  If these attacks are so powerful and accurate, why don't people like Richard Bushman apostatize?  The answer is that the Runnells diatribe is not accurate and that it does not appeal to people who know something about Mormon history and theology.  Sure, the low-hanging fruit can be harvested, but that is only the soft underbelly of the evangelical and Mormon communities -- people who were already weak in the faith to begin with.

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Still not sure what you are saying here, and would appreciate specific examples.

One way to do that is to study under scholars who are not Mormon, which is where I have spent most of my time -- under Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and non-denominational scholars, who exhibit a wide diversity of views on religion and history.  When you have acquired the necessary scholarly tools, you will be able to explore the entire Mormon Canon (including the Bible) with a reasonable degree of equanimity.

I might suggest an online course beginning soon, just to get you started:  New Testament Course Unit III – “Judaism in the Days of Jesus III: Jesus Among the Rabbis,” Israel Bible Center, details online at https://israelbiblecenter.com/courses/judaism-days-of-jesus-iii-jesus-among-rabbis/ .

For examples, I'm not sure I can provide any as I'm still exploring this idea and I'm not sure there are clear lines differentiating either traditional apologetics and what I described above as more open and nuanced bias towards Mormonism. 

Thanks for that link, the course looks interesting and fairly economical.  I'll think about enrolling.  Appreciate the insight.  

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/11/2017 at 8:44 AM, stemelbow said:

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, 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. 

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

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"?

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

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.

Come on, stemelbow:  You come off here sounding like the worst possible Mormon apologist, hemming & hawwing, making excuses, etc., while defending your guy.  They call it "tribalism" these days -- an effort to defend your side, no matter what.  You might want to step back and take a broader look.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

17 hours ago, ALarson said:

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.

This is a point which should be emphasized, and which we seem to forget.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/9/2017 at 3:22 PM, smac97 said:

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

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

Very well said, Spencer.  However, we might just as well hold those who have left Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox holy orders (and thus violated their sacred oaths and vows) to the same standard.  Like us, they consider themselves the true and only legitimate faith.

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

FairMormon provides a very restrained and accurate assessment of a wide range of issues, which will naturally appeal to some and not convince others.  To suggest that no one buys their apologetic responses is silly in the extreme.

Which is not what I stated or claimed.

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have no doubt that some people find the Runnells CES Letter convincing or devastating to their naive belief-systems, and similar problems face the Protestant community generally -- where apologetics are of even more importance than among Mormons.

"Naive belief-systems" is pretty insulting to say, IMO.  Many with strong testimonies and deep knowledge of the gospel have been shaken when reading details regarding church history that they were not formerly exposed to.  If we're honest, we all can admit there are some very difficult issues and that does not mean a member was "naive" if they hadn't been exposed to them yet.  I also don't think it's productive to play the blame game.  It's simply the truth that many members are not familiar with much of church history or past teachings (such as Adam/God for example) and some of them are now learning more about them which is causing some of those to doubt and question.  

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One has to ask:  If these attacks are so powerful and accurate, why don't people like Richard Bushman apostatize?  The answer is that the Runnells diatribe is not accurate and that it does not appeal to people who know something about Mormon history and theology.  

You can guess as to why Richard Bushman has not apostatized (which you actually did above), but you don't know that it's because Runnells letter was not "accurate".  That's a pretty big leap.  I found much in the CES letter (most actually) to be accurate.  I'll reiterate again, that it's his conclusions that I disagreed with regarding some of his claims or questions.

36 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sure, the low-hanging fruit can be harvested, but that is only the soft underbelly of the evangelical and Mormon communities -- people who were already weak in the faith to begin with

Once again, you're being insulting to many members who do have strong testimonies but were not familiar with much of what was in the CES letter (or elsewhere).  There's nothing wrong with being upset or shaken when one learns the details regarding Joseph's polygamy for the first time when they formerly believed he only married older widows whose husbands were killed by the mobs for example (a common belief by many still from what my experience has been with our ward members).  This does not mean these members are the "low-hanging fruit" or "already weak in the faith".  Those are the type of generalizations or insults that need to stop, IMO.

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, you're being insulting to many members who do have strong testimonies but were not familiar with much of what was in the CES letter (or elsewhere).  There's nothing wrong with being upset or shaken when one learns the details regarding Joseph's polygamy for the first time when they formerly believed he only married older widows whose husbands were killed by the mobs for example (a common belief by many still from what my experience has been with our ward members).  This does not mean these members are the "low-hanging fruit" or "already weak in the faith".  Those are the type of generalizations or insults that need to stop, IMO.

This is a good write up, thanks, I agree with what you're saying.  I like to think about how I would personally respond to someone who wrote an expose on another religious group.  A CES letter of sorts on the Muslim faith, or the Jehovah's Witnesses or Scientology.  How would I as an outside observer look at a systematic critical approach to the truth claims of those other religions?  

I don't think people who read the critical material and have their religious paradigms changed are naive individuals.  Strong incentives are in place to ignore any information that contradicts your current beliefs and it takes a lot courage for someone to change their religious orientation especially in high demand conservative religious institutions.  

Mormonism's lack of transparency and in-group / out-group strong emphasis over the years has added fuel to the fire for things like the CES letter.  The church essentially could pull the carpet out from under the rug of all these CES letter type approaches by openly discussing the key issues in conference and in correlated curriculum, but they intentionally haven't chosen to do that.  

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Very well said, Spencer.  However, we might just as well hold those who have left Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox holy orders (and thus violated their sacred oaths and vows) to the same standard.  Like us, they consider themselves the true and only legitimate faith.

I acknowledge that.  But these folks are not in my immediate community.  Holding them to a higher standard would seem to be outside my province.

Once when I was a child I had an altercation with neighbor kids.  We normally got along well, but in this instance I was beaten up.  My mom, livid, marched over and read the riot act to the neighbor lady.  The neighbor lady, understandably, went into mama bear mode and defended her kids.  However, I later found out (from one of the kids, with whom I had reconciled) that after the argument with my mom, his mom had closed the door and chewed him and his brother out something fierce.

I am now a parent in my own right.  Six kids.  I hold my kids to a considerably higher standard than I do other kids.  They are my responsibility.  It's my job to correct them when they make a mistake.  The neighbor kids . . . not so much.  For example, a few years ago one of my kids came running in one evening and told me had seen two figures wearing black and "sneaking" around the side of our house and back yard.  I live in Provo, which is generally quite safe, but our neighborhood is, relatively speaking, a bit sketchy.  I asked my son if he was sure, and he said he definitely was.  He was scared.  So I went outside and, sure enough, I found two neighbor kids, dressed all in black, skulking behind a car.  I talked to them, and they said they were playing "Ninja."  I told them that they had sort of spooked us by going into our yard at night without letting us know and dressed in black clothes, and did so secretively (we have previously given them open permission to use our yard to gain access to the river that runs behind it, so we are used to them being back there generally).  These kids apologized, and life went on.  Had they been my kids, I think I would have chewed them out quite a bit for sneaking into a neighbor's yard at night and in black clothing.  As it was, however, I politely but firmly asked the neighbor kids to refrain from such things in the future.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Gray]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Very well said, Spencer.  However, we might just as well hold those who have left Anglican, Roman Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox holy orders (and thus violated their sacred oaths and vows) to the same standard.  Like us, they consider themselves the true and only legitimate faith.

The biggest anti-Catholic I've encountered is a member of my ward who left Catholicism for Mormonism. He would often pipe up in Elder's Quorum to talk about the things that were wrong with the Catholic Church and how the LDS Church is superior.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The biggest anti-Catholic I've encountered is a member of my ward who left Catholicism for Mormonism. He would often pipe up in Elder's Quorum to talk about the things that were wrong with the Catholic Church and how the LDS Church is superior.

Yes, and of course some Mormons have become Catholics.