Has Anyone Read This? Thoughts on “The Light and Truth Letter”

[Devobah]

https://www.lightandtruthletter.org/letter
 

From what I have learned (I haven’t read it yet) this is a personal endeavor from someone who left the church and then returned. The letter, from my understanding, isn’t a debunking of the CES Letter, but more a reflection on their spiritual journey and trying to answer the more modern concerns with the church. 

[The Nehor]

I found the LGBTQ+ part a bit confusing.

The writer refers to the community as LGB, LGBQ, LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQ+. In one case even used LBG which I suspect is less about wanting to switch the order of prominence and (deservedly) put bisexuals before gay people and is just a typo. Why all these different designations? At fight I thought it was the sources he was quoting but checked them and that didn’t seem to make sense. Taking the T out is basically a political statement these days and makes a lot of us see red. I got lambasted for using LGB once and I was only doing it because I was talking about history and that was the name back then. I don’t think LGBQ is used much at all. Also the Q includes the T (and every other letter) so it is such a weird designation if that was deliberately chosen.

I don’t find the research cited as comforting as the writer does.

 

Also this bit from the introduction seems sweet but the more I thought about it the creepier it got:

“My wife’s reaction surprised me; she did not panic or get defensive. Instead, she told me how excited she was for me. I thought I was leaving the Church, but she reframed what I was feeling as the start of a journey. Then she made me a promise: If I could find more light and truth outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she would follow me. And she meant it.”

Yikes.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I found the LGBTQ+ part a bit confusing.

The writer refers to the community as LGB, LGBQ, LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTQ+. In one case even used LBG which I suspect is less about wanting to switch the order of prominence and (deservedly) put bisexuals before gay people and is just a typo. Why all these different designations? At fight I thought it was the sources he was quoting but checked them and that didn’t seem to make sense. Taking the T out is basically a political statement these days and makes a lot of us see red. I got lambasted for using LGB once and I was only doing it because I was talking about history and that was the name back then. I don’t think LGBQ is used much at all. Also the Q includes the T (and every other letter) so it is such a weird designation if that was deliberately chosen.

I don’t find the research cited as comforting as the writer does.

 

Also this bit from the introduction seems sweet but the more I thought about it the creepier it got:

“My wife’s reaction surprised me; she did not panic or get defensive. Instead, she told me how excited she was for me. I thought I was leaving the Church, but she reframed what I was feeling as the start of a journey. Then she made me a promise: If I could find more light and truth outside the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she would follow me. And she meant it.”

Yikes.

His wife, Tikla, is probably the most amazing of the awesome "Women of Ward Radio".

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Devobah said:

isn’t a debunking of the CES Letter

That is probably a good idea because several people have already invested massive time into do that and well, imo (not all did it well but enough did to not need more repeats imo).

[Calm]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

don’t find the research cited as comforting as the writer does.

They probably, from the quick look I took, should differentiate between correlation and causation.  Married women may be happier than single women because depressed women are less likely to date, get married or have kids.  Too much effort required for one thing.  Same thing with attendance.  People may not be attending because they are depressed or anxious, not less depressed/anxious because they attend.  Etc

My observations here are comments on the science, not religion.  I personally do believe there are protective aspects to the Church and to marriage, at the very least the social companionship.  And things that can’t be scientifically demonstrated, such as the presence of God.  That doesn’t mean any study showing positives proves these beliefs of mine, I don’t believe we should allow our assumptions to drive interpretation of data.

Edited March 12 by Calm

[Dario_M]

I also find it kinda confusing. Stopt reading. 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I also find it kinda confusing. Stopt reading. 

It helps if you are familiar with the criticism out there in detail.  It feels, imo, like you are only getting half of the conversation.  Or maybe even less, like he is just giving you the middle of a conversation.

[Dario_M]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

It helps if you are familiar with the criticism out there in detail.  It feels, imo, like you are only getting half of the conversation.  Or maybe even less, like he is just giving you the middle of a conversation.

Yeah exactly. That's a bit how it feels for me you know. It feels like i only see just a half of the conversation. 

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Devobah said:

https://www.lightandtruthletter.org/letter
 

From what I have learned (I haven’t read it yet) this is a personal endeavor from someone who left the church and then returned. The letter, from my understanding, isn’t a debunking of the CES Letter, but more a reflection on their spiritual journey and trying to answer the more modern concerns with the church. 

Bill Reel and RFM have a multi part podcast that rips this to shreds. It was not a great apologetic.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Bill Reel and RFM have a multi part podcast that rips this to shreds. It was not a great apologetic.

I honestly don't remember, but did they find the CES letter a good argument against the church?

 

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I honestly don't remember, but did they find the CES letter a good argument against the church?

 

I do not recall them ever discussing the CES letter but my guess is they think it covers the criticisms relatively well.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do not recall them ever discussing the CES letter but my guess is they think it covers the criticisms relatively well.

I'm just wondering if they were as critical of the CES letter as the rebuttal.  I've not read either in whole but from what I've read of the CES letter (and the response to it by believing members), it was not seen as good criticisms either.

When someone rips them both apart, then I'll be more likely to believe their assessment I guess.  When the side that agrees with the letter (either letter) finds it amazing and the side that disagrees thinks it's a joke, I just see bias on display and nothing of real substance.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I'm just wondering if they were as critical of the CES letter as the rebuttal.  I've not read either in whole but from what I've read of the CES letter (and the response to it by believing members), it was not seen as good criticisms either.

When someone rips them both apart, then I'll be more likely to believe their assessment I guess.  When the side that agrees with the letter (either letter) finds it amazing and the side that disagrees thinks it's a joke, I just see bias on display and nothing of real substance.

Sure I do not disagree. Again, I do not recall them addressing the CES letter directly and my assumption is speculation. And I may have said it hear before but when I first took a look at the CES letter, and it was many years ago and I know Runnells has revised it more than once since, so it was likely the first version, I was not impressed and all. I found it poorly written and the most the criticisms not well addressed and a number I found nitpicky.  And I have noted that to Dehlin more than once many years ago because he seems to think it is a devastating critique, as do many who have left the church. But I am not among them.

[Kevin Christensen]

I haven't had time do a complete read, but my overall impression is good, sincere, and reasonably well informed, providing a range of very good sources and thoughts and not at all shy about letting the opposition speak via direct quotation.  It is more of a personal journey than a direct response to things like the CES letter, though as I say, he does show that he made serious inquiries, considerably more serious and telling, IMHO, than those demonstrated by the likes of Runnells and Reel.  Indeed, Reel once interviewed me on the topic of Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets, though clearly, it did not take.  It's much easier to control the answer if you subjectively decide based on what you would do and think and want if you were God, because, it stands to reason, "Who could possibly suggest that God might do or say anything that I could not endorse?"   It's not a stance that demonstrates that one is humble and teachable.   Asking whether there is real evidence that Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon are inspired, based on the Biblical Keys and standard methods for testing history and scripture, is a very different thing than asking whether they measure up to my preconceptions and desires  The difference just happens to come in the personal sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit.  This sacrifice cannot by made by those who suppose that "It stands to reason that God, if there is such a being, would endorse my preconceptions and pander to my desires.  I most certainly would not hold my notions if they were not the correct ones!"

Isaiah 55, I notice, had a different view.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, for a few more weeks.  Then Tooele.

Edited Thursday at 12:17 PM by Kevin Christensen
Typo

[Devobah]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm just wondering if they were as critical of the CES letter as the rebuttal.  I've not read either in whole but from what I've read of the CES letter (and the response to it by believing members), it was not seen as good criticisms either.

When someone rips them both apart, then I'll be more likely to believe their assessment I guess.  When the side that agrees with the letter (either letter) finds it amazing and the side that disagrees thinks it's a joke, I just see bias on display and nothing of real substance.

One of the better Youtube channels I've found recently is called Mormonism With The Murph. He's a member who has decided to remain in the church and does many interviews on those from both sides of the argument. He's got plenty of good videos going over the various things within the church. Murph is kind and generous to his guests no matter what they believe about the church, its doctrines or the culture. He kind of reminds me of what John Dehlin meant to do early on, except with more of the focus on the scholarly rather than just regular member stories. The comments are the comments and a bit of a war zone, but it's good dialogue.

[Kevin Christensen]

With respect to You Tube Mormonism, I have to say in dabbling here and there over the past few years, the bulk of it pro faith and against faith, strikes me as what I call "the Bimbo-ization of scholarship."   It is surface, no substance, all posture and labels and attitude, no genuine inquiry, all about getting clicks and gaining followers, and not about seriously pursuing knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.  I am forcefully reminded of Nibley's talk from the 1950s, in the wake of McCarthyism, "Victoriosa Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else" available in Nibley's The Ancient State (a brilliant title that crams three distinct meanings into three words.)  It's about demonstrating to a target group that we are "In," and others are so out as to not merit serious engagement. 

There are good sources out there.  FAIR LDS has got a notably good library.  I listen to FAIR Conference talks with every expectation of learning something new, from the perspective of specialist insight.  I like what Robert Boylan tries to do.   But Sturgeon's Law definitely applies.  Popular is not the same as worth your time.  I prefer to seek out of the best books words of wisdom.  

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited Friday at 08:20 PM by Kevin Christensen
removed word, corrected another

[Devobah]

3 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

With respect to You Tube Mormonism, I have to say in dabbling here and there over the past few years, the bulk of it pro faith and against faith, strikes me as what I call "the Bimbo-ization of scholarship."   It is surface, no substance, all posture and labels and attitude, no genuine inquiry, all about getting clicks and gaining followers, and not about seriously pursuing knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.  I am forcefully reminded of Nibley's talk from the 1950s, in the wake of McCarthyism, "Victoriosa Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else" available in Nibley's The Ancient State (a brilliant title that crams three distinct meanings into three words.  It's about demonstrating to a target group they we are "In," and others are so out as to not merit serious engagement. 

There are good sources out there.  FAIR LDS has got a notably good library.  I listen to FAIR Conference talks with every expectation of learning something new, from the perspective of insightful specialist insight.  I like what Robert Boylan tries to do.   But Sturgeon's Law definitely applies.  Popular is not the same as worth your time.  I prefer to seek out of the best books words of wisdom.  

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I don't disagree at all. I can see where you might see that with my comment on Murph's approach to interview scholars. Videos offer good formats, but there are some drawbacks. I taught a class on this last quarter to my Sophomores. A lot had the opinion that videos are better in every way, but the truth is even videos have their weaknesses in what they try to do.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

The Light and Truth Letter is well worth the read. It is broad and sweeping, covering nearly every possible criticism and controversy of any significance. The author, Austin Fife, is a great guy. I have met him and spent some real time with him. His wife is an amazing woman, very articulate, and kind. For what it's worth, I think most of the critics' responses to the Letter are essentially as follows: "Austin Fife didn't have a real faith crisis--after all, there's no way he'd ever come back if he knew what we know." 🙄

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

With respect to You Tube Mormonism, I have to say in dabbling here and there over the past few years, the bulk of it pro faith and against faith, strikes me as what I call "the Bimbo-ization of scholarship."   It is surface, no substance, all posture and labels and attitude, no genuine inquiry, all about getting clicks and gaining followers, and not about seriously pursuing knowledge of things as they are, as they were, and as they are to come.  I am forcefully reminded of Nibley's talk from the 1950s, in the wake of McCarthyism, "Victoriosa Loquacitas: The Rise of Rhetoric and the Decline of Everything Else" available in Nibley's The Ancient State (a brilliant title that crams three distinct meanings into three words.  It's about demonstrating to a target group they we are "In," and others are so out as to not merit serious engagement. 

There are good sources out there.  FAIR LDS has got a notably good library.  I listen to FAIR Conference talks with every expectation of learning something new, from the perspective of insightful specialist insight.  I like what Robert Boylan tries to do.   But Sturgeon's Law definitely applies.  Popular is not the same as worth your time.  I prefer to seek out of the best books words of wisdom.  

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

A thousand times this.

About 95% of LDS and anti-LDS videos make me roll my eyes and realize I can’t trust the speaker at all within five minutes.

[Devobah]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

A thousand times this.

About 95% of LDS and anti-LDS videos make me roll my eyes and realize I can’t trust the speaker at all within five minutes.

Out of curiosity, what videos make up that 5% to you?

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/11/2025 at 3:13 PM, The Nehor said:

I found the LGBTQ+ part a bit confusing.

....................... Taking the T out is basically a political statement these days and makes a lot of us see red. ...................

A chief executive delivering a long report to an assembly recently left the T in, but that didn't mollify the hostile elements.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/12/2025 at 2:38 PM, Kevin Christensen said:

.......................

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

........................

Sounds like an alien intelligence to me.  It will be very interesting to experience that directly in the sweet bye and bye.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 3/11/2025 at 8:53 PM, Calm said:

They probably, from the quick look I took, should differentiate between correlation and causation.  Married women may be happier than single women because depressed women are less likely to date, get married or have kids.  Too much effort required for one thing.  Same thing with attendance.  People may not be attending because they are depressed or anxious, not less depressed/anxious because they attend.  Etc

My observations here are comments on the science, not religion.  I personally do believe there are protective aspects to the Church and to marriage, at the very least the social companionship.  And things that can’t be scientifically demonstrated, such as the presence of God.  That doesn’t mean any study showing positives proves these beliefs of mine, I don’t believe we should allow our assumptions to drive interpretation of data.

Still, a good many public intellectuals who are not Christian and are not believers in God think that Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian culture, and they do not want to see the death of Western civ.  Indeed, they are fearful that the death of Judeo-Christian religion in the West will sweep them away as well.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

A chief executive delivering a long report to an assembly recently left the T in, but that didn't mollify the hostile elements.

Putting the T in is not a magic hex that makes it agreeable. Taking it out is infuriating because it implies that they are a disposable element. They were part of the community from the beginning. While it used to be called the LGB community they were included then and bisexual was a bigger umbrella. Taking it out is implying that we are going back to those times but we wouldn’t be. We would be abandoning may of our founders and people who have been with us all along.

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Still, a good many public intellectuals who are not Christian and are not believers in God think that Western civilization is built on Judeo-Christian culture, and they do not want to see the death of Western civ.  Indeed, they are fearful that the death of Judeo-Christian religion in the West will sweep them away as well.

That would be a shocker since the term “Judeo-Christian” didn’t exist until pretty recently and it wasn’t really a thing. It is mostly a way to drag the Jews in and pretend they are in agreement with Christians on an awful lot that we don’t agree on. It is also of course an islamophobic dog-whistle trying to say Islam is not a real Abrahamic faith or a “western” faith whatever that means.

https://www.heyalma.com/the-myth-of-judeo-christianity-explained/