jkwilliams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: Really? You're going to pretend that the CES letter is not an attempt to denigrate and slander a religious group? What about the words "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" What about the words "Christ Killer?" What about the words "Jesus Jammies?" What about the words "Ritualistic Cannibalism?" What about "Towelhead" or "Raghead?" All of these are mere words. But they intended to denigrate and slander. That you compare the CES letter to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is just bizarre. And no, I do not consider the CES letter an attempt to denigrate and slander a religious group. Perhaps we are so far apart on this, it may be unproductive to continue this discussion. Quote Yes, we are all chuckling along with it. 🤨 Oh. So denigrations and slanders of a religious minority are okay as long as they are obscure. Is that how it works? And Ottley apparently went out of his way to showcase it (bragging about it on Reddit). What does that indicate? I dunno. I feel like we're operating in alternative universes on this thread. Bowing out. 1
smac97 Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: That you compare the CES letter to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is just bizarre. There may be a difference of degree, but not kind. 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: And no, I do not consider the CES letter an attempt to denigrate and slander a religious group. As you are no longer a part of the group targeted by it, I can understand your position. Perhaps in time you will come to understand mine. 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Perhaps we are so far apart on this, it may be unproductive to continue this discussion. I dunno. I feel like we're operating in alternative universes on this thread. Bowing out. As you like. Thanks, -Smac
jkwilliams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: There may be a difference of degree, but not kind. As you are no longer a part of the group targeted by it, I can understand your position. Perhaps in time you will come to understand mine. As you like. Last I checked, I am still a member of the church. I attend meetings, and I hold a calling. Even when I was not attending, I have consistently defended the church from unfair attack. That I disagree with you on the CES letter does not mean I condone bigotry. 3
smac97 Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Last I checked, I am still a member of the church. I attend meetings, and I hold a calling. I had understood that you were no longer active or believing. My apologies. 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Even when I was not attending, I have consistently defended the church from unfair attack. That I disagree with you on the CES letter does not mean I condone bigotry. I don't think I have suggested that you do condone bigotry. Thanks, -Smac
ALarson Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Oh. So denigrations and slanders of a religious minority are okay as long as they are obscure. Is that how it works? And Ottley apparently went out of his way to showcase it (bragging about it on Reddit). And you are the one drawing even more attention to it by starting a thread about it here Also, with all of your over the top accusations and comparisons, you have yet to answer any of my requests for you to post any errors in the information in the CES letter (other than in his conclusions or just personal disagreements regarding how he phrased something, etc.). Edited August 28, 2018 by ALarson 1
jkwilliams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 Just now, smac97 said: I had understood that you were no longer active or believing. My apologies. I don't think I have suggested that you do condone bigotry. The examples you gave of "slander and denigration" were obvious attempts to incite hatred and discrimination against different groups. How that is at all analogous to the CES letter is beyond me. 1
smac97 Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: And you are the one drawing even more attention to it by starting a thread about it here Meh. Ottley bragged about it on Reddit. Three news sources have found out about it. I recognize that talking about criticisms and disparagements of our faith will always give rise to the concern that we are perpetuating such criticisms and disparagements by paying attenton to them. That's the advantage that our critics have. They get to say whatever they want about us. If we ignore them, then we get a Runnells-esque "Aha! I've stumped 'em!" response. And if we address them, we get a "You're only drawing attention to them" concern. Heads the critics win, tails we lose. I've been on this board for 14 years. I have seen no evidence that it has any notable influence. 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Also, with all of your over the top accusations and comparisons, you have yet to answer any of my requests for you to post any errors in the information in the CES letter (other than in his conclusions). Rather than re-plow old ground, I'll refer you to FAIR's responses. And Daniel Peterson's. And Brian Hauglid's. And Michael Ash's. And Kevin Christensen's. And Jonathan Cannon's. And many more. Thanks, -Smac 1
ALarson Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Rather than re-plow old ground, I'll refer you to FAIR's responses. And Daniel Peterson's. And Brian Hauglid's. And Michael Ash's. And Kevin Christensen's. And Jonathan Cannon's. And many more. As I've posted several times, I've read the FairMormon responses (and many others as well). I'm not impressed and none of them could point to where Runnells information was inaccurate....just his conclusions. I'll take this as a "no" regarding you being able to state what he got wrong (other than his conclusions as have others criticized). That's ok as there have been entire threads on that subject here with the same results. Edited August 28, 2018 by ALarson 4
phaedrus ut Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 40 minutes ago, smac97 said: First, CFR, please. Second, I think the motive matters. I think there is a significant moral difference between attempting to denigrate and slander a religious group as opposed to making a passing, positive (or neutral) reference to it. Third, I would be very cautious in appropriating my employer's product to advance my private religious claims. Is that what he did? Thanks, -Smac It's referenced in the original reddit post mentioned in the article. Phaedrus
stemelbow Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 I get why members get upset about the CES Letter. I remember when it first was out there. I simply couldn't see the issue with it. it listed tons of questions, most of which had been bandied about and responded to in many different ways. I found Jeremy's story pretty intriguing though. Anyway, just wanted to say, I guess after these few years since I first saw it, I'm surprised at it's success, if you will. I think it's been edited pretty extensively and added to or corrected in some cases, but many people, it seems to me, credit it with introducing these issues and questions to them and in turn causing many to leave the church. If all the issues it raised were already defeated, answered, or addressed, then you'd think there'd be less interest in it. Also, on the flip side I was notified today of a project by Runnels and another Johnny Stevenson, addressing Brian Hales on polygamy issues and questions that have arisen from the CES letter. Here is Johnny and Jeremy's latest: https://mormonitemusings.com/2018/08/27/the-irrational-world-of-brian-hales-polygamy-part-i/ This is a part I. Hopefully more comes because this Part 1 doesn't say much, other than to perhaps set the stage of the direction they are going in their response. I guess Jeremy isn't stopping with the CES Letter.
rockpond Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 It's funny to me that these debates still go on... ... were Runnells' questions sincere? ... what were/are Runnells' motivations? ... were Runnells' questions adequately address/answered before/since his letter was published? Regardless of the answers, I still sit in ward council week after week and discuss the status of ward members who read the letter and realized that their Church doesn't have adequate answers. So they walked away. 2
Teancum Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 6 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Not to derail, but I'm not sure how anyone can make that judgment about someone's intentions. In my limited interactions with Jeremy, he has always come across as honest and with good intentions. We may disagree with his conclusions and his publication of the letter, but it's not really fair to judge his heart. Ahh welll John, you know there is no valid reason to leave the Church for most here. Apostates most of all have to be marginalized. Especially if they were once active and full in. 2
jkwilliams Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, rockpond said: It's funny to me that these debates still go on... ... were Runnells' questions sincere? ... what were/are Runnells' motivations? ... were Runnells' questions adequately address/answered before/since his letter was published? Regardless of the answers, I still sit in ward council week after week and discuss the status of ward members who read the letter and realized that their Church doesn't have adequate answers. So they walked away. I think that's the reason he's so demonized. BTW, is equating the CES letter with the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion flirting with Godwin's Law?
ALarson Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I think that's the reason he's so demonized. BTW, is equating the CES letter with the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion flirting with Godwin's Law? Well, it's certainly a strong trigger topic for some. Comparing it to: Quote What about the words "Protocols of the Elders of Zion?" What about the words "Christ Killer?" What about the words "Jesus Jammies?" What about the words "Ritualistic Cannibalism?" I mean....come on...."Ritualistic Cannibalism"? Seriously? Edited August 28, 2018 by ALarson 1
bluebell Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well, it's certainly a strong trigger topic for some. Comparing it to: I mean....come on...."Ritualistic Cannibalism"? Seriously? Some romans used to believe that Christians practiced ritualistic cannibalism because of their teachings about the sacrament. It was one of the things that they spread around to rile other Romans up against the Christian church. 2
smac97 Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 32 minutes ago, ALarson said: As I've posted several times, I've read the FairMormon responses (and many others as well). I'm not impressed and none of them could point to where Runnells information was inaccurate....just his conclusions. There have been many, many responses to Runnells' letter: Kevin Christensen's article in Interpreter: Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay Kevin Christensen's second article in Interpreter: Image is Everything: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain FAIR's "Response to 'Letter to a CES Director' and 'Debunking FAIR's Debunking' (Debunking FairMormon) Michael Ash's "Bamboozled by the 'CES Letter'" Jonathan's Cannon's "One Believer’s Reactions to the CES Letter" Daniel Peterson's "Some Reflections On That Letter To a CES Director" Anonymous ("Church is True")'s post, "CES Letter" Jim Bennett's "A Reply from a Former CES Employee" (as well his many, many articles on Runnell's piece, though I haven't checked to see if they are duplicative of his "Reply") Neal Rappleye's Text And History—Part 1: The Case For The Book Of Mormon (An Open Letter To Jeremy Runnells) Neal Rappleye's Text And History—Part 2: The Case For The Book Of Mormon (An Open Letter To Jeremy Runnells) Jeff Lindsay's "Coping with the 'Big List' of Attacks on the LDS Faith Stephen Smoot's "The 'Real Scholars' of Jeremy Runnells" Stephen Smoot's "More Blatant Misrepresentations from Jeremy Runnells" Stephen Smoot's "Who's the Real Amateur?" Brian Hales's "Jeremy Runnells – the New Expert on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy?" I recognize that this is a lot of material to cover. That's sort of them problem that we run into when we get a neophyte like Runnells who presumes to speak broadly about a plethora of issues, but whose writings end up being a lot of "tinkling cymbals and sounding brass." One of my less pleasant responsibilities as an attorney is responding to lawsuits filed by pro se litigants (plaintiffs who represent themselves, rather than hire an attorney). This becomes less pleasant because A) the area of law I am involved in - consumer finance litigation - is fairly complex, such that even seasoned attorneys can often make serious mistakes, let alone those not trained or experiences in the law, and B) pro se plaintiffs are often so out of their depth that they don't even know what they don't know, such that they end up C) resorting to a scattershot, throw-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-at-'em approach in their legal pleadings, which in turn D) I have to spend disproportionate and unreasonable hours responding to. These disproportionate hours are not time well-spent. They are time spent sorting out the big fat mess that the plaintiff has created and trying to systematically address the legal arguments being presented (such as they are). So that means a lot of context has to be provided. Background has to be explained. Foundation has to be laid. And then comes the substantive rebuttal. All of this takes quite a bit of time and effort, far more than the plaintiff's legal theory really deserves. However, judges want to let people have their "day in court," which means that the defendant's attorney has to sigh, reconcile himself to the task ahead, and then dig in. I think that seasoned scholars like Daniel Peterson and Jim Bennett and Kevin Christensen and Michael Ash and so on look upon Runnells' letter in the same way. The letter is intellectually lazy. It's a shortcut. It's slapdash. It demonstrates no real time spent in study, no real effort to understand. It's just a pastiche of unrelated gripes cobbled together from the Internet and organized into broad topics. 32 minutes ago, ALarson said: I'll take this as a "no" regarding you being able to state what he got wrong (other than his conclusions as have others criticized). Meh. I have no interest in re-inventing the wheel. Again, this is a fundamental problem with Runnells's throw-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-at-'em approach. 32 minutes ago, ALarson said: That's ok as there have been entire threads on that subject here with the same results. I don't think so. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, rockpond said: It's funny to me that these debates still go on... ... were Runnells' questions sincere? ... what were/are Runnells' motivations? ... were Runnells' questions adequately address/answered before/since his letter was published? Regardless of the answers, I still sit in ward council week after week and discuss the status of ward members who read the letter and realized that their Church doesn't have adequate answers. So they walked away. I think there's often a lot more to it than that. A lot more. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: Quote It's funny to me that these debates still go on... ... were Runnells' questions sincere? ... what were/are Runnells' motivations? ... were Runnells' questions adequately address/answered before/since his letter was published? Regardless of the answers, I still sit in ward council week after week and discuss the status of ward members who read the letter and realized that their Church doesn't have adequate answers. So they walked away. I think that's the reason he's so demonized. "Demonized?" I think not. But he has been effective in destroying the religioius beliefs of other people. I will grant him that. That he has done so by competently and fairly and reasonably addressing controversies in the Church's history and doctrine . . . not so much. In my view, Runnells is pretty much a yellow journalist. Unfortunately, yellow journalism, unethical journalism, shallow and largely-ignorant-of-the-subject-matter journalism, can nevertheless have a significant impact on the reading public. 1 hour ago, jkwilliams said: BTW, is equating the CES letter with the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion flirting with Godwin's Law? It probably is. I retract the comparison. Thanks, -Smac
ALarson Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, smac97 said: Meh. I have no interest in re-inventing the wheel. Ok. I still take that as a "no" regarding anything YOU can state was about what was specifically wrong (other than his conclusions and I also do not agree with all of them). I've read the supposed rebuttals and debunkings and I am not at all impressed. A lot of personal attacks and smoke and mirrors....but not much that proves anything wrong that was stated in the letter. We can move on as it's obvious, you have nothing other than other's writings and words, which IMO, were ineffective. I was curious to see what you disagreed with though. Edited August 28, 2018 by ALarson
ALarson Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, smac97 said: But he has been effective in destroying the religioius beliefs of other people. I will grant him that. It's more the information that he's put out there that is destroying former beliefs. He's merely the instrument and he did it well, IMO....the letter is effective. Even you can't seem to specifically point to what he got wrong. Once again, I don't agree with much of what he's done and disagree with some of his conclusions, but the letter is effective because it exposes members to much of the truth regarding church history, past teachings, and issues with the BofM and BofA. Many don't take the time to do their own research from there, and leave. I'm seeing it still in my ward and stake by those who read the letter for the first time. Edited August 28, 2018 by ALarson
Analytics Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 Hi Smac, I pretty much disagree with everything that you said. But rather than go around in circles on that, I'll let it rest. Except for one thing: 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Second, attempting to shore up and strengthen a family member's faith (as per your hypothetical) is a radically different thing than trying to tear it down and undermine it (as Runnells has clearly intended to do). By any chance have you read the journal article, Is Faith Compatible With Reason by Daniel C. Peterson? In the article, Peterson argues, "faith is inescapable — for the simple and sufficient reason that decisions regarding ultimate questions must be made, and must necessarily be made under conditions of objective uncertainty." His point is that what faith really means is making a decision about a "live" question that doesn't have a definitive answer. For many of us here, the question of Mormon's truth claims is a live question; "the answers are," according to Peterson, "so far as publicly demonstrable arguments go, neither 100% certain nor 100% impossible but somewhere in between and, let us say, in the rough vicinity of 50/50. Perhaps — judgments will vary — they’re 30/70 or even 5/95." Thus we are forced to make a decision without really knowing. So for Peterson, Runnell betting his soul that it is false is simply an act of faith--exactly as you betting your soul that it is true is a matter of faith. That being true, Runnell trying to explain his beliefs to the world really isn't "radically different" than you trying to explain yours.
smac97 Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: Quote Meh. I have no interest in re-inventing the wheel. Ok. I still take that as a "no" regarding anything YOU can state was about what was specifically wrong (other than his conclusions and I also do not agree with all of them). Yes, I can. 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: I've read the supposed rebuttals and debunkings and I am not at all impressed. But you are impressed with Runnells' letter? 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: A lot of personal attacks and smoke and mirrors....but not much that proves anything wrong that was stated in the letter. I don't think that's a fair characterization of what has been written. 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: We can move on as it's obvious, you have nothing other than other's writings and words, which IMO, were ineffective. Funny, that. I found them very effective. I have a friend whose brother recently left the Church. The brother sat down with my friend and offered his exit narrative. My friend was a bit disconcerted, so she asked to talk with me. She walked through the points her brother raised. I summarized my understanding of these issues. I encouraged my friend to continue to research and study these issues. And so it goes. Jeff Lindsay has some interesting thoughts on this phenomenon: Quote One of the challenges in defending one's faith is coping with critics who use the "Big List" technique in their attack. This involves throwing out numerous arguments to create the impression of an overwhelming barrage that decimates the faith in question (see the related post, "If Only 10% of These Charges Are True..."). The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that weren't written in search of a real answer. If there is a good defense to the arguments raised at first, never mind, there are many more to be launched in different directions. As with many topics in fields like history, science, and religion, the issues raised in Big List attacks are often complex and may require exploring abundant details to answer questions properly. Even for those who are prepared to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, the time it takes to lay a foundation and properly answer a question can be taken by the instantly impatient critics as an admission of weakness and confirmation that they are right, and then it's time to move on to the next attack and the next. If reasonable answers are promptly provided for some attacks, or if the alleged weakness on further examination actually proves to be evidence in favor of the faithful position, the response can be ignored as new attacks from the Big List are hurled out. This doesn't just happen in anti-Mormon attacks. Attacks on many other faiths use the same approach. Interesting, attacks on some aspects of modern science by religious fundamentalists or young earth Creationists also may rely on the Big List approach, much to the exasperation of scientists who know there are good answers to the attacks, but often may not be able to adequately deal with the barrage of questions from critics not really interested in the answers. Some scientists call the tactic the "Gish Gallop" after Duane Gish, a Creationist noted for hurling numerous brief arguments to overwhelm opponents in debates on evolution. Mr. Runnells's letter is a Gish Gallop. On steroids. Quote To help those coping with Big List issues, I've begin compiling my own list of recommended reading for students of the LDS religion. I hope it will be helpful to some. I'm not saying that you have to read this list before you leave the Church (or join it), but if you're willing to look at answers and evidences, it might be a great place to start. Jeff's reading list is pretty extensive. And I'd wager that Mr. Runnells hasn't read 5% of it. And if he has, he has not attempted to master their contents, or to give them a fair shake. 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: I was curious to see what you disagreed with though. I think Daniel Peterson's "Reflections" presentation covers a lot of what I find problematic. Michael Ash also makes some very important points (pages 13-15 are a good summary). Jim Bennett's "Reply" is a massive (251-page) fisking of response to Runnells's letter. If you haven't read it, I think it is worthwhile. I have read Runnells' letter several times, but have never systematically reduced my critique to written form. Not particularly interested in doing so, since it's been done. A lot. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: It's more the information that he's put out there that is destroying former beliefs. Not really. It's the packaging. The slant. The rhetoric. The omissions. The refusal to address the many reasoned and reasonable responses to his "questions." Jeff Lindsay has addressed this point well: "'If Only 10% of These Charges, Are True, The Church is False' - The Fallacy of Quantity Versus Quality" 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: He's merely the instrument and he did it well, IMO....the letter is effective. "He's merely the instrument?" What does that mean? 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: Even you can't seem to specifically point to what he got wrong. And again, I'm not interested in re-inventing the wheel. 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: Once again, I don't agree with much of what he's done and disagree with some of his conclusions, but the letter is effective because it exposes members to much of the truth regarding church history, past teachings, and issues with the BofM and BofA. Yes. And unfortunately for many of us, they are blindsided by such things. 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: Many don't take the time to do their own research from there, and leave. Yes. Such departures often seem to arise from a failure or refusal of people "to do their own research." That is a painful thing to see. 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: I'm seeing it still in my ward and stake by those who read the letter for the first time. So am I. Thanks, -Smac
PacMan Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 9 hours ago, jkwilliams said: Not to derail, but I'm not sure how anyone can make that judgment about someone's intentions. In my limited interactions with Jeremy, he has always come across as honest and with good intentions. We may disagree with his conclusions and his publication of the letter, but it's not really fair to judge his heart. Actually, it's really easy to judge Jeremy. The fact that you need an editorial board to update an unanswered "sincere question" is disingenuous at best. I have had several exchanges with Jeremy, and while he thinks he's good at asking questions he's not nearly as good at answering them.
Recommended Posts