Response to CES Letter

[_Runtu]

I thought some of you might find this interesting. The author is a Deseret News columnist and someone I grew up with. It's being posted serially on his blog (stallioncornell.com), but you can read the whole thing here:

http://stallioncornell.com/blog/wp-cont ... SReply.pdf

[Guest]

The CES letter is tailor-made for responses like this. It is not my cup of tea, as I've said here before.

That said, the author has succumbed to the all-too-common belief of Mormon apologists that snark and arrogance will make their arguments stronger. I suppose I can't blame them since in a few cases their arguments are so bad (e.g., the Book of Abraham) that only snark and puffery can make them sound convincing.

Another thing that bothers me is that he repeatedly claims that any Mormon should have known about all these troubling issues, and that it was Jeremy's fault that he didn't know about them. This is a frequent critique of the CES letter from both apologists and progressive Mormons. It is, of course, true that these issues have been around a long time. I learned about them myself in the dark ages before the internet, and I'd venture a guess that most people in this forum could say the same. But I didn't learn about these issues at church, or in seminary, or even on my mission. Sure, I saw or heard plenty of anti-Mormon material on my mission, but most of it was so laughably bad that it was easy to dismiss. I think many of the progressive Mormons that point out how this material has been available in places like Sunstone, Dialogue, etc. are too young to remember just how much these publications were officially discouraged by the church in the 80s and 90s (remember the Statement on Symposia the next time you tell someone they could have read all this stuff decades ago). How many thousands of times is it going to take having someone pick up something like the CES Letter and saying "I never knew about any of this and I feel like the church lied to me" for the apologists to stop arguing that people should have known about all of this? If the church really believed that all of the troubling information was readily available and easily answered, then why publish the essays? The church pushed the correlated "Legacy" version of church history for decades, and they can't now claim that people should have known all along that it didn't really happen that way.

[_Maksutov]

The CES letter is tailor-made for responses like this. It is not my cup of tea, as I've said here before.

That said, the author has succumbed to the all-too-common belief of Mormon apologists that snark and arrogance will make their arguments stronger. Another thing that bothers me is that he repeatedly claims that any Mormon should have known about all these troubling issues, and that is was Jeremy's fault that he didn't know about them. This is a frequent critique of the CES letter from both apologists and progressive Mormons. It is, of course, true that these issues have been around a long time. I learned about them myself in the dark ages before the internet, and I'd venture a guess that most people in this forum could say the same. But I didn't learn about these issues at church, or in seminary, or even on my mission. Sure, I saw or heard plenty of anti-Mormon material on my mission, but most of it was so laughably bad that it was easy to dismiss. I think many of the progressive Mormons that point out how this material has been available in places like Sunstone, Dialogue, etc. are too young to remember just how much these publications were officially discouraged by the church in the 80s and 90s (remember the Statement on Symposia the next time you tell someone they could have read all this stuff decades ago). How many thousands of times is it going to take having someone pick up something like the CES Letter and saying "I never knew about any of this and I feel like the church lied to me" for the apologists to stop arguing that people should have known about all of this? If the church really believed that all of the troubling information was readily available and easily answered, then why publish the essays? The church pushed the correlated "Legacy" version of church history for decades, and they can't now claim that people should have known all along that it didn't really happen that way.

Very well put. The snark and arrogance you mention really put me off in this piece. It's like the worst of FARMS. The condescension toward ignorant members is interesting after listening to the Swedish Rescue tape. I'm tired of this church having an incoherent theology and blaming the members for it.

[_cognitiveharmony]

Guys like this really rub me the wrong way. He knows full well that apologetic arguments aren't worth the paper they're written on if they don't come from the same divine authority claimed by the church they defend. They are often self contradictory and pursue the merely plausible rather than probable. Yet, he ridicules Runnells for wanting an official response? He goes on to espouse and promote Skousen's crazy translation theory and even misrepresents the Hamblin-Jenkins debate in an effort to argue that science hasn't ruled out the possibility of Lamanites and Nephites. After witnessing this guy throw his own prophets under the bus a number of times in favor of his favorite apologetic argument, I couldn't read any more. I found his comments on DNA evidence were especially humorous.

[_sock puppet]

The CES letter is tailor-made for responses like this. It is not my cup of tea, as I've said here before.

That said, the author has succumbed to the all-too-common belief of Mormon apologists that snark and arrogance will make their arguments stronger. I suppose I can't blame them since in a few cases their arguments are so bad (e.g., the Book of Abraham) that only snark and puffery can make them sound convincing.

Another thing that bothers me is that he repeatedly claims that any Mormon should have known about all these troubling issues, and that is was Jeremy's fault that he didn't know about them. This is a frequent critique of the CES letter from both apologists and progressive Mormons. It is, of course, true that these issues have been around a long time. I learned about them myself in the dark ages before the internet, and I'd venture a guess that most people in this forum could say the same. But I didn't learn about these issues at church, or in seminary, or even on my mission. Sure, I saw or heard plenty of anti-Mormon material on my mission, but most of it was so laughably bad that it was easy to dismiss. I think many of the progressive Mormons that point out how this material has been available in places like Sunstone, Dialogue, etc. are too young to remember just how much these publications were officially discouraged by the church in the 80s and 90s (remember the Statement on Symposia the next time you tell someone they could have read all this stuff decades ago). How many thousands of times is it going to take having someone pick up something like the CES Letter and saying "I never knew about any of this and I feel like the church lied to me" for the apologists to stop arguing that people should have known about all of this? If the church really believed that all of the troubling information was readily available and easily answered, then why publish the essays? The church pushed the correlated "Legacy" version of church history for decades, and they can't now claim that people should have known all along that it didn't really happen that way.

Well said. Everyone who knows of these problems had a point in time when he or she first learned of them, even dare I say DCP even if I'm sure he'd claim it was when he was 5 years old! The point isn't when someone learned or that they should have learned of it sooner. The point is that to learn of it one has to have bucked the advice of the Brethren, looked for themselves among sources he or she was cautioned not to, and rightfully feels duped prior to then by the Brethren and their correlated (sanitized for your protection) version of church history and glossing over problems with the Book of Mormon, JSJr and Book of Abraham. All that the claim by apologists that doubters should have learned of these problems earlier is is an attempt to make the doubter feel inadequate, less than and doubt his new doubting. Shame on them. They are very uncharitable to their fellow LDS.

[_sock puppet]

The CES letter is tailor-made for responses like this. It is not my cup of tea, as I've said here before.

That said, the author has succumbed to the all-too-common belief of Mormon apologists that snark and arrogance will make their arguments stronger. Another thing that bothers me is that he repeatedly claims that any Mormon should have known about all these troubling issues, and that is was Jeremy's fault that he didn't know about them. This is a frequent critique of the CES letter from both apologists and progressive Mormons. It is, of course, true that these issues have been around a long time. I learned about them myself in the dark ages before the internet, and I'd venture a guess that most people in this forum could say the same. But I didn't learn about these issues at church, or in seminary, or even on my mission. Sure, I saw or heard plenty of anti-Mormon material on my mission, but most of it was so laughably bad that it was easy to dismiss. I think many of the progressive Mormons that point out how this material has been available in places like Sunstone, Dialogue, etc. are too young to remember just how much these publications were officially discouraged by the church in the 80s and 90s (remember the Statement on Symposia the next time you tell someone they could have read all this stuff decades ago). How many thousands of times is it going to take having someone pick up something like the CES Letter and saying "I never knew about any of this and I feel like the church lied to me" for the apologists to stop arguing that people should have known about all of this? If the church really believed that all of the troubling information was readily available and easily answered, then why publish the essays? The church pushed the correlated "Legacy" version of church history for decades, and they can't now claim that people should have known all along that it didn't really happen that way.

Very well put. The snark and arrogance you mention really put me off in this piece. It's like the worst of FARMS. The condescension toward ignorant members is interesting after listening to the Swedish Rescue tape. I'm tired of this church having an incoherent theology and blaming the members for it.

It belongs in the FARMS Hall of Shame at NAMIRS, to which there is an entire display devoted to the dynamic duo of DCP and Hambone.

[_Sammy Jankins]

Another thing that bothers me is that he repeatedly claims that any Mormon should have known about all these troubling issues, and that is was Jeremy's fault that he didn't know about them. This is a frequent critique of the CES letter from both apologists and progressive Mormons.

It doesn't seem to matter when you learn about these issues, somehow you are always supposed to have already known about them.

[_Cicero]

It doesn't seem to matter when you learn about these issues, somehow you are always supposed to have already known about them.

“When a thing is new, people say: ‘It is not true.’ Later, when its truth becomes obvious, they say: ‘It is not important.’ Finally, when its importance cannot be denied, they say: ‘Anyway, it is not new.” William James

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Just a funny thought I had while perusing his rebuttal:

The mall wasn’t built with the intent to get the Saints to “go shopping.” My understanding with regard to the purpose of City Creek was to stave off the urban blight that was gripping downtown Salt Lake City, which would ultimately have placed Temple Square and the surrounding buildings that constitute the headquarters of the Church into the middle of a dangerous slum. City Creek has accomplished that goal by revitalized downtown and making it safe for families. The fact that this was done without taxpayer or tithepayer dollars makes it a boon to the community that cost church members nothing at all.

Ho-ho-ho-ly bullyshittles, Batman! Got news for this guy, who apparently must work from home and never comes into the city... City Creek did absolutely nothing to keep the undead blight from downtown. It's gotten worse, in fact. It's a damned mess down there and has spread at least ten blocks south and ten blocks west. Ain't no fuckin' families walking around on a consistent basis, shopping, noshing, and enjoying a day out at Pioneer Park. Lololol.

The only thing that's going to keep SLC from drowning in its own idiocy are young people looking for an urban experience, a lesbian mayor willing to move the homeless out, and progressive people looking to revitalize the city. Mormons catering to "families" with an upscale mall is just an outdated business model.

This damned guy...

- Doc

[_Brackite]

I thought some of you might find this interesting. The author is a Deseret News columnist and someone I grew up with. It's being posted serially on his blog (stallioncornell.com), but you can read the whole thing here:

http://stallioncornell.com/blog/wp-cont ... SReply.pdf

From that Response:

Nonsense. It has “concluded” no such thing. Science rarely, if ever, reaches definitive conclusions. It is always open to new information, some of which it received in 2013 when a study determined that some Native Americans do, in fact, have Middle Eastern and European DNA. That study in no way proves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, as the genes in question come from specimens well before Lehi, but it does demonstrate that there is plenty of room for more information. Most scientists, Mormon or non-Mormon, would scoff at the idea that an absence of evidence is proof of anything.

Dr. Simon Southerton has already Responded to this.

DNA mutations that can be used to distinguish Native American DNA arose after their ancestors separated from their Asian neighbours about 18,000 years ago. They are new mutations that occurred on the way to, or in the New World. The Siberian study is about mutations that arose before 24,000 years ago. They are earlier mutations that occurred during the 10s of thousands of years that humans spent migrating across Eurasia before reaching Siberia.

It's a bit like looking at a 1975 Ford and concluding it is a Hyundai because it has 4 wheels. The idea to use four wheels arose early in the evolution of the car and most cars around the world now have 4 wheels. But just because two different cars have four wheels doesn't mean they are built in the same factory or country. Yes, Native American autosomal DNA carries vast numbers of mutations that arose 20,000 to 50,000 years ago, when their ancestors were in Eurasia. These mutations are shared by numerous populations spread over vast areas because humans have migrated over vast areas of the globe. Mutations that arose 5,000 or 15,000 years ago have a more restricted distribution, exclusively in the Americas. But these are the most informative mutations for ancestry studies.

The 2013 study is not relevant to the conclusions derived from mitochondrial or Y-chromosome DNA. Its about an individual who lived 24,000 years ago, long before the first Native America set foot in the Americas.

Many Mormons reading these headlines have seized upon this research as conclusive proof that Native Americans have Middle Eastern, and thus potentially Jewish, DNA (1, 2, 3, 4). Even President Newsroom cited Raghavan's research in the Church's official "Book of Mormon and DNA Studies" essay, claiming it challenges previous conclusions and proves the picture isn't clear. But the conclusions being challenged have nothing to do with recent Hebrew migrations. The Raghaven study is focussed on a 25,000-year-old paleolithic DNA sample which tells us something about major human migration events that took place over 20,000 years ago. There is nothing in the Raghavan research that supports the Book of Mormon or challenges the mainstream scientific views about the colonization of the New World. Native Americans are still all descended from ancient Asian ancestors.

Raghavan's research adds another detail to a broad scientific understanding of the timing and route our ancestors took as they colonised the globe. The common ancestors of all humans lived in sub-Saharan Africa. They began migrating "out of Africa" about 80,000 years ago and by about 50,000 years ago had colonized Western Asia, India and Southeast Asia and Australia (Fig.1). Eastern Asia was colonised by people derived from this southern migration event. By about 40,000 years ago people arrived in Europe and Central Asia via a northern route, finally reaching the Americas between 15 and 25,000 years ago.

http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/




From that Response:

Nearly all of the papyri Joseph had in his possession was destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871, but a handful of scraps survived the flames and surfaced in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City nearly a century later. When the Church was given these fragments in 1967, they immediately published pictures of them in The Improvement Era, along with an article stating that the relatively small amount of extant text was clearly not the source material for the Book of Abraham.

This is Not correct.

The Original Length of the Scroll of Hôr

Formulas and Facts: A Response to John Gee

See Also This.