Scott Gordon--CES Letter: Proof or Propaganda

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I've never actually read the entire CES letter, but it put the nail in the coffin for at least one family member's testimony, so I've certainly seen its effects. 

Same here.

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So it's not surprising to see such a list of responses.  In fact, I find it heartening that apologists have not shrunk from the task and are willing to fight the good fight.  But, alas, I fear that all the arguments in the articles in that list are going to be mostly for naught (and not just because most people who read the CES letter are never going to read those articles).

I'm okay with that.  We'll refine what we've got and keep moving forward.

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The problem is that, I suspect, those articles don't actually show that anything the CES Letter says isn't true. 

Actually, FAIR points out quite a few things that it feels are "mistake{s}/error{s}" (33%) and "falsehood{s}" (11%), with the remainder being "spin" (40%) and "fact" (16%).

So we're not really dealing with black and white, binary, "true or false" types of things.  The vast majority of the letter deals with things that, metaphorically speaking (in terms of our understanding and perception), are various shades of "gray."

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Instead, I'd bet dollars to donuts that each of those articles is based on the proposition that what the CES Letter says is true,

Not really.  There are a lot of mistakes, errors, and "falsehoods."  

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

but that we shouldn't care that it's true (or in other words, if we just change the way we look at it, then it doesn't matter anymore).

Not at all.  I think that is a material distortion of the various replies.

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

In the end, while those arguments are not doubt well intended and verbosely presented, they just aren't going to have the needed effect. 

I think the results are mixed.  I'm okay with that.  We work with what we've got, and try to improve on it.  The same can be said of our missionary efforts.  Or marriage.  Or raising children.  We don't hit the bullseye every time, but that's hardly a reasonable measure of success.

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Instead of hundreds of pages of responses, I suspect the only actual response is this:

Yes, the stuff in the CES Letter is true. We're sorry we didn't tell you.  But there is also much more to the Church than that (as you probably know).  We (the Church) are asking you to have faith and believe in all of it.  The good, the bad and the unknown.

But I am curious to be proven wrong. 

Perhaps you should read the responses rather than guess as to their contents.

And no, this is not the "only actual response."  Not even close.

23 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Can anyone list four or five factual errors made in the current version of the CES Letter?  Not in matters of style or prose, but where Runnels simply got something wrong?

Again, we are dealing less with binary "fact v. lies" things, and much more with nuance (mistakes / errors / spin).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ahab]

Okay, I'm ready to vote now:  Propaganda.

And yes as we all know, I think, propaganda does have an element of truth in it even though the "tone" of it is usually offputting, as it is meant to be.

When I joined the Church "The God Makers" had just recently come out.  This CES Letter seems to be the same kind of thing now.

[clarkgoble]

Just now, Ahab said:

Okay, I'm ready to vote now:  Propaganda.

And yes as we all know, I think, propaganda does have an element of truth in it even though the "tone" of it is usually offputting, as it is meant to be.

When I joined the Church "The God Makers" had just recently come out.  This CES Letter seems to be the same kind of thing now.

Exactly. Satan loves to me truths in with lies to deceive people away from the truth. You find the same thing happening with vaccines, climate change, and so forth. People are human, all too human.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

I’ve only read it from discussions online.  I honestly don’t know if that’s right or just some people’s opinion?  

Before or after Scott's presentation (thank you for taking the time to explain, I am curious about the context)

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Before or after Scott's presentation (thank you for taking the time to explain, I am curious about the context)

It was before (maybe in a couple of discussion here even?).  Someone wondered why Jeremy started out with his weakest chapter and then a few others agreed and commented.

Do you want me to try to find it?

Edited August 20, 2019 by JulieM

[cinepro]

46 minutes ago, Ahab said:

When I joined the Church "The God Makers" had just recently come out.  This CES Letter seems to be the same kind of thing now.

The "CES Letter" is very different than "The God Makers." 

"The God Makers" was useful for keeping non-Mormons away from the Church.  It was mainly a product of the evangelical anti-Mormon movement to help stop people from learning about the LDS Church. 

I was young during its heyday, so someone who was older back then can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think "The God Makers" was very effective among people who were actually LDS and had experience in the Church.  It wasn't a lever for getting people to actually leave the Church.  Its hyperbole and falsehoods were easily seen by those who actually had experience with the Church.

The "CES Letter" is very different.  While I'm sure it's interesting to non-LDS, I doubt many would even understand what the heck he's talking about most the time.  You need a context of having spent a lot of time in correlated LDS classrooms, and the longer someone was a member and went to Sunday School and Seminary, the worse it is.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by cinepro

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It was before (maybe in a couple of discussion here even?).  Someone wondered why Jeremy started out with his weakest chapter and then a few others agreed and commented.

Do you want me to try to find it?

No, that explains the context nicely.  Thank you.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

When I joined the Church "The God Makers" had just recently come out.  This CES Letter seems to be the same kind of thing now.

No, they are not at all the "same kind of thing".  The God Makers is more comparable to the satanic ritual abuse crazy stuff.  The CES Letter is material that contains familiar topics but supplies new or additional information that many members are/were not aware of until they read it.

Edited August 20, 2019 by ALarson

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Actually, FAIR points out quite a few things that it feels are "mistake{s}/error{s}" (33%) and "falsehood{s}" (11%), with the remainder being "spin" (40%) and "fact" (16%).

So we're not really dealing with black and white, binary, "true or false" types of things.  The vast majority of the letter deals with things that, metaphorically speaking (in terms of our understanding and perception), are various shades of "gray."

 

If years from now the CES Letter has continued to be a thorn in the Church's side and people continue to read it and leave the Church, and you wonder why, after all these years, the apologetic responses still aren't mitigating the damage, I would suggest that this is the best explanation/ example as to why.

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Can anyone list four or five factual errors made in the current version of the CES Letter?  Not in matters of style or prose, but where Runnels simply got something wrong?

Well if there is such a high percentage of lies and errors in the letter (as some have posted), that should be simple to do.  We will see if you get any takers  

Edited August 20, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

If years from now the CES Letter has continued to be a thorn in the Church's side and people continue to read it and leave the Church, and you wonder why, after all these years, the apologetic responses still aren't mitigating the damage, I would suggest that this is the best explanation/ example as to why.

All things being equal, you might have a point.  But all things aren't equal.  The efficacy of "apologetic responses" depends on a large number of variables, which change with each individual.

I have family members who have left the Church over these issues, so the issue is not an abstract one to me.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well if there is such a high percentage of lies and errors in the letter (as some have posted), that should be simple to do.  We will see if you get any takers  

I barely glanced over Scott's presentation (saving this year's presentations for when I can focus), so I can't say for sure, but I got the impression there were errors listed there.  Are you saying it doesn't gave any actually listed?

Edited August 20, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, cinepro said:

The "CES Letter" is very different than "The God Makers." 

 

 

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

No, they are not at all the "same kind of thing".  The God Makers is more comparable to the satanic ritual abuse crazy stuff.  The CES Letter is material that contains familiar topics but supplies new or additional information that many members are/were not aware of until they read it.

 

I was referring to the "propaganda" kind of thing.  it is just more propaganda, misrepresentation of our/Church doctrine.

Nothing new to see here other than the same kind of propaganda that people have always put out when they don't correctly understand/interpret our/Church doctrine.

And anybody in the Church who is "surprised" by this kind of thing is likely someone who just hasn't been exposed to any propaganda from anyone anywhere about our/Church doctrine. Or maybe just not so much in one place.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well if there is such a high percentage of lies and errors in the letter (as some have posted), that should be simple to do.  We will see if you get any takers  

Sigh.

http://www.conflictofjustice.com/237-lies-in-ces-letter/

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sigh.

http://www.conflictofjustice.com/237-lies-in-ces-letter/

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry....I'm not seeing "lies".  Maybe disagreement or semantic disagreements.  Thanks though.

Here's an example of a "lie" from your source:

Quote

 CES Letter incorrectly claims “black individuals and families were blocked from the saving ordinances of the Temple.”

They were just delayed, along with many people who for one reason or another don’t get a chance in this lifetime to go through the temple

.

I was honestly more interested in hearing what you (or someone here) believes is an actual lie within the letter. 

ETA:

Wow that website you linked to is embarrassing....maybe you haven't read through it?

Here' are more examples:

 

Quote

CES Letter says Dunn was “caught lying about all his war and baseball stories.” But not all of his stories were exaggerated.

Quote

 I have not found evidence that “Members of the Church shared how they strongly felt the Spirit as they listened to Dunn’s testimony and stories.” There are testimonies from ex-members and quotes from members who seemed to really enjoy the stories, but I haven’t seen members say they specifically felt the Spirit from the stories.

Quote

 Knowing signs and tokens from a Youtube video doesn’t mean anything, just as swimming in water is not a baptism.

 

Edited August 20, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

I barely glanced over Scott's presentation (saving this year's presentations for when I can focus), so I can't say for sure, but I got the impression there were errors listed there.  Are you saying it doesn't gave any actually listed?

I saw that he pointed out some typos and incorrect scriptural references (along with some disagreement on the conclusions or Runnell's opinions).  But I'll try to go back through it again  👍

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's a fair question.

How 'bout you present Professor's Hamblin's response?  

I don't understand.  How is that a devolution?  Prof. Jenkins presupposed, but did not define, "evidence."  Are you suggesting that we ignore the meaning of the word that is central to Prof. Jenkins' inquiry?

Again, please provide Prof. Hamblin's response(s).

How 'bout we refrain from A) critiquing a response which you haven't posted by B) re-framing that response in a way that may substantially deviate from the response itself?

"In a good way?"  What does that mean?

Let me illustrate my point: As an attorney, I have participated in many depositions (taking a person's sworn testimony outside of court).  Generally speaking, there are huge numbers of questions that are potentially "objectionable" in a deposition.  To me, this illustrates the importance of evaluating the question itself (courts do this all the time).  However, in a deposition, the parties generally "reserve" all such objections (that is, the person objecting will not do so during the deposition, but will file a written objection later with the court).  This is done so that the deposition doesn't get constantly sidetracked. 

However, there are often two types of questions that are not "reserved," and which instead are almost always raised during the objection.  The first is "privileged communications," such as communications between the person being deposed and his attorney.  Such communications are inviolate, so if a question is asked that will elicit an answer that breaches the privilege, the attorney will need to immediately intervene, object, and instruct the deponent to not answer the question.

The second objection that comes up in depositions is "form of the question."  See here:

Again, the lawyer will (or should) object to the "form of the question" and instruct his client not to answer.  This is because the question itself is defective in some way, such that the response to it will likewise be defective or otherwise problematic.

You seem somewhat eager to blow off "form of the question"-type concerns.  I don't think that works here.  If the question is crappy, then there really isn't a good reason to answer it.

You seem to be implying that Prof. Hamblin was being evasive or dishonest in bringing up "form of the question"-type concerns.  I don't think that works here.  Prof. Jenkins asked for "evidence," and Prof. Hamblin asked him to clarify what he (Jenkins) defines as "evidence."  If that definition is problematic, then the two parties are not communicating well (as they may have different understandings about a key term, "evidence").

Happy to.  Let's contextualize things a bit.  Please present Jenkins' inquiry, and Hamblin's response.

Thanks,

-Smac

Here is the Jenkins/Hamblin debate

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm

Please answer Professor Jenkins request, if you can, and you might get some people to return.  Showing a real live example of archaeological evidence linking old world jerusalem circa 600 BC to the new world would be something indeed.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Exiled

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I saw that he pointed out some typos and incorrect scriptural references (along with some disagreement on the conclusions or Runnell's opinions).  But I'll try to go back through it again  👍

Sorry I am not doing it myself after doing the opening post....feel very lazy, but ongoing crisis with my mom for over a week now (I may venting about it in every thread by now, lol)...I feel like I shouldn't really commit my brain just in case she calls yet again (as I am getting to the point of losing my patience at times as I have not yet reconciled the latest changes in her with what was and if I feel interrupted, I can feel anger build and I have to take a moment to go to my peaceful place, etc. etc, I am growing up a lot these days, becoming so mature  ).

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sorry....I'm not seeing "lies". 

Quelle surprise!

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Maybe disagreement or semantic disagreements.  Thanks though.

That's what I've been saying.

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I was honestly more interested in hearing what you (or someone here) believes is an actual lie within the letter.  

Again, I'm the one that's been against a black-or-white, truth-or-lies approach to the CES Letter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Here is the Jenkins/Hamblin debate

No link.

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quelle surprise!

Read the examples given.  That site is awful and I'm surprised you'd use it as a source to be honest, smac.  (I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and hope you meant to link to another source?)

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's what I've been saying.

Oh, ok...no "lies".  Then we agree.  

 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I'm the one that's been against a black-or-white, truth-or-lies approach to the CES Letter.

Ok.  Got it 👍

Edited August 20, 2019 by ALarson

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sorry I am not doing it myself after doing the opening post....feel very lazy, but ongoing crisis with my mom for over a week now (I may venting about it in every thread by now, lol)...I feel like I shouldn't really commit my brain just in case she calls yet again (as I am getting to the point of losing my patience at times as I have not yet reconciled the latest changes in her with what was and if I feel interrupted, I can feel anger build and I have to take a moment to go to my peaceful place, etc. etc, I am growing up a lot these days, becoming so mature  ).

I'm so sorry to hear about your Mom.  I understand the frustration and I'm sure you're worried about her as well.  I hope she's doing better now.....

No worries about the OP article.  I am going to try to read through it some more tonight if I get a chance and will post what I see.  

[Exiled]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No link.

I edited it to put in the link

[Exiled]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No link.

While you are reviewing Hamblin/Jenkins, please let me know what your legal objections would be to Mr. Runnells' questions. Assuming he provided a foundation for his various questions, what would be the objection? 

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Here is the Jenkins/Hamblin debate

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/j/p/jpj1/debating.htm

Please answer Professor Jenkins request,

I don't understand.  What has changed since the Jenkins/Hamblin exchange?  Has Jenkins improved at all on the following query?

Quote

“Can anyone cite any single credible fact, object, site, or inscription from the New World that supports any one story found in the Book of Mormon? One sherd of pottery? One tool of bronze or iron? One carved stone? One piece of genetic data? And by credible, I mean drawn from a reputable scholarly study, an academic book or refereed journal, not some cranky piece of pseudo-science.”

One of Hamblin's responses:

Quote

My friend and colleague John Gee presents a timely observation on the difficulties of drawing conclusions from the absence of archaeological data.

http://fornspollfira.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-archaeology-of-council-of-nicaea.html

I should note that there is far more epigraphic evidence from Nicaea than there is for allof Preclassic Mesoamerica (= period of the Book of Mormon).

Well?  Is Gee wrong?

16 minutes ago, Exiled said:

if you can, and you might get some people to return. 

I don't understand.  Have Hamblin's points been addressed?  Or is it incumbent upon us to let the critics call the tune, and our duty is to hop to and dance to it?

Jenkins states (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/06/25/jenkins-rejoinder-5-persian-version/)

Quote

"Briefly, he believes that Ancient Book of Mormon Studies (ABMS) is a real academic discipline, and I don’t."

Shouldn't such vastly disparate perspectives be explored a bit?  Jenkins seems to be stacking the deck here, as he doesn't even recognoze ABMS as "a real academic disclipline."  Who says so?  Jenkins.  So who just unilaterally set himself up, a priori, as the arbiter of what does and does not constitute scholarship (and, presumably, "evidence") for the Book of Mormon?  Jenkins.  He gets to present the question, and he gets to frame the parameters for the only acceptable answer to that question.  Is this reasonable in your view?

Hamblin states (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/06/27/hamblin-17-the-debate-thus-far/)

Quote

 

A parody of the debate thus far:

J: Show me evidence for the Book of Mormon!

H: I think we first need to discuss questions of presuppositions, methodology and epistemology in order to understand what would constitute evidence and how it can be interpreted properly.

J: No!  Show me evidence for the Book of Mormon!  Now!

H: Well, there’s lots of evidence and analysis presented in books and articles by LDS scholars.  Like Sorenson’s Mormon’s Codex.  Will you read them?

J: No!  All Mormon “scholars” are cranks and hacks!  I refuse to read anything they have to say!  Show me evidence for the Book of Mormon!  Now!
H: Well, I’m a Mormon scholars; if you won’t read books or articles from Mormon scholars why should I think you’d accept what I have to say?

J: You’re stalling!  There is no evidence for the Book of Mormon or you’d show it to me.

H: Well, I pointed to evidence in Sorenson’s Mormon’s Codex.

J:  That book is by a Mormon.  I want evidence, not pseudo-scientific crap!

H: Alright, you asked for examples of Nephite pottery; Before we can deal with that issue, we need to try to understand what pottery can and can’t tell us about the past.

J: No!  You’ve shown me no evidence!  I’ve won!

H: Sigh.

 

Hamblin is using humor to make a salient pint.  Do you think he is wrong?  If so, how?

Hamblin goes on to challenge Jenkins presuppositions about the quantity of evidence (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/06/27/hamblin-18-quantity-of-evidence/😞

Quote

Jenkins has repeated asserted that, since there is ample historical evidence in the ancient Near East, one should expect to find similar quantities of evidence in the New World.  Therefore, by analogy, we should expect ample evidence for the era of the Book of Mormon.

Alas, he is seriously misinformed.

For the ancient Near East we have literally hundreds of thousands of inscriptions and written texts.  Contrast this with the New World, where there the inscriptions number in the hundreds, perhaps a couple thousand.  Note there is probably several thousands times as much textual evidence from the ancient Near East as there is for the entire New World.  And that, of course, ignores manuscript evidence such as the Bible, Jewish texts, Greek and Roman books, Egyptian papyri, etc.

When we look at the New World, we find perhaps several thousand written texts that survive from the Classic period (c. 200-1000 CE).  Most are royal inscriptions and brief texts on royal ritual pottery.  The vast majority date to the middle and Late Classic.  There are no surviving books from this period.  There are about a dozen codices from the Late Post-Classic period (1000-1600 CE).

But the Book of Mormon deals almost entirely with the Preclassic period (c 1800 BCE -200 CE).  During that period there are perhaps a few dozen inscriptions.  No books.  The inscriptions are nearly all short, often marginally legible, fragmentary, and often can’t be read because of script and language issues.

I maintain that the only thing that could securely establish the historicity of Book of Mormon peoples would be written texts containing BOM personal names or place names.  No other type of evidence would be conclusive.  The problem is, there is insufficient data to undertake such a comparison.  Furthermore, the personal and place names in Mesoamerican texts tend to be emblem glyphs (symbolic representations) rather than phonetic texts.  Perhaps a half a dozen place names are known from Preclassic texts.  The phonetic reading of almost all of these is unknown.

Is Hamblin correct here?  Is Jenkins uninformed?  Are his expectations re: New World Preclassic "evidence" unrealistic?  Even wildly so?

Or are you, like Jenkins, insisting that we bulldoze past such basic concepts and start dancin' to the critic's unilaterally-selected tune?

Hamblin even explains why he is calling for some epistemological ground rules (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/06/27/hamblin-19-why-methodology/😞

Quote

In his #11, Jenkins asks:

Quote

Why would that [importance of a methodological discussion] be? We are both grown ups, we are both published historians, we know these issues extremely well. I have lived with these issues for forty-plus years, and I am guessing that your track record is similar. We are not trying to run a senior history seminar for undergraduates.

First, Methodology is important because other people are reading this besides you and me.  

Second, it is important because I’ve had this type of debate before, and it usually has devolved into epistemological and methodological impasse.  

I think Hamblin has a point.  Shoot, I'm a total neophyte about Mesoamerica, and even I can see what's coming from a mile away: an "epistemological and methodological impasse."

Hamblin goes on:

Quote

Third, because things you have said indicate that we are not on the same page on the methodological questions.  For example, you ask for Nephite pottery.  My answer is that pottery alone–without either art or text–can tell us precisely nothing of the ethnicity, political status, culture, language, or religion of the people who made the pot, or the people who used the pot (which can be two different groups).  Your request for “Nephite pottery” seems extremely naive.  

Is Hamblin correct?  Is Jenkins' call for "Nephite pottery" "extremely naive?"  If not, why not?

16 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Showing a real live example of archaeological evidence linking old world jerusalem circa 600 BC to the new world would be something indeed.

Hamblin goes on to address - again - problems with Jenkins' expectations and presuppositions (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmaticmirror/2015/06/27/hamblin-18-why-no-inscriptions/😞

Quote

In his #12, Jenkins asks:

Um, exactly. So if the great Book of Mormon civilization is there, why is it not producing hundreds and thousands more inscriptions, in Hebrew, Reformed Egyptian, etc? It sort of suggests that civilization isn’t there, right?

Again, alas, methodological naiveté.  

First, to say: “why isn’t there more evidence?” is a silly question.  First, the evidence is what it is.  It is not what you think it should be, nor what you wish it might be.  

Second, ancient Israel left almost no inscriptions; why should you assume the Nephites were fanatic inscription-writers.  It’s not prominent in the BOM.  

Third, sparsity of inscriptions in the norm in ancient times, not the exception.  The Near East is unique in all the world for its vast number of surviving ancient inscriptions.  

Fourth, is the question of writing material and preservation.  The earliest Preclassic inscriptions in Mesoamerica seem to have been 1-painted rather than inscribed, or 2- carved in wood.  Neither of these survive well in Mesoamerican ecology.  All Classic inscriptions were originally painted, but nearly all the paint is lost.  Thus, there could have been–and probably were–hundreds of texts painted on rocks or wood, but they are almost all lost.  (e.g. see the San Bartolo site).

Jenkins is making an unsubstantiated assumption.  “If there were Nephites, they would have left lots of inscriptions.”  The reality is, most ancient peoples, even most ancient peoples in the Near East, left no inscriptional evidence of their existence.

Hamblin makes some pretty solid points here.  Is he wrong?  Is Jenkins' question "silly?"  Are Jenkins' expections re: quantity of New World inscriptions naive and uninformed and unrealistic?

And on and on and on.

One big challenge here is your taunt: "Please answer Professor Jenkins request, if you can, and you might get some people to return."  It demonstrates the asymmetry of the situation.  Latter-day Saints obviously want our brothers and sisters "to return."  But the terms of such a reconciliation cannot be based on arbitrary and ham-fisted criteria.  But that is what you are doing here.  "Prove ______________ in the Church's history/doctrine (or disprove it) to my sole and unimpeachable and arbitrary standard, or else I'm outta here!" is manipulative.  That's not how the search for truth works.

Thanks,

-Smac