Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Quote

A lack of substance is one of the primary problems with the CES letter.

Not at all, IMO.  One can certainly disagree with his conclusions, but there have been many threads on here discussing it and no one has really been able to point to any errors of substance. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I've read it (years ago) and I also tried to read all of the back and forth between him and FairMormon (debunkings on both sides) and it became so ridiculously tedious (from both)  that I stopped reading them.

I've read it too.  I have also found it tedious.  Loaded questions abound.  Slanted questions.  Unfair characterizations.  Widespread refusal to engage and address substantive and meaningful scholarship on the issues.  Wholesale pretending that such scholarship and reasoned responses don't even exist.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I think he sincerely was honest in his search for answers and it evolved into the CES letter. 

Sincerity in origins?  Perhaps.

Sincerity in publishing his CES letter to the world?  Of course not.  It's a manifesto.  A why-I-left narrative.  An attempt to sow doubt and discord in the faith of others.  That's all it is.  That's all it ever has been since he published it.

His efforts to monetize it, and his theatrics at his disciplinary council further demonstrate the lack of good faith on his part.  

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I didn't like all he did during the time of his discipline hearing, but I've yet to see anyone really post any huge errors from the CES letter other than disagreement with his conclusions after he presented the information.

I don't think "huge errors" are needed.  Pervasive flaws in reasoning and analysis are more than sufficient.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Calm said:

The volume is what creates difficulty, it can turn a discussion into a whack a mole debate if the questioner isn't willing to invest any significant time into the discussion.

Agreed. I just don't think saying "it's all been answered satisfactorily" is helpful. I've seen a few attempts to respond line by line to the letter (my friend's response being just one), but the volume does present problems. Of course, the volume is a product of the number of problematic issues. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I would not have written the CES letter the way he did. I understand why he doesn't find apologetic answers "satisfactory" (obviously, I don't), but I don't question his motives. No need. A good friend of mine wrote a long response to the letter, which would have been much more effective had he not resorted to sarcastic sneering (I told him I thought that undermined his efforts, but he felt the letter merited the derision). And that's my issue with the focus on motives and "bad faith": the folks who are going to find the letter persuasive don't care much about Jeremy's motives. 

I think addressing bad faith is an important element of addressing the letter.  Most people pre-suppose good faith. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think addressing bad faith is an important element of addressing the letter.  Most people pre-suppose good faith. 

Again, "bad faith" is a rather subjective question. I think some apologetics is done in bad faith, but I prefer to deal with the substance, as discussing someone's motives serves to draw attention away from the issues, IMO. 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  

What did he state that was in error other than what you disagree with from one of his conclusions?

Please give an example as I've not seen anyone be able to do that (other than inconsequential errors that didn't substantially change the actual event or information regarding church history).

Edited August 28, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've read it too.  I have also found it tedious. 

I disagree regarding his original letter.  But I agree that once he engaged in the debate with FairMormon, it became extremely tedious from both sides.  IMO, it also became obvious there were really no glaring errors in the letter other than nit picky items that didn't change the substance of the letter or disagreements regarding the conclusions..

I felt the original letter was easy to read and listed the issues he had and questions regarding them in a very well written, orderly manner.  That's why it's been so effective, IMO.  It was a one stop reading for many searching for information and answers.  

Edited August 28, 2018 by ALarson

[phaedrus ut]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I find the part where he says he won't be reading the Book of Mormon any longer because it "isn't very well written" to be rather amusing. 

I don't usually think of comic book artists as being rigorous textual critics, but maybe this guy is the exception.  

 

Harold Bloom, having written 20 books on the subject,  is probably the greatest living literary critic.  He is a biblical scholar, and Shakespearean expert, and considers Joseph Smith to be a religious genius.  Regarding his opinion of  the Book of Mormon he wrote

Quote

I cannot recommend that the book be read either fully or closely, because it scarcely sustains such reading. Summaries of it are easily available, and I will not add another here. Instead I want to notes only those aspects of the book that survive the more spiritual speculations of Joseph Smith....the genesis of the Book of Mormon is not my concern (though I assume that magical trance-states were involved, so we can dismiss the literalism both of the golden plates and of conscious charlatanry). Like many another American of his generation, Smith had drowned in the Bible, and come from it in a state of near identification with the ancient Hebrews. And like many other Americans, Smith found the descent of the American Indians from the lost tribes of ISrael to be a plausible identity rather than a fantastic fiction. -Bloom, Harold. The American Religion, 1996, p.86

When I personally stopped looking at the Book of Mormon through the lens of faith and tried to examine it as a literary work or one of religious teaching I couldn't bear with the text any longer.  I personally study religion as a hobby and clearly by my participation here I still enjoy Mormon topics but any regard I once held for the BOM I now realize came from its symbolic meaning for my faith and not from the quality of the text. 

Phaedrus 

[smac97]

11 hours ago, ALarson said:

I disagree regarding his original letter. 

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  I'm fairly accustomed to addressing the sort of throw-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-at-'em approach that Runnells uses.  It's a fundamentally dishonest form of argument.

Quote

But I agree that once he engaged in the debate with FairMormon, it became extremely tedious from both sides.  IMO, it also became obvious there were really no glaring errors in the letter other than nit picky items that didn't change the substance of the letter or disagreements regarding the conclusions..

The absence of "glaring errors" is a matter of opinion, I suppose.  What makes an error "glaring?"  What about errors of omission?  What about selective use of data?  

Quote

I felt the original letter was easy to read and listed the issues he had and questions regarding them in a very well written, orderly manner. 

Yes, it was a good copy-and-paste job.  He culled a bunch of complaints and criticisms he found online, organized them, and framed them as "questions."

Quote

That's why it's been so effective, IMO.  It was a one stop reading for many searching for information and answers.  

In other words, it's a shortcut.  It is a replacement for rigorous, systematic, thoughtful research and effort (and yes, prayer, and pondering, and exercising faith).

Some years ago my brother-in-law was living with us while he attended BYU (studying film).  He came home late one evening to find me watching a movie in fast-forward (double speed, I believe), and with the subtitles on.  Our conversation went something like this:

• BIL: Hey, Spencer, could you . . . hey, what are you watching?
• Me: Citizen Kane.
• BIL: In fast-forward?
• Me: Yep.
• BIL: But you can't hear the dialogue.
• Me: Yeah.  That's why I have the subtitles on.
• BIL: You are watching one of the greatest films ever made.
• Me: Yeah, I've never seen it before, so I thought I'd give it a try.
• BIL: But you're not really watching it.
• Me: I'm tired, and I don't have time to watch it at regular speed.
• BIL: But you're not really watching it.
• Me: That's okay.  I'm getting the gist of it.  
• BIL: I don't think you are.  You're not really watching it.
• Me: I figured I could fill in the gaps by reading the plot summary for it that is on Wikipedia.
• BIL: You are watching one of the greatest films ever  made.  Using fast-forward, subtitles, and a Wikipedia summary?
• Me: Like I said, I'm tired.
• BIL: I have no words.  G'night.

To this day, my brother-in-law has perhaps not fully forgiven me.

In the end, he was right.  I wasn't really watching it.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess we'll have to disagree about that.  I'm fairly accustomed to addressing the sort of throw-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-at-'em approach that Runnells uses.  It's a fundamentally dishonest form of argument.

I disagree.  And his original letter listed his questions and issues in an orderly manner, IMO.  That's why it's been effective.  It was not just a hodgepodge thrown together, but was easy to read and follow.  Once again, that's why many members are reading it (and still discovering it from feedback I'm getting).  I believe he was being very honest regarding his issues and questions and conclusions.  He most likely at least hoped the CES director would respond....but he didn't.

And you still have not stated what you feel he got wrong with the information he presented.  Anything of substance other than disagreeing with his conclusions?

Edited August 28, 2018 by ALarson

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

For some very few things, yes.  If authority and revelation are needed, then yes.  But many of the issues raised by Mr. Runnells can be, and have been, extensively addressed through research and substantive data and sound reasoning.

For example, Runnells' questions about apparent anachronisms (question 5 on his list).  He makes no effort to meaningfully interact with substantive scholarship on these matters.  And I don't expect or require an answer from an "official source" on these issues, so the "I refuse to consider any effort to address this issue unless it is issued by the First Presidency"-style attitude comes across as a dodge, as an excuse to not engage substantive and meaningful research and analysis that just might mean that some of these issues are not as problematic as Mr. Runnells wants them to be. 

A few thoughts.

First, the book doesn't represent itself as something that engages with "substantive and meaningful" research of the apologists. Just because the book is a list of the issues he personally finds troubling rather than something that fully engages with your library of apologia doesn't mean that it is a bad book, much less that he is acting in bad faith.

Second, do you hold members to the same standard you do Runnells? For example, say I found out a family member was planning on being baptized, and was concerned about whether she understood what she was getting into. If she said she'd send me a letter of all of the reasons she was choosing to get baptized and that letter was commensurate to the CES letter, would you call her a disingenuous liar for not fully engaging with the substantive and meaningful research performed by critics?

Edited August 28, 2018 by Analytics

[Duncan]

Who is Ryan Ottley? I know of Jerald Ottley, former Mormon Tabernacle Choir Director or chorister

Edited August 28, 2018 by Duncan

[Exiled]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm fairly accustomed to addressing the sort of throw-everything-and-the-kitchen-sink-at-'em approach that Runnells uses.  It's a fundamentally dishonest form of argument.

If the questions are legitimate as in the case of Mr. Runnells letter, then the argument isn't dishonest.  Where are his questions dishonest?  Illegitimate?

[smac97]

So this story has been picked up by the Hollywood Reporter:

Quote

AUGUST 28, 2018 11:10am PT by Graeme McMillan
'Spider-Man' Comic Features Hidden Reference to Anti-Mormon Book

The Marvel superhero sports a patch for 'CES Letter,' a book described as exploring the "troubling origins, history, and practices" of the church.

In a move that echoes last year’s discovery of political propaganda in the pages of an X-Men comic book, it has been revealed that a recent issue of Marvel’s Amazing Spider-Man comic book features the hero wearing the logo of an anti-mormon movement on his costume.

The Amazing Spider-Man No. 4, released Aug. 22, features a scene in which Spider-Man ... appears sporting a number of logos as the result of new corporate sponsorship ... [including a reference to the] CES Letter, a book described as “one Latter-Day Saint's honest quest to get official answers from the LDS Church on its troubling origins, history, and practices.”

Ryan Ottley, the artist of the issue, confirmed the reference on Reddit in a now-deleted post — which was screenshotted and posted on a Mormon message board — describing it as “a little Easter egg.” (Although that post is deleted, the screenname checks out with a post identifying Ottley’s identity and occupation.)

Unlike the response to Ardian Syaf sneaking references to then-Jakartan governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama into the artwork for X-Men: Gold No. 1 last year — the issue was withdrawn from digital circulation, then reissued with edited art, and Syaf was dismissed by the publisher — Marvel has yet to react to the discovery of Ottley’s reference, even as commentary begins to appear online.

A Marvel spokesperson declined to comment.

A few thoughts:

1. The "Mormon message board" referenced in the article above is this board (and this very thread).  Pretty meta!

2. I wonder why Ottley deleted his Reddit post.

3. I am a little disconcerted at the calls for Ottley to lose his job about this.  While I think his "sneaking" reference was in poor taste, and while it may be that Marvel may not be too happy to see Spider-Man surreptitiously coopted by Ottley to speak against his former faith, I hope he doesn't lose his job over it.  

4. I wonder if this will gain any further attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

So this story has been picked up by the Hollywood Reporter:

A few thoughts:

1. The "Mormon message board" referenced in the article above is this board (and this very thread).  Pretty meta!

2. I wonder why Ottley deleted his Reddit post.

3. I am a little disconcerted at the calls for Ottley to lose his job about this.  While I think his "sneaking" reference was in poor taste, and while it may be that Marvel may not be too happy to see Spider-Man surreptitiously coopted by Ottley to speak against his former faith, I hope he doesn't lose his job over it.  

4. I wonder if this will gain any further attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

If nothing else, this suggests that this board has more reach than many people think. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

If the questions are legitimate

A big "if."

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?  Does merely adding a question mark to that statement make it "legitimate?"

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

as in the case of Mr. Runnells letter, then the argument isn't dishonest. 

I guess we will need to agree to disagree.  I am not afraid of, nor do I object to, reasoned and principled disagreements with or criticisms of my faith.  But the CES letter is not that.  Not even close.  It's just a mélange of complaints and criticisms culled from online sources and with a question mark added to the end of each one.  

It's not even an "argument."  There is no reasoning.  No effort to persuade.  No attempt to address the huge amount of scholarly and apologetic information that was readily available to him.  It's just a bashfest from start to finish.  

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Where are his questions dishonest?  Illegitimate?

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 

[juliann]

.

Edited August 28, 2018 by juliann

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If nothing else, this suggests that this board has more reach than many people think. 

I remain skeptical.

[phaedrus ut]

Should we be equally offended by the many pro-Mormon Easter eggs he hid in comics in his decades as believing Mormon? 

 

Phaedrus 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, phaedrus ut said:

Should we be equally offended by the many pro-Mormon Easter eggs he hid in comics in his decades as believing Mormon? 

That's it! Fire him already!

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

A few thoughts.

First, the book doesn't represent itself as something that engages with "substantive and meaningful" research of the apologists. 

Amen to that.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Just because the book is a list of the issues he personally finds troubling rather than something that fully engages with your library of apologia doesn't mean that it is a bad book, much less that he is acting in bad faith.

He is asking questions despite knowing that there are already answers to them.  That suggests bad faith.

He may disagree with those answers, but he does not engage them or explains why he disagrees.  That suggests bad faith.

A private letter to a CES director is very different from a letter published to the world.  He published the book not because he had "questions," but because he wanted to tear down the faith of other people.  That he nevertheless counched his complaints and criticisms as questions suggests bad faith.

He tried to turn his disciplinary council into a media circus.  That suggests bad faith.

I'm not sure if his attempt to monetize his letter indicates bad faith.  To me it does, but I can see other arguments about that.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Second, do you hold members to the same standard you do Runnells?

Yes.  I want members of the Church to be honest. 

I don't want them to act in bad faith. 

I don't want them to go about tearing down the faith of others. 

I don't want them to resort to lazy copy n' paste jobs culled from hostile websites and then try to pass off the resulting gripefest as something they created or arrived at through systematic, thoughtful research and effort.

And so on.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

For example, say I found out a family member was planning on being baptized, and was concerned about whether she understood what she was getting into. If she said she'd send me a letter of all of the reasons she was choosing to get baptized and that letter was commensurate to the CES letter, would you call her a disingenuous liar for not fully engaging with the substantive and meaningful research performed by critics?

First, I have not called Runnells "a disingenuous liar."

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).

Third, a private communication between family members (as per your hypothetical) is a radically different thing than a letter published to the world (as Runnells did).

Fourth, I would encourage a family member struggling with questions pertaining to faith to seek answers through study and prayer and pondering and research and candid discussions, and not resort to lazy, simplistic, "but what about..." grievances and complaints that have been cobbled together for the clear and intended purpose of tearing down and destroying faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A big "if."

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?  Does merely adding a question mark to that statement make it "legitimate?"

I guess we will need to agree to disagree.  I am not afraid of, nor do I object to, reasoned and principled disagreements with or criticisms of my faith.  But the CES letter is not that.  Not even close.  It's just a mélange of complaints and criticisms culled from online sources and with a question mark added to the end of each one.  

It's not even an "argument."  There is no reasoning.  No effort to persuade.  No attempt to address the huge amount of scholarly and apologetic information that was readily available to him.  It's just a bashfest from start to finish.  

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.

If it's so poorly put together, with no reasoning, no effort to persuade, and no attempt to address the scholarship, why do you suppose it's been so influential? Are members of the church that stupid that they would fall for such an amateurish bashfest?

The unspoken assumption seems to be that LDS scholarship provides good answers to many if not all of the issues Runnells addresses. Oh, if only that were true.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Should we be equally offended by the many pro-Mormon Easter eggs he hid in comics in his decades as believing Mormon? 

 

Phaedrus 

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

[jkwilliams]

3 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?

Really? The words "CES letter" are an attempt to denigrate and slander a religious group? Seems more like an inside joke than anything. How many members of the church would even know what he was talking about, assuming they even noticed it? 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Really? The words "CES letter" are an attempt to denigrate and slander a religious group?

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. 

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Seems more like an inside joke than anything.

Yes, we are all chuckling along with it.  🤨

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

How many members of the church would even know what he was talking about, assuming they even noticed 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?

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

23 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If nothing else, this suggests that this board has more reach than many people think. 

564 views.  Boom, baby:

 

This is why I've learned to not be so dead set on changing the mind of my arguing partners.  Whether they budge or not, a bunch of undecided folks wondering about the issue may be lurking.  I might help them form their conclusions.  It worked for me, I lurked and sought out criticisms of my church and faith, in order to figure out what I thought about everything.  

Edited August 29, 2018 by LoudmouthMormon