Scott Gordon Attacks Tyler Livingston Over CES Letter

[Marcus]

Do the myth makers you are referring to view *themselves* as myth makers? Or do they view themselves as *truth* tellers, leaders of the "only true church"? Seems to me that's the heart of the issue.

It looks like you are saying that no one can legitimately use an etic term to discuss a phenomenon as an outsider. Instead, one is limited to using emic terms and concepts...

No he's not. He's asking you if the insiders accept the term you are defining them with, from the outside. It's a legitimate question.

[Kishkumen]

I went back and re-read your post and I can see how you believe I misrepresented you, and for that I apologize. Taking a nuanced view of things sometimes gets lost in the translation.

But, you do in fact, want to horribilze the CES Letter. The God Makers. C’mon, man.

- Doc

No problem, Doc. I was a little taken aback by your post, so I figured there might be a mistake, and I should have approached it that way.

In any case, I actually do think that the CES letter is like the God Makers. Thanks for the correction.

But, I owe you a better and more defensible explanation. The God Makers is bigoted garbage that was born of a malicious attempt to misrepresent. The CES letter, unlike the God Makers, is the product of sincere questioning of the author's own faith. In that way, the two have nothing in common.

Where they are similar is in their distortion of the target. I did explain this part in the previous post. Reducing a religion to what it fails at does not honestly convey what it succeeds at. Look, I may not thrive in the LDS Church, but I am also not like many other people. Maybe there are a couple million people in the world for whom Mormonism really works well. If there are such people, why should I treat the religion as nothing but bad? As a complete failure? As something anybody would be better off without?

I don't expect religion to do the job of history, science, psychology, etc. I think it does what it does well enough to appeal and be helpful to a lot of people. Many criticisms of Mormon truth claims understandably treat Mormon myths as though they should do those other things because a lot of LDS assumptions seem to have done the very same thing. Book of Mormon archaeology! Hahahaha!!! It is easy to poke at. Fish in a barrel. Because it obviously does not work. But does that invalidate Mormonism altogether? I don't think so.

I remember South Park's treatment of the lost manuscript. I thought it was drop dead hilarious, and it rang true. But, as I learned more about the history, partly thanks to Don Bradley's research, I saw how, while funny, the South Park lost manuscript scenario was dead on in its humorous criticism of people's insufficient understanding of the history but not really true to the history. Lucy Harris did not steal the manuscript, but it is also true that apologetics for the loss of the manuscript were also informed by inadequate history and therefore kinda dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Change the genre, and I think you have a good analog for the CES letter. It is a great reflection of the inadequacy of LDS thought about epistemology and faith, among the dissenters, defenders, and average members. It is a great polemical tool for triggering a faith crisis. Current LDS thought is not up to the task of dealing with it, and that makes defenders upset. So they do what they can, and it often isn't pretty. But I don't think it is a great document, much as I think that a lot of things designed to trigger faith crises are not great.

The LDS Church does well at triggering faith crises with its own bad actions and bad policies. It really doesn't need Jeremy's help chasing away members.

[Kishkumen]

No he's not. He's asking you if the insiders accept the term you are defining them with, from the outside. It's a legitimate question.

Why would Joseph Smith accept a term that I am using today? I don't think what he is saying makes sense. Of course, Joseph Smith would not see himself in the terms I see him. I don't see why that is a problem.

[Marcus]

No he's not. He's asking you if the insiders accept the term you are defining them with, from the outside. It's a legitimate question.

Why would Joseph Smith accept a term that I am using today? I don't think what he is saying makes sense. Of course, Joseph Smith would not see himself in the terms I see him. I don't see why that is a problem.

Hmm. Ok. Interesting answer. Here was Equality's statement:

Do the myth makers you are referring to view *themselves* as myth makers? Or do they view themselves as *truth* tellers, leaders of the "only true church"?

[Rivendale]

Representing human civilizations as dependent on Myth for cohesion while simultaneously ignoring the asteroid approaching is detrimental to existence. This applies both macro and micro for every myth claim.

[Kishkumen]

Representing human civilizations as dependent on Myth for cohesion while simultaneously ignoring the asteroid approaching is detrimental to existence. This applies both macro and micro for every myth claim.

Mmmm. I don't know that I ever claimed ignoring the asteroid approaching was a good thing. There are many stories about being observant of the phenomena around you. And they are made up stories.

[Kishkumen]

Hmm. Ok. Interesting answer. Here was Equality's statement:

Do the myth makers you are referring to view *themselves* as myth makers? Or do they view themselves as *truth* tellers, leaders of the "only true church"?

So what do you mean, Equality? I guess I have misread you? It is not clear to me whether you are talking about Joseph Smith or current LDS leaders.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I went back and re-read your post and I can see how you believe I misrepresented you, and for that I apologize. Taking a nuanced view of things sometimes gets lost in the translation.

But, you do in fact, want to horribilze the CES Letter. The God Makers. C’mon, man.

- Doc

No problem, Doc. I was a little taken aback by your post, so I figured there might be a mistake, and I should have approached it that way.

In any case, I actually do think that the CES letter is like the God Makers. Thanks for the correction.

But, I owe you a better and more defensible explanation. The God Makers is bigoted garbage that was born of a malicious attempt to misrepresent. The CES letter, unlike the God Makers, is the product of sincere questioning of the author's own faith. In that way, the two have nothing in common.

Where they are similar is in their distortion of the target. I did explain this part in the previous post. Reducing a religion to what it fails at does not honestly convey what it succeeds at. Look, I may not thrive in the LDS Church, but I am also not like many other people. Maybe there are a couple million people in the world for whom Mormonism really works well. If there are such people, why should I treat the religion as nothing but bad? As a complete failure? As something anybody would be better off without?

I don't expect religion to do the job of history, science, psychology, etc. I think it does what it does well enough to appeal and be helpful to a lot of people. Many criticisms of Mormon truth claims understandably treat Mormon myths as though they should do those other things because a lot of LDS assumptions seem to have done the very same thing. Book of Mormon archaeology! Hahahaha!!! It is easy to poke at. Fish in a barrel. Because it obviously does not work. But does that invalidate Mormonism altogether? I don't think so.

I remember South Park's treatment of the lost manuscript. I thought it was drop dead hilarious, and it rang true. But, as I learned more about the history, partly thanks to Don Bradley's research, I saw how, while funny, the South Park lost manuscript scenario was dead on in its humorous criticism of people's insufficient understanding of the history but not really true to the history. Lucy Harris did not steal the manuscript, but it is also true that apologetics for the loss of the manuscript were also informed by inadequate history and therefore kinda dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.

Change the genre, and I think you have a good analog for the CES letter. It is a great reflection of the inadequacy of LDS thought about epistemology and faith, among the dissenters, defenders, and average members. It is a great polemical tool for triggering a faith crisis. Current LDS thought is not up to the task of dealing with it, and that makes defenders upset. So they do what they can, and it often isn't pretty. But I don't think it is a great document, much as I think that a lot of things designed to trigger faith crises are not great.

The LDS Church does well at triggering faith crises with its own bad actions and bad policies. It really doesn't need Jeremy's help chasing away members.

I think you have point worth considering when reading the CES Letter, especially as it is today. Runnells scaffolded the CES Letter around his experience by crowdsourcing input from A LOT of ex-Mormons. It morphed from a dagger forged from personal grief into a Super Mario sledgehammer pounding away at historical and doctrinal issues that weren’t originally included in his list.

- Doc

[Flemming]

All of it is shoddy scholarship. It’s tabloid level gossip.

So, which parts are untrue?

I very elementary understanding of “true.” What do you mean, exactly? Have you researched the material in the CES letter, or do you just take it at face value because you salivate at anything that says Mormonism=bad?

There is nothing new in it.

So, "old" = "untrue?" Please tell us: What age must something reach before it magically transforms from true to false?

And here you once again show your preschool understanding of what I said. Scholarship seeks to bring new knowledge to light, through new information or new interpretations of existing information. The CES letter does neither of these, it’s just a tabloid. If you like your trash magazines, then have at it. But make no mistake, is it not a serious document to be considered seriously.

"Brigham Young had multiple wives at the same time." According to you, this is old, so it's false, which means he didn't have multiple wives at the same time, right?

Above question answered. You don’t seem to be interested in understanding anything, just Mormonism=bad.

Bennett did an amazing takedown.

I doubt it, but please provide a link so I can read it for myself.

Again, have you ever considered that the CES letter is not the only source of information about Mormonism? Or—and I suspect this is true—do you just salivate at anything that says Mormonism=bad because you operate in a Pavlovian mindset?

[huckelberry]

Kishkumen,

Is the CES letter like the God Makers? I read that book a long time ago and remember it is located on an out of the way back shelf. I pulled it out to remind myself what is in there. There is extensive effort to tie Mormon things to what Hunt understands as Satanic occult power. Author Hunt sort of specializes in that sort of thing. I would approach with serious caution or perhaps better not approach.

I am not really familiar with CES letter in any detail but I have not heard it connected with that late 20th century witch scare (or enthusiasm for fear of Satanic control)

I hope the book, I gather it has expanded into a book, inspires people to think rather than panic. I guess it does not try to present in a balanced manner both sides of the issues but leans hard negative. Well that can call forth thought.

Recently my sister, long active in the church, spoke to me about her recent distancing from participation which she noted was influenced by this letter. She did ask if I had uncertainties, or see possiblities of the Book of Mormon being real history. I am afraid I do not. My perception of its nonhistorical nature has not changed from that time way back when when in terror I realized I really could no longer believe it.

We agreed that there are things about or in the church which deserve respect. I would not wish to push her in a direction. I do not think she is panicing but is visiting other churches. I think that can be a good thing.