Scott Gordon--CES Letter: Proof or Propaganda

[Duncan]

17 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It still doesn’t change the fact that what Jeremy stated is the truth.  Members take note that he was right.  

And “another” Hill Cumorah is speculation, not fact.

When members are shaken and want answers, it’s the facts they want, imo.

 

Runnells is stating the truth? about what per se?key word is speculation but I wonder if Runnells presents things as speculation or established fact and probably why leaders of the Church stay away from definitive statements, I heard a phrase years ago, "if you live by the sword of archaeology you can die by the sword of archaeology" just because it isn't found today doesn't mean it won't be found tomorrow or doesn't mean you have it interpreted right and I doubt Runnells is an expert of interpretation of found items.

[Kevin Christensen]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, he's still right    Also, it's not wrong to ask about archaeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in NY.  That's where most of us were taught the battles took place that were recorded in the Book of Mormon.  I know others have different theories now, but none of those have been proven yet.

And that's how members think (for the most part).

A great deal of the membership still believe that the Hill Cumorah is in New York and this is where much of the history recorded took place.  They believe this statement (and others from our leaders about this):

 

So if competing theories are not proven, then the question should be which is best?   And how do we measure best?  By appeals to Office or Tradition or the power of competing explanations to best account for the most details?   Am I better off by polling LDS pop culture or should I "seek out of the best books words of wisdom"?  If only there was some authoritative scriptural guidance on that point...

And do Mormon and Moroni count as leadership?  Do their eye-witness words count, or not?  It's easy to find quotes about the New York Cumorah by McConkie and his Father-In-Law Joseph Fielding Smith, and people requoting them, but not so easy to find any of them accounting for what Mormon and Moroni provided.  By an amazing coincidence, those who pay the closest attention to Mormon and Moroni also happen to have the most interesting correlations with the Book of Mormon text. 

https://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/2008-Larry-Poulsen.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited August 20, 2019 by Kevin Christensen

[ALarson]

Just now, Duncan said:

Runnells is stating the truth? 

Is it true that there is no archaeological evidence that has been found in the area of the Hill Cumorah in New York?

(Yes or no....that's what members want to know.  Not, "Yes...but....but....there might be another HIll Cumorah and there maybe could be evidence found there in the future", and so on....).

Now, does Runnells give ALL the facts or speculation surrounding this topic?  No.

But then members complained that a lot of facts were left out of the church essays too.  It's normal procedure on both sides to do this, IMO.  That's why each member needs to take what they read and then dig in and do their own research so they can come to their own conclusions.

[Duncan]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, he's still right    Also, it's not wrong to ask about archaeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in NY.  Many of were taught that is where the battles took place that were recorded in the Book of Mormon.  I know others have different theories now, but none of those have been proven yet.  Even the church leaders have no official opinion on where it all took place.  So of course, it's a valid question, IMO.

And that's how members think (for the most part).

A great deal of the membership still believe that the Hill Cumorah is in New York and this is where much of the history recorded took place.  They believe this statement (and others from our leaders about this):

 

I wonder how Elder McConkie knew that? he served his mission in that area and probably was brought up in that tradition but he may be right or wrong. I wonder what Elder McConkie's opinion was when "An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon" came out in 1984 that suggested it was somewhere in Mexico

[stemelbow]

29 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

He says nothing about these specific Mesoamerican items.

https://www.shields-research.org/General/SEHA/SEHA_Newsletter_122-2.PDF

Do they count as evidence?  And how about Mormon's Codex or Gardner's Second Witness?  Anything?  Does he not claim that investigators deserve to have all of the information on the table before they make a faith decision?  Why does he not mention them?

The CES Letter contains the questions, concerns, and criticisms he's had.  I think that satisfies just fine why he does not mention things he doesn't seem interested or concerned about.  I think most people, who have decided the BOM is not what it claims to be, see all the efforts to fortify the BoM in sum as weak evidence at best.  The concerns and criticisms outweigh any positive gains by the items you mention.  

29 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

He misstates Sorenson's argument about horses.

And there is this stuff that came out after the CES Letter.

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/how-an-incredible-new-archeological-discovery-corroborates-the-book-of-mormon/

How does Runnells account for it?

Just saying.  He's not particularly careful or knowledgeable.  In responding to me, through his buddy, he claimed my essay was 168 pages (it isn't that long), apparently confusing the comment count at Interpreter with the page count.   They claimed I had used the word brittle 17 times, apparently by searching the website, but not checking the instances individually for context to see that twelve of the "brittle" instances came in the comments.   This sort of conclusion jumping characterizes his work.  As does a lack of self reflection.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

The thing is about the CES letter any point raised are quibbling points.  The arguments for and against often go on forever.  I think in the sum though the CES letter remains an effective tool largely because the issues raised are issues that often blind side members who encounter them.  he hasn't had to do much to defend himself, although I think he has to some extent, because most of the issues raised have tons of support on the critics side since these issues have been out there already.  he just sits back and points out that FAIR largely has agreed with many of his points and that's being proven enough.  

[smac97]

On 8/20/2019 at 7:50 AM, ALarson said:

That was my reaction as well.   However, I'd already spent years researching and reading about most of these topics.

But unfortunately, it is "new" for many members who read it for the first time.

And Julie has done an excellent job here of laying out how most of their thought processes are from there.  They are left reeling and wanting answers and hope someone can prove that the letter is filled with lies.  And it's not.

I personally do not care for how Runnells has conducted himself throughout this entire thing, but I will not personally attack him.  I try to discuss the contents of the letter (if I discuss it at all).  I do believe that in the very beginning, Jeremy was earnestly searching for answers just as most members do when they learn about some of the more troubling issues.

Two items from literature come to mind when I think of the CES Letter.

The first is that the CES Letter is like the Palantir from The Lord of the Rings, as explained here:

Quote

Okay, the first time Pippin looks in the Palantir and Sauron sees him. Sauron draws the conclusion from that, he sees a Hobbit in the Palantir. He knows that the Palantir belongs to Saruman. He concludes that the Hobbit is the ring bearer and that Saruman has the ring. What he sees is true, the conclusion he draws from it is wrong. The next thing is of course, that Sauron sees Aragorn in the {Orthanc} stone. He concludes from it, that Saruman had the {Orthanc} stone and the Hobbit and the ring. Aragorn now has the {Orthanc} stone so he must have the Hobbit and the ring. That is why Sauron strikes early, he makes a preemptive strike. Once again, what he says is true, but he draws from it the wrong conclusion.

Every time anyone looks in the Palantir, what they see is true and from it they draw the wrong conclusion. Why did Saruman give up and decide to ally himself with Sauron? Because he saw in the Palantir, the preparations that Sauron was making and he concluded wrongly. That there was no possibility of resistance.  But the most decisive example I think, of looking in the Palantir and getting the wrong answer, is surely Denethor.
...
What has he seen? He seen Frodo in the hands apparently of Sauron. Once again then, Denethor has looked in the Palantir, has seen something, which actually is happening on that particular day. But he has drawn from it the wrong conclusion, and he then gives way to despair and to suicide.

And here:

Quote

A consultant for the "Lord of the Rings" movies discussed the differences between the trilogy and the books on which the films are based during a presentation Wednesday night.

T.A. Shippey, who was described as an "inspiration to young medievalist" by Randi Eldevik, associate professor of English, gave a presentation titled "Palantirs and Providence: Tolkien's Books and Jackson's Movies."
...
Shippey said one of the main differences he noticed between the books and the movies dealt with the use of a palantir, a device similar to a crystal ball.

"It seems to be in the book palantirs are used four times," Shippey said.

Shippey said that in the books, when characters look into a palantir, they draw the wrong conclusions.

"The moral of this is don't look in the damn thing," Shippey said.

In the films, the Palantiri showed something "real" to different characters (Sauron, Saruman, Denethor, Aragorn), but then encouraged them to draw the wrong conclusions about what they had seen.

So it is, I think, with the CES Letter.

The second item that comes to mind is a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series.  A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey.  Here's a character summary:

Quote

Shift's greed served as his primary motivation. His actions to satisfy his greed increased his vileness over time. From lying to his "friend" Puzzle, he moved to manipulating the other talking animals of Narnia. In the end he had no problem murdering them and selling them into slavery to increase his own wealth and power.

As Shift's actions became increasingly evil, he also became increasingly human in his appearance and in the way he presented himself. He donned human clothing and explained that he was not an ape, and that if he appeared as one, it was only because he was "so very old: hundreds and hundreds of years old."

Shift gained the power to pursue these actions by tricking Puzzle into impersonating Aslan, the true ruler of Narnia, using his claimed humanity as 'evidence' of his great wisdom to justify how he was the only one who could speak to Aslan.

Shift's scheme is summed up this way:

Quote

Shift, a Narnian ape, had been conspiring with the Tisroc, planning the overthrow of Narnia, for a long time. One day, as he was walking by Cauldron Pool with his friend Puzzle, they found the skin of a dumb lion who had been killed by a hunter in the Western Wild. Shift, ignoring Puzzle's protests, sewed the skin into a "fine new winter coat" for Puzzle, as he said. Gradually, he persuaded the donkey that Aslan wanted him to dress up in the lion skin so that Shift could use the Lion's authority to "put everything right" in Narnia. Although Puzzle was hesitant, he knew that Shift was far cleverer than himself and thought that the ape must know what Aslan would want, so he agreed.

...

Shift used the animals' firm faith in and longing for Aslan's return to facilitate his rise to power. He allowed Puzzle in the lion's skin to be sighted by several animals to start rumors, and then presented him openly to all the beasts...

The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme.  They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further:

Quote

Rishda Tarkaan dragged the Ape up close to the fire. The pair of them turned to face the crowd, and this of course meant that their backs were towards Tirian and his friends.

"Now, Monkey," said Rishda Tarkaan in a low voice. "Say the words that wiser heads have put into thy mouth. And hold up thy head." As he spoke he gave the Ape a little prod or kick from behind with the point of his toe.

"Do leave me alone," muttered Shift. But he sat up straighter and began, in a louder voice——

"Now listen, all of you. A terrible thing has happened. A wicked thing. The wickedest thing that ever was done in Narnia. And Aslan ... is very angry about it."

There was a terrible silence while the Beasts waited to hear what new trouble was in store for them. The little party by the end-wall of the stable also held their breath. What on earth was coming now?

"Yes," said the Ape. "At this very moment, when the Terrible One himself is among us—there in the stable just behind me—one wicked Beast has chosen to do what you'd think no one would dare to do even if He were a thousand miles away. It has dressed itself up in a lionskin and is wandering about in these very woods pretending to be Aslan."

Jill wondered for a moment if the Ape had gone mad. Was he going to tell the whole truth? A roar of horror and rage went up from the Beasts. "Grrr!" came the growls, "Who is he? Where is he? Just let me get my teeth into him!"

"It was seen last night," screamed the Ape, "but it got away. It's a donkey! A common, miserable a$s! If any of you see that a$s——"

"Grrr!" growled the Beasts. "We will, we will. He'd better keep out of our way."

The heroes of the story respond this way:

Quote

Jill looked at the King: his mouth was open and his face was full of horror. And then she understood the devilish cunning of the enemies' plan. By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger. What was the good, now, of telling the Beasts that an a$s had been dressed up as a lion to deceive them? The Ape would only say, "That's just what I've said." What was the good of showing them Puzzle in his lionskin? They would only tear him in pieces. "That's taken the wind out of our sails," whispered Eustace. "The ground is taken from under our feet," said Tirian.

"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 in the CES Letter.  As Robert F. Smith put it (speaking of the authors of the CES Letter (written, or more accurately, compiled, by Jeremy Runnells, and a later derivative copycat, A Letter to My Wife, written by someone named "Zachary"): "Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive."

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 the 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."

As you can tell, I don't think much of the CES Letter.  I am open to reasoned and reasonable criticism of our faith.  We have put ourselves out there, in the public sphere.  Our claims can and should be subject to real scrutiny.  As Pres. J. Reuben Clark so aptly put it: "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

But we don't get much in the way of "investigation" in the CES Letter.  The "concerns" and "questions" in it are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium.  Many are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions/concerns designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information.  They are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions" or "concerns."  His "questions" are, I think, obviously not the product of meaningful and rigorous study, but are instead just a cobbled-together list of complaints and criticisms he found online (or which he received from others whom he solicited online).

Virtually everything Runnells presents has been addressed over and over and over.  It is one thing to disagree with those responses, but it is manifestly bad faith to pretend as if they don't exist, and to refuse to meaningfully interact with them at all.

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.

The advice about the Palantir (see above) is aptly applied to the CES Letter: "The moral of this is don't look in the da{r}n thing."  And if you do, don't just uncritically accept it and the conclusions you are supposed to draw from it.  Give these matters some real time and study and effort.  Seek out input from people other than Jeremy Runnells.  Give the Church and its members an opportunity and fair hearing to respond.

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..."  (Ephesians 4:14).

"And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart.  For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it.  Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven.  These should then be attended to with great earnestness."  (D&C 123:11-14).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 26, 2020 by smac97

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

The problem is (as Julie has shown here with her example), he does present facts.  One can argue he doesn't give ALL the information, but neither do apologists with their replies....that is normal to do, IMO.

And what lies has he told?  (In the content of the letter...)

If his conclusions are his honest conclusions, you can disagree with him....but he's not lying.

Once again, that's why it is so important to take facts that are presented and then do your own study and research and praying.  Each member needs to come to their OWN conclusions and not depend on Runnell's (or anyone's) other than just take them into account and still form their own.  However, Runnells has made it easy to just read about most all the issues in one publication and many members don't dig in and read deeper.  The answers they get from their leaders don't answer many of their doubts and questions either.

We deal with this as a Bishopric a lot.  There is hardly a month that goes by that a member doesn't come in who has read the CES Letter for the first time.  We've had entire families leave over it or see splits in families because of it.  Scott is very right about the pain and damage it's causing.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by ALarson

[Kevin Christensen]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The CES Letter contains the questions, concerns, and criticisms he's had.  I think that satisfies just fine why he does not mention things he doesn't seem interested or concerned about.  I think most people, who have decided the BOM is not what it claims to be, see all the efforts to fortify the BoM in sum as weak evidence at best.  The concerns and criticisms outweigh any positive gains by the items you mention.  

The thing is about the CES letter any point raised are quibbling points.  The arguments for and against often go on forever.  I think in the sum though the CES letter remains an effective tool largely because the issues raised are issues that often blind side members who encounter them.  he hasn't had to do much to defend himself, although I think he has to some extent, because most of the issues raised have tons of support on the critics side since these issues have been out there already.  he just sits back and points out that FAIR largely has agreed with many of his points and that's being proven enough.  

It is one thing to claim "that FAIR largely agreed with many of his points," and another thing to demonstrate it.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/File:Chart_CES_Letter_summary061018.png

Trump has lots of fans and supporters.  He labels his critics as "Fake News."  But anyone who cares to check can find the 12,000 + falsehoods, misrepresentations, and lies.  Who we choose to follow and why also demonstrates something about us.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[provoman]

I think Daniel Peterson and @smac97 have done a good job at summing up the "evidence" for both sides.

As I understand it, Daniel Peterson wrote a piece that was published wherein, I believe, he essentially said it is a act of faith whether for or against.

And I believe @smac97 posted a few months ago about "balance of evidence" or something like that - as I recall - smac stated he finds the balance of evidence in favor of the truthfulness of the Gospel as taught in the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

 

[JulieM]

56 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Runnells is stating the truth? about what per se?key word is speculation ...

The truth is that he’s right that no evidence has been found around the hill in NY.

Speculation is all we have about a second Hill Cumorah (unless there’s more now and I would read that if you know a source!).

Edited August 20, 2019 by JulieM

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, he's still right    Also, it's not wrong to ask about archaeological evidence around the Hill Cumorah in NY.  Many of were taught that is where the battles took place that were recorded in the Book of Mormon.  I know others have different theories now, but none of those have been proven yet.  Even the church leaders have no official opinion on where it all took place.  So of course, it's a valid question, IMO.

And that's how members think (for the most part).

A great deal of the membership still believe that the Hill Cumorah is in New York and this is where much of the history recorded took place.  They believe this statement (and others from our leaders about this):

 

Agree with this, where is the revelation about this? Have the early leaders asked God to identify where the battles took place? Especially when in the D&C there are revelations given for far less. And I hear the BoM is still undergoing changes to add to the nearly 4000 changes of the most correct book? 

Jeremy started out with sincere questions, and all of us have been down that road I'm thinking when we research and come upon something to make us ask them, and think we get the answer, and then find out it's not all complete. That's what's happened to him. 

The problem as you well know, speaking to everyone here, is people find out things they'd never known, and has been the problem from the start.

I feel or actually heard it said that the CES letter is why the Gospel Topic Essays were put out, or also things found on the internet. I believe it was the church historian Elder Snow that mentioned it.

I'm sure the church is kicking itself for not getting ahead of all of this. The CES letter will continue to sweep throughout the land, people are falling like flies. It only took me down the road when I fell upon learning about JS's specific polygamy. Another thing is Elder Snow, mentioned that they didn't really want to announce the Gospel Topic Essays right out, but it was slowly put out. 

 

[churchistrue]

My comment on this presentation:

 

Scott Gordon presented on the CES Letter at the FairMormon conference last week.

He got emotional and choked up while talking about the effectiveness of this document as an “anti-Mormon” proselyting tool and the gravity of the CES Letter’s impact on the LDS world. Many families have been broken up and many people have had their lives disrupted. I share that emotion. I love this church, and I don’t like to see the number of people leaving it.

Scott spends part of the presentation describing generally the CES Letter and then spends a large amount of time going point by point for the first chapter of the CES Letter, showing that it is poor researched, sloppy, full of lies and half truths.
By doing so, I think Scott completely misses why the CES Letter is so compelling and so effective in deconstructing a traditional LDS belief set.

Yes, the CES Letter is a little sloppy. Yes, it includes a few inaccuracies and many “half-truths”. Yes, it includes all the bad and none of the good regarding evidences that support LDS truth claims. All of that is true. But it’s at least 70% accurate. And that 70% is a whopper for most LDS.

Next to me, of course (https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/), Patrick Mason has given the best insight into how to process the CES Letter while retaining an LDS testimony.
He said the CES Letter does a very good job attacking what he calls an unsustainable view of Mormonism. He then talks about how we have overfilled our “truth cart” and need to empty some of it. He believes there is a sustainable version of Mormonism that will come out on top. The CES Letter is effective in terms of identifying what needs to be tossed and what can stay.

I don’t think Scott Gordon’s defense of the CES Letter is effective, because I didn’t hear him acknowledge that point or encourage those struggling with doubt to shift their paradigm or adopt a more humble view of our doctrine and truth claims. His approach seems to be to just simply write it all off and defend the traditional narrative, with the overflowing truth cart, stuffing it back in as it keeps falling out.

Book of Abraham problems. Polygamy problems. Priesthood ban. Book of Mormon translation issues. Conflict in First Vision accounts. Details lacking in the priesthood restoration narrative. Old Testament Documentary Hypothesis. New Testament textual criticism. Evolution of doctrine in the restoration (and anciently).

None of these are simple problems. Every single one is a land mine ready to explode a traditional/literal/fundamentalistic testimony. The CES Letter is extremely effective at pointing this out. The process goes like this:

1. Many LDS have a simple, white-washed, historically indefensible view on the issue. Usually the view includes a perspective that God is involved in a way that’s 100% certain, in a fundamentalistic, inerrant manner. 
2. The CES Letter blows away this view. (and imo, rightly so)
3. The faith struggler then has three options. 
a. Combat the new information to settle back into the initial perspective, or a slightly nuanced version that’s essentially the same. But basically retaining the notion that God is involved in a way that’s nearly 100% certain and inerrant. 
b. Accept the new information and come to believe the Church is not “true” and either leave or try to stay in a state that’s very uncomfortable.
c. Accept the new information and reprocess the view of the Church into a version that’s less certain and more humanistic and built on true faith. This new view may not retain beliefs such that LDS is the one and only exclusively true church. But it does retain beliefs that God is in this Church in some way, and that it’s worthy of us devoting ourselves to.

I have a hunch that Scott Gordon and most of FairMormon would agree with me on this. But it’s very scary to say directly, considering that this more humanistic more epistemologically humble perspective is not the one taught over the pulpit at General Conference or on Sundays in our wards. It’s much easier to snipe around the borders of the CES Letter without really taking it on.

[Duncan]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

The truth is that he’s right that no evidence has been found around the hill in NY.

Speculation is all we have about a second Hill Cumorah (unless there’s more now and I would read that if you know a source!).

no evidence for a mass battle yes but not for where the plates were! there is that Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon by Sorensen, i'm sure there is something in there!

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

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

The problem is (as Julie has shown here with her example), he does present facts. 

With the intent to deceive, yes.  That's what Shift did.  

Quote

One can argue he doesn't give ALL the information, but neither do apologists with their replies....that is normal to do, IMO.

And why lies has he told?  

If his conclusions are his honest conclusions, you can disagree with him....but he's not lying.

That's the beauty of framing his rhetoric as questions.

Am I "lying" if I ask you if you have stopped beating your wife yet?  Or is the question itself deceitful and misleading?

Was the CES Letter really written to a CES Director?  Or was it cobbled together by Jeremy Runnells, who went online and solicited input from critics and dissidents of the Church?  Does acting in good faith matter, or not?

Was the CES Letter a sincere attempt to learn and gain information?  Or is it instead intended to sow seeds of doubt and fear and anger amongst the members of the Church?  Again, does speaking in good faith matter, or not?

Did Runnells interact with and take into account any of the huge amounts of scholarship about the various issues he raises in the CES Letter?  If not, why not?  And if not, why did he not disclose that to his readers?  Why does he work so hard to create an impression that there are "no answers" to his "questions?"  Again, does speaking in good faith matter, or not?

Quote

Once again, that's why it is so important to take facts that are presented and then do your own study and research and praying. 

I agree.  Alas, I don't think most of the readers of the CES Letter have done that.  The situation is like college students who read the plot summary of an assigned book on Wikipedia, rather than the book itself.

Quote

Each member needs to come to their OWN conclusions and not depend on Runnell's (or anyone's) other than just take them into account and still form their own.  However, Runnells has made it easy to just read about most all the issues in one publication and many members don't dig in and read deeper. 

Agreed.

Quote

The answers they get from their leaders don't answer many of their doubts and questions either.

Alas, that's rather a foreseeable consequence when someone revuses to "dig in and read deeper."

I've been on this board for fifteen years.  I was on ZLMB for several years before that.  I have a hard time remembering the last time I encountered a controversy about the Church that I haven't encountered many times before.  There is plenty of room for members of the Church to study the doctrines and history of the Church and come away with a testimony that is stronger and more informed, and also more humbled and awed at this great work. 

Quote

We deal with this as a Bishopric a lot.  There is hardly a month that goes by that a member doesn't come in who has read the CES Letter for the first time.  We've had entire families leave over it or see splits in families because of it.  Scott is very right about the pain and damage it's causing.

Sadly, yes.  I have been surprised at the willingness of some long-time members of the Church to uncritically accept the CES Letter as evidence against the Church's claims, and also at the corollary lack of willingness by these members to actually and substantively dig into these matters from a perspective of faith.

I've also been surprised at the abruptness involved in some members' decision to leave the Church.  I am reminded of Richard Dutcher's explanation of his thought processes that led to his loss of faith:

Quote

When Richard Dutcher wrote the screenplay for his dark drama "Falling" in 1999, he hadn't started shooting his landmark LDS missionary film "God's Army," and he was a devoted member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When Dutcher finally filmed the movie in 2007 — around the same time he was filming "States of Grace," the quasi-sequel to "God's Army" — he wasn't a Mormon anymore.

"In a very real sense, the writer was a very different person than the director was," Dutcher, 47, said in an interview this week. "The director was no longer a believer, but the script writer had been."

Dutcher isn't the only LDS artist who has found his Mormon faith at odds with his artistic expression, but the story of how he went from devotion to doubt is more jarring than most.

"I've talked to a lot of people, in Mormonism and outside of Mormonism and other religions, who have had this kind of cataclysmic experience, and usually it's a very gradual thing where people begin to question, and they have an erosion of faith over time," Dutcher said.

"For me, it was kind of instantaneous."

...

Dutcher pressed ahead, though, with plans to write and direct what he envisioned would be a Mormon epic: "The Prophet," a biography of LDS Church founder Joseph Smith.

That's when his life changed.

"The filmmaking process, up to that point, had kind of informed my spiritual life, and my spiritual life had informed my filmmaking," he said. "Then what I found was the filmmaking itself led me to an entirely new and unexpected place."

In researching the life of Smith for his film, Dutcher said, "one day, I just simply asked myself the question, 'What if it simply isn't true?' " In a faith where adherents often begin their testimony with "I know this church is true," that question carries enormous weight.

"My own brain, something from the deepest part of me, said, 'Of course it isn't true.' After that, the whole house of cards fell," Dutcher said. "In a very real sense, in the time span of one minute, I went from being a true believer to being a complete nonbeliever. It was actually quite terrifying."

Holy cow.  He threw away a life of faith over one question?  He went from "a true believer" to "a complete nonbeliever" in "the time span of one minute?"  What is the world happened there?

I've also been surprised at the secrecy involved in some members' decision to leave the Church.  That is, the individual (or couple) apparently goes through a faith crisis silently, without seeking help or input, goes through a faith "transition" (which can be "abrupt" for some, or quite lengthy for others), and then they announce their departure and resolve (and sometimes even an unwillingness to discuss or reconsider the matter).  I think we need to continue to look for ways to help people going through such things.  They are not alone, but they feel alone.  They are isolating themselves, or else we as a community are isolating them, or making them feel that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 20, 2019 by smac97

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

My comment on this presentation:

 

Scott Gordon presented on the CES Letter at the FairMormon conference last week.

He got emotional and choked up while talking about the effectiveness of this document as an “anti-Mormon” proselyting tool and the gravity of the CES Letter’s impact on the LDS world. Many families have been broken up and many people have had their lives disrupted. I share that emotion. I love this church, and I don’t like to see the number of people leaving it.

Scott spends part of the presentation describing generally the CES Letter and then spends a large amount of time going point by point for the first chapter of the CES Letter, showing that it is poor researched, sloppy, full of lies and half truths.
By doing so, I think Scott completely misses why the CES Letter is so compelling and so effective in deconstructing a traditional LDS belief set.

Yes, the CES Letter is a little sloppy. Yes, it includes a few inaccuracies and many “half-truths”. Yes, it includes all the bad and none of the good regarding evidences that support LDS truth claims. All of that is true. But it’s at least 70% accurate. And that 70% is a whopper for most LDS.

Next to me, of course (https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/), Patrick Mason has given the best insight into how to process the CES Letter while retaining an LDS testimony.
He said the CES Letter does a very good job attacking what he calls an unsustainable view of Mormonism. He then talks about how we have overfilled our “truth cart” and need to empty some of it. He believes there is a sustainable version of Mormonism that will come out on top. The CES Letter is effective in terms of identifying what needs to be tossed and what can stay.

I don’t think Scott Gordon’s defense of the CES Letter is effective, because I didn’t hear him acknowledge that point or encourage those struggling with doubt to shift their paradigm or adopt a more humble view of our doctrine and truth claims. His approach seems to be to just simply write it all off and defend the traditional narrative, with the overflowing truth cart, stuffing it back in as it keeps falling out.

Book of Abraham problems. Polygamy problems. Priesthood ban. Book of Mormon translation issues. Conflict in First Vision accounts. Details lacking in the priesthood restoration narrative. Old Testament Documentary Hypothesis. New Testament textual criticism. Evolution of doctrine in the restoration (and anciently).

None of these are simple problems. Every single one is a land mine ready to explode a traditional/literal/fundamentalistic testimony. The CES Letter is extremely effective at pointing this out. The process goes like this:

1. Many LDS have a simple, white-washed, historically indefensible view on the issue. Usually the view includes a perspective that God is involved in a way that’s 100% certain, in a fundamentalistic, inerrant manner. 
2. The CES Letter blows away this view. (and imo, rightly so)
3. The faith struggler then has three options. 
a. Combat the new information to settle back into the initial perspective, or a slightly nuanced version that’s essentially the same. But basically retaining the notion that God is involved in a way that’s nearly 100% certain and inerrant. 
b. Accept the new information and come to believe the Church is not “true” and either leave or try to stay in a state that’s very uncomfortable.
c. Accept the new information and reprocess the view of the Church into a version that’s less certain and more humanistic and built on true faith. This new view may not retain beliefs such that LDS is the one and only exclusively true church. But it does retain beliefs that God is in this Church in some way, and that it’s worthy of us devoting ourselves to.

I have a hunch that Scott Gordon and most of FairMormon would agree with me on this. But it’s very scary to say directly, considering that this more humanistic more epistemologically humble perspective is not the one taught over the pulpit at General Conference or on Sundays in our wards. It’s much easier to snipe around the borders of the CES Letter without really taking it on.

Excellent commentary.  

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

My comment on this presentation:

 

Scott Gordon presented on the CES Letter at the FairMormon conference last week.

He got emotional and choked up while talking about the effectiveness of this document as an “anti-Mormon” proselyting tool and the gravity of the CES Letter’s impact on the LDS world. Many families have been broken up and many people have had their lives disrupted. I share that emotion. I love this church, and I don’t like to see the number of people leaving it.

Scott spends part of the presentation describing generally the CES Letter and then spends a large amount of time going point by point for the first chapter of the CES Letter, showing that it is poor researched, sloppy, full of lies and half truths.
By doing so, I think Scott completely misses why the CES Letter is so compelling and so effective in deconstructing a traditional LDS belief set.

Yes, the CES Letter is a little sloppy. Yes, it includes a few inaccuracies and many “half-truths”. Yes, it includes all the bad and none of the good regarding evidences that support LDS truth claims. All of that is true. But it’s at least 70% accurate. And that 70% is a whopper for most LDS.

Next to me, of course (https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/), Patrick Mason has given the best insight into how to process the CES Letter while retaining an LDS testimony.
He said the CES Letter does a very good job attacking what he calls an unsustainable view of Mormonism. He then talks about how we have overfilled our “truth cart” and need to empty some of it. He believes there is a sustainable version of Mormonism that will come out on top. The CES Letter is effective in terms of identifying what needs to be tossed and what can stay.

I don’t think Scott Gordon’s defense of the CES Letter is effective, because I didn’t hear him acknowledge that point or encourage those struggling with doubt to shift their paradigm or adopt a more humble view of our doctrine and truth claims. His approach seems to be to just simply write it all off and defend the traditional narrative, with the overflowing truth cart, stuffing it back in as it keeps falling out.

Book of Abraham problems. Polygamy problems. Priesthood ban. Book of Mormon translation issues. Conflict in First Vision accounts. Details lacking in the priesthood restoration narrative. Old Testament Documentary Hypothesis. New Testament textual criticism. Evolution of doctrine in the restoration (and anciently).

None of these are simple problems. Every single one is a land mine ready to explode a traditional/literal/fundamentalistic testimony. The CES Letter is extremely effective at pointing this out. The process goes like this:

1. Many LDS have a simple, white-washed, historically indefensible view on the issue. Usually the view includes a perspective that God is involved in a way that’s 100% certain, in a fundamentalistic, inerrant manner. 
2. The CES Letter blows away this view. (and imo, rightly so)
3. The faith struggler then has three options. 
a. Combat the new information to settle back into the initial perspective, or a slightly nuanced version that’s essentially the same. But basically retaining the notion that God is involved in a way that’s nearly 100% certain and inerrant. 
b. Accept the new information and come to believe the Church is not “true” and either leave or try to stay in a state that’s very uncomfortable.
c. Accept the new information and reprocess the view of the Church into a version that’s less certain and more humanistic and built on true faith. This new view may not retain beliefs such that LDS is the one and only exclusively true church. But it does retain beliefs that God is in this Church in some way, and that it’s worthy of us devoting ourselves to.

I have a hunch that Scott Gordon and most of FairMormon would agree with me on this. But it’s very scary to say directly, considering that this more humanistic more epistemologically humble perspective is not the one taught over the pulpit at General Conference or on Sundays in our wards. It’s much easier to snipe around the borders of the CES Letter without really taking it on.

This in a nutshell. And a new one to me, the problem with many discounting the Bible as being truth. If that falls where does it leave the church? 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With the intent to deceive, yes. 

They are still facts.  That's what the members who read it discover.  That's why this letter is so effective and so damaging.

We could go into what Runnell's "intent" is....I don't believe it is to "deceive" since he believes what he writes....but, I do believe he did not expect any good answers by the time he wrote the letter and his intent was to expose what he believed to others.

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's the beauty of framing his rhetoric as questions.

Am I "lying" if I ask you if you have stopped beating your wife yet?  Or is the question itself deceitful and misleading?

That's not a good comparison, IMO.  

I do believe it's fair of him to ask questions like the one being discussed....is there any archaeological evidence that has been found, etc.

That's a question many members want to know the answer to along with many others he asks, IMO.  

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With the intent to deceive, yes.  That's what Shift did.  

You don't know his intent.  His intent is to point out after all his questions and concerns he concluded the Church is not what it claims to be.  There's no ill-intent there.  

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's the beauty of framing his rhetoric as questions.

Am I "lying" if I ask you if you have stopped beating your wife yet?  Or is the question itself deceitful and misleading?

Was the CES Letter really written to a CES Director?  Or was it cobbled together by Jeremy Runnells, who went online and solicited input from critics and dissidents of the Church?  Does acting in good faith matter, or not?

Why is it not both?  If he had a question it's likely he at some point googled something about it.  If he had that question and googled about it and found input from critics that pertained to his question, why can't he also pose the question, or reframe it and pose it to a CES director?  Why does it feel like your whole complaint about the CES Letter is to conclude he has ill-intent?  

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Was the CES Letter a sincere attempt to learn and gain information?  Or is it instead intended to sow seeds of doubt and fear and anger amongst the members of the Church?  Again, does speaking in good faith matter, or not?

If after all is said and done he concluded that the Church is not what it claims to be then you need not attribute ill-intent here because it can be both.  he can solicit that his questions and concerns as posed demonstrate why he has concluded the Church is nto what it claims to be and solicit his points in order to convince others of the same.  That's not ill-intent.  You are trying to spin this as you exposing his intent.  I don't think you are being fair in trying to define his intent.  

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Did Runnells interact with and take into account any of the huge amounts of scholarship about the various issues he raises in the CES Letter?  If not, why not?  And if not, why did he not disclose that to his readers?  Why does he work so hard to create an impression that there are "no answers" to his "questions?"  Again, does speaking in good faith matter, or not?

I believe his point is made here from the Letter:

"FairMormon and these unofficial apologists have done more to destroy my testimony than any “anti-Mormon” source ever could. I find their version of Mormonism to be alien and foreign to the Chapel Mormonism that I grew up in attending Church, seminary, reading scriptures, General Conferences, EFY, Church history tour, mission, and BYU. It frustrates me that apologists use so many words in their attempts to redefine words and their meanings. Their pet theories, claims, and philosophies of men mingled with scripture are not only contradictory to the scriptures and Church teachings I learned through correlated Mormonism...they're truly bizarre."

His point is the arguments he found that addressed his questions from apologists tend to speak as though the religion he grew up in was not true.  

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  Alas, I don't think most of the readers of the CES Letter have done that.  The situation is like college students who read the plot summary of an assigned book on Wikipedia, rather than the book itself.

Agreed.

Alas, that's rather a foreseeable consequence when someone revuses to "dig in and read deeper."

I've been on this board for fifteen years.  I was on ZLMB for several years before that.  I have a hard time remembering the last time I encountered a controversy about the Church that I haven't encountered many times before.  There is plenty of room for members of the Church to study the doctrines and history of the Church and come away with a testimony that is stronger and more informed, and also more humbled and awed at this great work. 

Sadly, yes.  I have been surprised at the willingness of some long-time members of the Church to uncritically accept the CES Letter as evidence against the Church's claims, and also at the corollary lack of willingness by these members to actually and substantively dig into these matters from a perspective of faith.

I've also been surprised at the abruptness and secrecy involved in some members' decision to leave the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm not a fan of the CES Letter.  I don't know that there's anything in it that can't be dealt with to some extent or another.  I think the dealing with can raise issue and suspicion itself, though.  I don't think trying to put him in a ill-intent space is helpful or in any sense an attempted address of the issues raised.  

 

[Tacenda]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

I've also been surprised at the secrecy involved in some members' decision to leave the Church.  That is, the individual (or couple) apparently goes through a faith crisis silently, without seeking help or input, goes through a faith "transition" (which can be "abrupt" for some, or quite lengthy for others), and then they announce their departure and resolve (and sometimes even an unwillingness to discuss or reconsider the matter).  I think we need to continue to look for ways to help people going through such things.  They are not alone, but they feel alone.  They are isolating themselves, or else we as a community are isolating them, or making them feel that way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for this, as a person that went or still going through this, your acknowledgement is help in itself. I hope the church isn't afraid of the people that doubt for fear we are contagious. Maybe you could be a help to those in your ward/stake etc. 

When my husband and I moved fairly recently, I did what many on this board told me to do, I went to the bishop and told him of my battle, and asked to be put in a calling that helped serve others. Well he left me high and dry. He's never called to see how things are going etc. Just as the bishop in my former ward. They are scared of people like me. Even though I'm far from scary. Never was outspoken about my belief problems, kept it all to myself, felt like I was in the Twilight Zone. The only reason I came out to my former bishop was because I'd been called to teach, and it was the D&C year and wasn't prepared to testify in my lessons.

[Kevin Christensen]

It's not "at least  70% accurate."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/File:Chart_CES_Letter_summary061018.png

Notice that the chart has 11% falsehoods, 33% mistakes and errors, 40% spin, and 15% fact.  And FAIR is very very careful to document everything, point for point.  Runnells is not careful, nor self reflective.  Paul explained that when he was a man, he put away childish things.  He did not complain that someone had broken his childish things, and that is all ever wanted to play with, and if he couldn't have things stay the way there were when he thought as a child, he'd just leave.  The way I personally realized the notion that the "that LDS is the one and only exclusively true church" is false is by noticing that D&C 1:30 says something very different, something much more tolerant and robust.  I realized that notion churchistrue cites comes not from LDS scripture, but from human development, and is therefore not an exclusively LDS issue but a human issue, and is therefore not something that can be solved all at once for everyone by institutional fiat, but can only fully addressed by individuals as a natural part of human development. 

James Thurber has a little fable that concludes, "You may as well fall flat on your face as to lean over too far backwards."

Smac refers to something important that I did not deal with in my essays.  Runnells falsifies his own history.  Steve Smoot has the documentation for that.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With the intent to deceive, yes. 

I disagree that was Jeremy’s intent.  He believes what is in his letter.  I doubt he ever thought it would be read by so many or have the attention it has had.  I do think he wants others to learn what he believes is the truth.  But that’s not having intentions to “deceive” if he believes what he’s sharing.

[Kevin Christensen]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This in a nutshell. And a new one to me, the problem with many discounting the Bible as being truth. If that falls where does it leave the church? 

Rather than building one's faith as a chain, where a single link failure can lead to catastrophe, I build mine as a rope of many strands, no one strand depending on the existence of others for its own integrity, no single strand essential, and many strands providing greater strength when woven together.

http://oneclimbs.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/model_of_experience.pdf

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

It's not "at least  70% accurate."

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/File:Chart_CES_Letter_summary061018.png

Notice that the chart has 11% falsehoods, 33% mistakes and errors, 40% spin, and 15% fact.  And FAIR is very very careful to document everything, point for point.  

 

I can't find where FAIR has shown us how they categorized something as say "falsehood" and something else as "spin"?  

I suppose what we might learn is the Jeremy has considered a pool of say 100 claims in the CES Letter that he finds important.  He perhaps finds that after FAIR"S response that FAIR seems to agree with 70 of those claims.  But it might be that FAIR has considered 1,000 claims in the CES Letter and found that only 15% of those can be considered fact.  But it might be that the large percent of spin is opinion and not a fact consideration for Jeremy.  How do we possibly compare the two if the two aren't telling us how they determined what was a claim worth putting a percentage to?  

[Kevin Christensen]

Steve Smoot did a little research on the how the CES letter came to be, that, as it turns out, is not as the CES letter represented itself.

Quote

Jeremy can boast more than one epistle in his corpus. In October 2012 he wrote the so-called “Open Letter to Elder Quinten L. Cook.” This letter drips with sarcasm as he blatantly mocks Elder Cook’s General Conference talk from that month. This is more than 3 years ago, and it is quite clear where he stands. (I’ll wait while you go ahead and read it.)

 

A month later, on November 15, 2012, he openly stated, “I’m [born-in-the-covenant], [returned missionary], Temple Married who left the church a few months ago (haven’t resigned yet).”

 

So, at this point Jeremy had already left the church. Although he hadn’t formally resigned, he indicated that he intended to at some future point (“yet”). Not only that, but in the same message he stated, “I have a [true believing Mormon] wife who still takes kids to church. I want to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism so they won’t have to go through what I went through.” Not only does he already consider himself as “out” of the Church, he is trying to lead others—namely, his wife and children—out of the Church as well.

 

Forgive me if this does not look much like a sincere person just looking for answers. Mind you, all of this was before he even wrote the CES Letter. You see, his mind was already made up when his grandfather asked him “to speak to his CES Director friend, about [his] concerns.” So what did he do? He drafted the CES Letter, then asked a bunch of ex-Mormons online for “feedback/advice.” He even sent them a second draft, asking again, “Let me know what you guys think before I send.”

https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2016/02/ces-letter-author-jeremy-runnells-to.html

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Steve Smoot did a little research on the how the CES letter came to be, that, as it turns out, is not as the CES letter represented itself.

I think most of us can figure out that by the time Runnell's wrote the CES Letter, he was no longer expecting answers.

But members really don't seem to care much about that point when they actually read the letter.  It's impact and success doesn't depend on what led up to him writing it (other than it may be of interest how it got the title...and I do believe Runnells sincerely was searching for answers at one point which members can identify with).

As I've already posted....I'm not in favor of getting into personally attacking Runnells, however, I do disagree with much of what he's done.

Edited August 20, 2019 by ALarson