Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a lie, but I have talked to Jim extensively about his response, which I find not particularly helpful. I don't think that means Jim is a liar or a bad person. 

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.  It's not perfect, but I have found it very informative and useful.

Jim pokes fun here and there.  If Runnells's letter was sincere and heart-felt, I may have been a little off-put by the teasing.  But I don't think the letter is heart-felt or sincere.  It's just a diatribe.  A screed.  And Runnells is barely the author of it.  All he did is crib from a bunch of online sites critical of the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Those are pretty weak.

Yeah, I was in a hurry.  Plenty of others, though.  Plenty of meat to chew on.

But again: The "lie" is that this "letter" was a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director.  It isn't.  I don't think it ever was.  The "lie" is that this "letter" was the result of actual, rigorous study (rather than merely a massive cut-and-pasted culling from various online sources critical of the Church).

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If we aren't willing to grant sincerity to people who come to different conclusions and try to explain their beliefs, then Jim Bennet is the real liar.

I am quite willing to grant sincerity to people who are sincere.  But having examined Runnells's writings and conduct, I do not find him to be sincere.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

His letter isn't a good-faith effort to present a fair and balanced portrayal of the issues as the result of a rigorous study. It's a lie designed to salvage faith for the desperate by disparaging the character of Runnells.

I don't think so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

16 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a lie, but I have talked to Jim extensively about his response, which I find not particularly helpful. I don't think that means Jim is a liar or a bad person. 

Of course. I was being facetious and trying to illustrate why I don't like Smac's approach of trying to discredit someone's opinion by disparaging his motives and intentions. If we want to talk about how well the Great Lakes geography fits we can talk about that. If we find weaknesses in Runnells' approach we can talk about that too. But to use a disagreement or quibble with one point or another as an excuse to dismiss Runnells as an insincere liar driven by unstated yet extremely nefarious motives seems kinda desperate.

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, I was in a hurry.  Plenty of others, though.  Plenty of meat to chew on.

But again: The "lie" is that this "letter" was a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director.  It isn't.  I don't think it ever was.  The "lie" is that this "letter" was the result of actual, rigorous study (rather than merely a massive cut-and-pasted culling from various online sources critical of the Church).

I think you are misinterpreting what the CES Letter actually represents itself to be. It is not a "good faith request for assistance from the CES director" (as you use the phrase), but it doesn't represent itself to be that, either.

Let me explain. In my attempts to get into your head (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you think the letter disingenuously presents itself something like this:

Dear CES Director,

I am struggling with my testimony, and I have some concerns with some issues. I sincerely want to believe the Church is true, and I've studied these issues from every faithful source I could find. Here are the issues that bother me the most, along with the very best answers I could find. However, those answers aren't completely convincing to me, and I'm afraid that if I don't get some help with a few of them, the shelf that contains my unanswered questions is going to buckle.

So I'm making this request for your assistance in good faith. If you could help me better understand a few of these issues, that would really assist me with strengthening my testimony.

If the letter represented itself to be something like that, then I'd totally agree that the letter is a "lie."

However, that isn't how the letter represents itself. Runnells says:

• Obviously, I’m a disaffected member who lost his testimony so it’s no secret which side I’m on at the moment.
• I’m just going to be straightforward in sharing my concerns.
• I’ve decided to put down in writing just about all the major concerns that I have. I went through my notes from my past year of research and compiled them together. It doesn’t make sense for me to just lay down 5 concerns while also having 20 other concerns that legitimately challenge the truth claims of the LDS Church.
• I’d be pretty arrogant and ignorant to say that I have all the information and that you don’t have answers. Like you, I put my pants on one leg at a time and I see through a glass darkly. You may have new information and/or a new perspective that I may not have heard or considered before. This is why I’m genuinely interested in what your answers and thoughts are to these issues.
• It is my hope that you’re going to have better answers than many of those given by unofficial apologists such as FairMormon and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS).

Given that that is how the letter represents itself, I find it to be genuine and sincere.

To emphasize, Runnels clearly admits that his testimony is already gone. He isn't trying to figure out a set of answers that, along with some extra braces for his shelf, will allow him to believe. He is trying to figure out the truth, and is ready to accept the answer that does the best job of explaining the evidence, even if that answer is that Mormonism is just another man-made religion, just like the rest of them.

And importantly, he admits that "unofficial apologists" have answers. He just wants to see if there are better answers.

Reading between the lines, it's clear that while he is really would be interested in hearing if there are better answers that he hasn't considered before, hopefully from more official sources, he is also trying to explain himself and demonstrate to his family that he does take this seriously and actually has reasons for not believing and isn't just making excuses because he wants to sleep in on Sundays.

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think you are misinterpreting what the CES Letter actually represents itself to be. It is not a "good faith request for assistance from the CES director" (as you use the phrase), but it doesn't represent itself to be that, either.

Given that that is how the letter represents itself, I find it to be genuine and sincere.

To emphasize, Runnels clearly admits that his testimony is already gone. He isn't trying to figure out a set of answers that, along with some extra braces for his shelf, will allow him to believe. He is trying to figure out the truth, and is ready to accept the answer that does the best job of explaining the evidence, even if that answer is that Mormonism is just another man-made religion, just like the rest of them.

And importantly, he admits that "unofficial apologists" have answers. He just wants to see if there are better answers.

Reading between the lines, it's clear that while he is really would be interested in hearing if there are better answers that he hasn't considered before, hopefully from more official sources, he is also trying to explain himself and demonstrate to his family that he does take this seriously and actually has reasons for not believing and isn't just making excuses because he wants to sleep in on Sundays.

That's pretty much how I see it. 

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think you are misinterpreting what the CES Letter actually represents itself to be. It is not a "good faith request for assistance from the CES director" (as you use the phrase), but it doesn't represent itself to be that, either.

Let me explain. In my attempts to get into your head (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you think the letter disingenuously presents itself something like this:

Dear CES Director,

I am struggling with my testimony, and I have some concerns with some issues. I sincerely want to believe the Church is true, and I've studied these issues from every faithful source I could find. Here are the issues that bother me the most, along with the very best answers I could find. However, those answers aren't completely convincing to me, and I'm afraid that if I don't get some help with a few of them, the shelf that contains my unanswered questions is going to buckle.

So I'm making this request for your assistance in good faith. If you could help me better understand a few of these issues, that would really assist me with strengthening my testimony.

If the letter represented itself to be something like that, then I'd totally agree that the letter is a "lie."

Here's the first page of the "letter":

Quote

[Name of CES Director Removed],

Thank you for responding to my grandfather's request to answer my concerns and questions and for offering your time with me. I appreciate it.

I’m interested in your thoughts and answers as I have been unable to find official answers from the Church for most of these issues. It is my hope that you’re going to have better answers than many of those given by unofficial apologists such as FairMormon and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS).

I’m just going to be straightforward in sharing my concerns. Obviously, I’m a disaffected member who lost his testimony so it’s no secret which side I’m on at the moment. All this information is a result of over a year of intense research and an absolute rabid obsession with Joseph Smith and Church history. With this said, I’d be pretty arrogant and ignorant to say that I have all the information and that you don’t have answers. Like you, I put my pants on one leg at a time and I see through a glass darkly. You may have new information and/or a new perspective that I may not have heard or considered before. This is why I’m genuinely interested in what your answers and thoughts are to these issues.

I’ve decided to put down in writing just about all the major concerns that I have. 

That seems very similar to your hypothetical letter above.

Moreover, I am quoting the current version of the letter, which is a substantially revised and expanded-upon version of the original, and which is published to the world.

Quote

However, that isn't how the letter represents itself. Runnells says:

• Obviously, I’m a disaffected member who lost his testimony so it’s no secret which side I’m on at the moment.
• I’m just going to be straightforward in sharing my concerns.
• I’ve decided to put down in writing just about all the major concerns that I have. I went through my notes from my past year of research and compiled them together. It doesn’t make sense for me to just lay down 5 concerns while also having 20 other concerns that legitimately challenge the truth claims of the LDS Church.
• I’d be pretty arrogant and ignorant to say that I have all the information and that you don’t have answers. Like you, I put my pants on one leg at a time and I see through a glass darkly. You may have new information and/or a new perspective that I may not have heard or considered before. This is why I’m genuinely interested in what your answers and thoughts are to these issues.
• It is my hope that you’re going to have better answers than many of those given by unofficial apologists such as FairMormon and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS).

Given that that is how the letter represents itself, I find it to be genuine and sincere.

I don't.  Every word above is codswallop.  Not a lick of sincerity in it.  The letter isn't a letter.  Its intended audience is not the CES director.  He's not "interested in what [the CES Director's] answers and thoughts are," let alone "sincerely interested."

It's not a request for information directed to a CES employee.  It's a diatribe against the Church directed to members of the Church, with the calculated intent to sow seeds of doubt and fear and distrust and anxiety and anger.

Quote

To emphasize, Runnels clearly admits that his testimony is already gone. He isn't trying to figure out a set of answers that, along with some extra braces for his shelf, will allow him to believe. He is trying to figure out the truth, and is ready to accept the answer that does the best job of explaining the evidence, even if that answer is that Mormonism is just another man-made religion, just like the rest of them.

"I’m genuinely interested in what your answers and thoughts are to these issues."  Um no, he's not.  The CES employee is not the intended audience.  Understanding the CES employee's "answers and thoughts" are not the objective.

Quote

And importantly, he admits that "unofficial apologists" have answers. He just wants to see if there are better answers.

Nope.  Not buying it.  The intended audience is members of the Church, particularly those who may not have fully-formed and well-informed testimonies and familiarity with the Church's doctrines and history.  He's not looking for answers.  He's purveying information, not seeking it.  His book is an attack, not a good faith effort to enter into communication with a CES employee.

Quote

Reading between the lines, it's clear that while he is really would be interested in hearing if there are better answers that he hasn't considered before, hopefully from more official sources, he is also trying to explain himself and demonstrate to his family that he does take this seriously and actually has reasons for not believing and isn't just making excuses because he wants to sleep in on Sundays.

That's not what I read between the lines.  At all.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2018 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

Nope.  Not buying it.  He's not looking for answers.  He's purveying information, not seeking it.  His book is an attack, not a good faith effort to enter into communication with a CES employee.

So, he's lying when he says the following:
 

Quote

I’m interested in your thoughts and answers as I have been unable to find official answers from the Church for most of these issues. It is my hope that you’re going to have better answers than many of those given by unofficial apologists such as FairMormon and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS).

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, he's lying when he says the following:

Quote

I’m interested in your thoughts and answers as I have been unable to find official answers from the Church for most of these issues. It is my hope that you’re going to have better answers than many of those given by unofficial apologists such as FairMormon and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (formerly FARMS).

 

When he's saying that in a letter that's not a letter?  When the "letter" is addressed to a CES employee, but the intended audience is the members of the Church?  When the "letter" is a diatribe, not a good faith effort to confer and communicate with a CES employee?  When the letter is being published to the world?  

The "lie" is that this "letter" was a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director.  It isn't.  I don't think it ever was.

The "lie" is that this "letter" was the result of actual, rigorous study (rather than merely a massive cut-and-pasted culling from various online sources critical of the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

When he's saying that in a letter that's not a letter?  When the "letter" is addressed to a CES employee, but the intended audience is the members of the Church?  When the "letter" is a diatribe, not a good faith effort to confer and communicate with a CES employee?  When the letter is being published to the world?  

The "lie" is that this "letter" was a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director.  It isn't.  I don't think it ever was.

The "lie" is that this "letter" was the result of actual, rigorous study (rather than merely a massive cut-and-pasted culling from various online sources critical of the Church).

Well, I guess we'll just disagree. In my limited interaction with Jeremy, I take him at his word that he wrote the letter in good faith. I may disagree with his subsequent efforts, but I don't think this was a planned assault on the church. But that's just me. 

[Analytics]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That seems very similar to your hypothetical letter above.

Interesting. I disagree.

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a diatribe against the Church directed to members of the Church, with the calculated intent to sow seeds of doubt and fear and distrust and anxiety and anger.

In your view, why do you think he wants to "sow seeds of doubt and fear and distrust and anxiety and anger"? It sounds like you think Runnells is a son of Perdition that wants people to burn in hell for the same reason that Lucifer does.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In your view, why do you think he wants to "sow seeds of doubt and fear and distrust and anxiety and anger"?

Dunno.  I have my guesses, but I've never met the fellow.  I think I can reasonably surmise what he is doing, but not necessarily why.

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It sounds like you think Runnells is a son of Perdition that wants people to burn in hell for the same reason that Lucifer does.

Yes.  That's it.  That is why I have repeatedly called for his excommunication and call him a "son of Perdition."

No, wait.  I've done nothing like that.  

🤨

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

10 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Interesting. I disagree.

In your view, why do you think he wants to "sow seeds of doubt and fear and distrust and anxiety and anger"? It sounds like you think Runnells is a son of Perdition that wants people to burn in hell for the same reason that Lucifer does.

I don't know about you, but I've had the same accusations leveled at me, though I've never tried to get people to doubt, let alone leave the church. It always made sense for me to talk about what I was thinking and experiencing, so I did, but I can't tell you how many people think that, if you lose your faith, you need to just shut up and "move on." People don't work that way, and we move on once we've worked through whatever it is we're working through. And sometimes people go back to the church precisely because they haven't moved on. Look at Don Bradley. 

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Well, I guess we'll just disagree. In my limited interaction with Jeremy, I take him at his word that he wrote the letter in good faith. I may disagree with his subsequent efforts, but I don't think this was a planned assault on the church. But that's just me. 

I can entertain the possibility that things started as you described.  But now?  The letter is nothing but "a planned assault on the church."

For pete's sake, take a look at his website.  If the letter is just a request for help from a CES employee, why is he having it translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, German, Finnish and Swedish?  Is the CES director some sort of autistic polyglot?  Is the CES director incapable of comprehending a letter directed to him unless it's presented to him in seven different languages?

The CES director is not the target audience.  The members of the Church are (and, I suspect, anyone thinking of joining the Church, curious about the Church, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can entertain the possibility that things started as you described.  But now?  The letter is nothing but "a planned assault on the church."

For pete's sake, take a look at his website.  If the letter is just a request for help from a CES employee, why is he having it translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, German, Finnish and Swedish?  Is the CES director some sort of autistic polyglot?  Is the CES director incapable of comprehending a letter directed to him unless it's presented to him in seven different languages?

The CES director is not the target audience.  The members of the Church are (and, I suspect, anyone thinking of joining the Church, curious about the Church, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree that is the situation now.  But in the beginning, I think he sincerely wanted answers and his Dad was trying to help him too.  I think he was surprised when his letter went viral and got so much attention.

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can entertain the possibility that things started as you described.  But now?  The letter is nothing but "a planned assault on the church."

For pete's sake, take a look at his website.  If the letter is just a request for help from a CES employee, why is he having it translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, German, Finnish and Swedish?  Is the CES director some sort of autistic polyglot?  Is the CES director incapable of comprehending a letter directed to him unless it's presented to him in seven different languages?

The CES director is not the target audience.  The members of the Church are (and, I suspect, anyone thinking of joining the Church, curious about the Church, etc.).

As I said, I have no problem with judging his actions, many of which I disagree with. I just have a hard time assuming he started out in a bad-faith effort to damage the church. In all my conversations with him, he's always come across as someone whose original letter was exactly as advertised. In the end, I don't think his original intent matters much, and it just seems a distraction to impute evil from the beginning.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree that is the situation now.  But in the beginning, I think he sincerely wanted answers and his Dad was trying to help him too.  I think he was surprised when his letter went viral and got so much attention.

That is exactly how I see it. Years ago, a commenter on my blog asked me what my top ten issues were with the church, so I wrote a brief list on my blog in response. It certainly wasn't in-depth, even less so than the CES letter, but it went "viral" in the sense that it got around much more than I had intended. But I got the same kinds of attacks on my character as Jeremy has received. Maybe I could have done exactly what he's done and expanded it and broadcast it far and wide. Would that have made my initial intent evil? 

It just seems beside the point to go after someone's character and intent. It's the same reason I don't speculate about Joseph Smith's motivations. For me, I'm satisfied that, whatever he was, he didn't restore God's true church on the earth, but it's pointless to try to assign motive to him. Someone once asked me what Joseph got out of his religious enterprise if he wasn't really a prophet, and I answered that he got money, power, and sex. I didn't say that was his motivation, but to me, that's a fairly noncontroversial statement. But I was accused of slandering him and attributing evil intent. Heck, someone will probably accuse me of that now for repeating it. But no one but Joseph Smith knows what his motivations were, just as no one knows Jeremy Runnells's motives. If his motives were evil, he may have to answer for them at some point. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I agree that is the situation now.  But in the beginning, I think he sincerely wanted answers and his Dad was trying to help him too.  I think he was surprised when his letter went viral and got so much attention.

How did it go "viral," though?  Well, here's his narrative:

Quote

Prior to sending off the letter to the CES Director, I shared my draft in a closed Facebook group as well as on Reddit. I wanted feedback to ensure that it was as accurate as it can be so that I didn't waste the director's time or mine. Unbeknownst to me at the time, a lot of people liked it and started sharing it with family and friends. This is how it started going viral on the internet. Next thing I know, the document is listed on MormonThink.com and things take off. Then FairMormon attacked it a few months later and I found myself pulled into this current that I never sought or wanted.

When FairMormon started attacking me, they made a lot of false claims and ad hominems about me and the letter. Further, a few mistakes came to my attention that I corrected in the letter. I needed a centralized place to defend myself from FairMormon's attacks as well as to provide the latest update of the letter to ensure that accurate information was floating around. When the LDS Church started releasing its essays, I included the essays in the letter in a spirit of transparency for my readers. This is how www.cesletter.com was born. My primary motives were for the above reasons. Not because I wanted to destroy Mormonism or any of the similar claims that apologists make up.

Okay.  I'd like to take this at face value.  But for the last many years - the bulk of the letter's existence - the letter has been nothing but "a planned assault on the church."

Perhaps it didn't start that way, but that is where Mr. Runnells went anyway.  And he is maintaining that "assault," and even expanding it (six more languages!).  

He says further:

Quote

As the letter went more viral, I was slandered and villianized more and more by Mormon apologists. I started seeing labels like "liar" and "anti-Mormon" being thrown around against my name. It blew my mind. It still does to this day.

I've explained what I think is the "lie" at issue for me.  The "lie" is that this "letter" was a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director.  It isn't.  I don't think it ever was.  The "lie" is that this "letter" was the result of actual, rigorous study (rather than merely a massive cut-and-pasted culling from various online sources critical of the Church).

I am willing to reconsider these.  Although the letter now is certainly not "a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director," I can see it as possibly starting that way.  I still have some serious reservations about that, though.  An 80-page copied-and-pasted diatribe not, I think, what the CES director was expecting.  And while I think it would have been better for the CES director to respond to the letter in some way, Mr. Runnells took the thing and published it online.  To the world.  And then it got attention.  And notoriety.  And some measure of celebrity.  And then he started trying to monetize it.  So however innocuously it started, Mr. Runnells has positioned himself as a critic and opponent and adversary of the Church. 

I'm sorry that some people online called him names, but that doesn't really diminish what he has done.  And his taking exception to being called "anti-Mormon" is just bizarre.  Of course he fits within the parameters of that word.  His letter is nothing but a piece of anti-Mormon literature (copy-n-paste job thought it may be).

And in any event, it is what he is doing now that I find most problematic.  His letter is a lie now.  It's not a request for information.  Not anymore.  Hasn't been for virtually all of its existence.  It's nothing but an attack on our faith.  Nothing but. 

His efforts against the Church are happening and continuing now.  And it has a lot of problems with it.  

This bit is weird, too:

Quote

It has been very difficult for myself and my family over the years in all the moonlighting and weekends spent defending myself from FairMormon and other Mormon apologetic attacks. I just want to go quietly into the night. It's hard to do this when I'm being attacked by aspiring amateur Mormon apologists seeking to making a name for themselves at my expense with their dishonest claims.

Ah.  So he's justified in attacking the Church, but members are not justified in defending it?  How does that work?

"I just want to go quietly into the night."  So says the guy who has set up and maintains a website for his book, is publishing his book, is having it translated into multiple languages, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2018 by smac97

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can entertain the possibility that things started as you described.  But now?  The letter is nothing but "a planned assault on the church."

For pete's sake, take a look at his website.  If the letter is just a request for help from a CES employee, why is he having it translated into Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, German, Finnish and Swedish?  Is the CES director some sort of autistic polyglot?  Is the CES director incapable of comprehending a letter directed to him unless it's presented to him in seven different languages?

The CES director is not the target audience.  The members of the Church are (and, I suspect, anyone thinking of joining the Church, curious about the Church, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think anybody is disputing the point that the letter is now open to a wider audience than the CES director himself.

But does that make it a lie? I don't see how.

What is fascinating is that throughout your life as a Mormon you are told that the truth claims of Mormonism are important, that you ought to continuously bear your testimony about why you believe, and that you ought to proselyte and try to convert others to see Mormonism the way you do. We are told these are the noblest of endeavors and are only done for the very best of reasons: to encourage others to believe. To have faith. And most importantly, to know the truth, because the truth will set you free.

But if you come to the conclusion that it really isn't what it claims to be, you better keep your mouth shut. If you don't think it's true, whatever you do don't tell anybody why. After all, if that is how you feel, sharing your beliefs with others couldn't be about a sincere desire to share the truth with the world but rather, could only be driven by a nefarious desire to spread doubt, fear, distrust, anxiety, and anger.

How dare anybody but a faithful Mormon share what they think about Joseph Smith's claims! When deciding whether or not to believe Mormonism, you should only consider the point of view of faithful Mormons. All other views are offered in bad faith. Even if they are true in all of the details they are still lies because they were told in order to spread doubt, fear, distrust, anxiety, and anger and if anybody says their motivations are different than that, it just proves that they are liars who must not be trusted.

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So he's justified in attacking the Church, but members are not justified in defending it?  How does that work?

In your mind, is there a difference between defending the Church and attacking Jeremy Runnells? It seems like you think they are one and the same.

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't think anybody is disputing the point that the letter is now open to a wider audience than the CES director himself.

Hmm.  

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But does that make it a lie? I don't see how.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

What is fascinating is that throughout your life as a Mormon you are told that the truth claims of Mormonism are important, that you ought to continuously bear your testimony about why you believe, and that you ought to proselyte and try to convert others to see Mormonism the way you do.

Yes.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

We are told these are the noblest of endeavors and are only done for the very best of reasons: to encourage others to believe. To have faith. And most importantly, to know the truth, because the truth will set you free.

Yes.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But if you come to the conclusion that it really isn't what it claims to be, you better keep your mouth shut.

Who has said that?  Who is advocating censorship of Jeremy Runnells?

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you don't think it's true, whatever you do don't tell anybody why. After all, if that is how you feel, sharing your beliefs with others couldn't be about a sincere desire to share the truth with the world but rather, could only be driven by a nefarious desire to spread doubt, fear, distrust, anxiety, and anger.

Oh, brother.  Let's be clear: Jeremy Runnells can say whatever he wants.  It's a free country.  I strongly support his right to Free Speech.

But I also support my right to Free Speech.  Consider the words of Justice Louis Brandeis in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927):

Quote

"If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."

Just so.  I don't recall avocating that Jeremy Runnells's right to speak be taken away.  And if you can point me to where I have said that or given an impression of it, I will retract it and apologize.

But I don't think much of Mr. Runnells's speech.  I am quite critical of it, in fact.  So I get to speak in response to it.  To criticize it.  

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

How dare anybody but a faithful Mormon share what they think about Joseph Smith's claims!

Melodramatic twaddle.  Nobody is saying anything like this.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

When deciding whether or not to believe Mormonism, you should only consider the point of view of faithful Mormons. All other views are offered in bad faith.

More twaddle.  Nobody is saying this, either.

The CES letter is, in my view, an exercise in bad faith.  It presents itself as a letter to a CES director.  It is not, and instead is a diatribe against the Church.  It presents itself as a good faith effort to confer and communicate with the CES director.  It is not.  It presents itself as the product of genuine and rigorous study and effort.  It is not (instead, it appears to be a massive copy-and-paste job).  Moreover, I find it exceedingly poor scholarship.  It is facile in its reasoning and conclusions.  It is unfair and inaccurate.  It is dishonest by its deliberate and extensive refusal to address the many and extensive treatments of these issues.  

So let's dispense with the notion that opponents of the Church who go out of their way to publicly criticize and attack the Church nevertheless somehow deserve some sort of kid-glove treatment because they have heart-felt feelings about the matter.

That said, while I usually try to treat critics like Mr. Runnells with respect, perhaps I have failed recently as regarding him.  Perhaps my criticisms of his conduct have veered into criticisms of his character.  The distinction can sometimes be hard to make, but it's worth the effort to maintain it.  So I will reconsider my position a bit.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Even if they are true in all of the details they are still lies because they were told in order to spread doubt, fear, distrust, anxiety, and anger and if anybody says their motivations are different than that, it just proves that they are liars who must not be trusted.

Sigh.  Nobody is saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I don't think anybody is disputing the point that the letter is now open to a wider audience than the CES director himself.

But does that make it a lie? I don't see how.

What is fascinating is that throughout your life as a Mormon you are told that the truth claims of Mormonism are important, that you ought to continuously bear your testimony about why you believe, and that you ought to proselyte and try to convert others to see Mormonism the way you do. We are told these are the noblest of endeavors and are only done for the very best of reasons: to encourage others to believe. To have faith. And most importantly, to know the truth, because the truth will set you free.

But if you come to the conclusion that it really isn't what it claims to be, you better keep your mouth shut. If you don't think it's true, whatever you do don't tell anybody why. After all, if that is how you feel, sharing your beliefs with others couldn't be about a sincere desire to share the truth with the world but rather, could only be driven by a nefarious desire to spread doubt, fear, distrust, anxiety, and anger.

How dare anybody but a faithful Mormon share what they think about Joseph Smith's claims! When deciding whether or not to believe Mormonism, you should only consider the point of view of faithful Mormons. All other views are offered in bad faith. Even if they are true in all of the details they are still lies because they were told in order to spread doubt, fear, distrust, anxiety, and anger and if anybody says their motivations are different than that, it just proves that they are liars who must not be trusted.

Yep, I can’t count how many times I’ve been told I am wrong to say anything at all about the church. I’ve even been told that having an opinion about the church is akin to antisemitism. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Yep, I can’t count how many times I’ve been told I am wrong to say anything at all about the church. I’ve even been told that having an opinion about the church is akin to antisemitism. 

Well, that's unfortunate.  We all have the right to free speech.  You have the right to criticize the Church, and I have the right to criticize Jeremy Runnells and Sam Young.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Well, that's unfortunate.  We all have the right to free speech.  You have the right to criticize the Church, and I have the right to criticize Jeremy Runnells and Sam Young.

Of course you have the right. No one said you didn’t. I have said it’s better to deal with the substance than attack motives. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

Well, that's unfortunate.  We all have the right to free speech.  You have the right to criticize the Church, and I have the right to criticize Jeremy Runnells and Sam Young.

Of course you have the right. No one said you didn’t. I have said it’s better to deal with the substance than attack motives. 

Well, yes.  But motives can matter.  The presence or absence of good faith can matter.  Bad faith can matter.

In the law, there is a Latin maxim: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo," which roughly translates to "Your motive gives the name to your act."  Why you do X is what gives rise to the X being good or bad.  

Why you do X can matter as much as the actual doing of X.

So in the presence of sincerity and good faith and good will, communications about difficult topics and proceed.  In the absence of sincerity and good faith and good will, such communications are difficult or impossible.  The well has been poisoned.  The deck has been stacked.

In surveying the substance of the CES letter, I do not detect sincerity or good faith or good will.  That assessment is buttressed by Mr. Runnells's other behavior.  This absurd theatrics at his disciplinary council.  His creation and maintaining a website advertising his book.  His translating the book into multiple languages.  His ongoing diatribes against the Church.

Mr. Runnells may have started with some measure of sincerity and good faith and good will, but he lost those things long ago.  They sure aren't in the CES Letter.  I have some doubts they ever were.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes.  But motives can matter.  The presence or absence of good faith can matter.  Bad faith can matter.

In the law, there is a Latin maxim: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo," which roughly translates to "Your motive gives the name to your act."  Why you do X is what gives rise to the X being good or bad.  

Why you do X can matter as much as the actual doing of X.

So in the presence of sincerity and good faith and good will, communications about difficult topics and proceed.  In the absence of sincerity and good faith and good will, such communications are difficult or impossible.  The well has been poisoned.  The deck has been stacked.

In surveying the substance of the CES letter, I do not detect sincerity or good faith or good will.  That assessment is buttressed by Mr. Runnells's other behavior.  This absurd theatrics at his disciplinary council.  His creation and maintaining a website advertising his book.  His translating the book into multiple languages.  His ongoing diatribes against the Church.

Mr. Runnells may have started with some measure of sincerity and good faith and good will, but he lost those things long ago.  They sure aren't in the CES Letter.  I have some doubts they ever were.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’ve said what I wanted to say. People who read the letter aren’t likely to care about his antics.