Another sad personal attack on Jeremy Runnels

[Kishkumen]

Whatever may be said to justify attacking Jeremy Runnells, it is a strategic mistake. Nothing that they dig up will preclude the possibility that he started out as someone who had sincere questions, even if those questions led him to an anger that preceded the composition of the letter.

I write this as someone who is not a fan of the CES letter. To me the CES letter is the kind of thing that should prompt the LDS community to rethink the way it teaches its members. I mean, sure, it is easier and faster to take the low road and attack Jeremy, but in the end it gets you nowhere. The LDS Church continues to produce members who are vulnerable to the CES letter as a document, and that is the problem, not Jeremy the person.

[I Have Questions]

It’s great that apologists keep drawing members attention to the CES Letter. They disseminate it far wider within the Church ranks than Runnells ever could’ve achieved.

[Philo Sofee]

It’s great that apologists keep drawing members attention to the CES Letter. They disseminate it far wider within the Church ranks than Runnells ever could’ve achieved.

They can only kick the CES Letter uphill.......

[Philo Sofee]

Whatever may be said to justify attacking Jeremy Runnells, it is a strategic mistake. Nothing that they dig up will preclude the possibility that he started out as someone who had sincere questions, even if those questions led him to an anger that preceded the composition of the letter.

I write this as someone who is not a fan of the CES letter. To me the CES letter is the kind of thing that should prompt the LDS community to rethink the way it teaches its members. I mean, sure, it is easier and faster to take the low road and attack Jeremy, but in the end it gets you nowhere. The LDS Church continues to produce members who are vulnerable to the CES letter as a document, and that is the problem, not Jeremy the person.

Yep. The CES Letter is the symptom, not the problem.

[Physics Guy]

We have an old copy of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? on a shelf. I think it must be my wife's from before we were married. It was published in 1963, and from memory I think its general tone is to be presenting information that was already well established, not revealing recent discoveries. The major criticisms of Mormonism do indeed seem to be old. And the apologetic rebuttals seem to be just as old.

So why do the same old criticisms keep coming back, if they've been answered so often? I think the reason is simple.

The apologetic answers aren't slap-downs that show how the evidence actually supports Mormon claims much more strongly than it supports criticisms. Instead the apologetic answers just construct alternative scenarios in which Mormon claims could still be true in spite of the evidence. The apologetic answers make room for faith. They find loopholes in critical arguments, to stop them from outright disproving Mormon claims and to allow Mormons who really want to believe to keep doing that.

This isn't math, though, where all that matters is whether something is proven or not. Nobody is going to prove or disprove religious claims, anyway. The relevant standard is not proof but credibility. If your proposition is subject to ten different counter-arguments and you find loopholes in all of them, then you are fine mathematically: your proposition stands undisproven. If your claim has ten different serious-looking problems, however, and you come up with ten stories to explain them away, you don't have much credibility. You're the guy who always has an excuse but never picks up the check.

The Mormon apologetic answers are all excuse stories. They never come up with the money. That's why the issues don't go away.

[sock puppet]

We have an old copy of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? on a shelf. I think it must be my wife's from before we were married. It was published in 1963, and from memory I think its general tone is to be presenting information that was already well established, not revealing recent discoveries. The major criticisms of Mormonism do indeed seem to be old. And the apologetic rebuttals seem to be just as old.

So why do the same old criticisms keep coming back, if they've been answered so often? I think the reason is simple.

The apologetic answers aren't slap-downs that show how the evidence actually supports Mormon claims much more strongly than it supports criticisms. Instead the apologetic answers just construct alternative scenarios in which Mormon claims could still be true in spite of the evidence. The apologetic answers make room for faith. They find loopholes in critical arguments, to stop them from outright disproving Mormon claims and to allow Mormons who really want to believe to keep doing that.

This isn't math, though, where all that matters is whether something is proven or not. Nobody is going to prove or disprove religious claims, anyway. The relevant standard is not proof but credibility. If your proposition is subject to ten different counter-arguments and you find loopholes in all of them, then you are fine mathematically: your proposition stands undisproven. If your claim has ten different serious-looking problems, however, and you come up with ten stories to explain them away, you don't have much credibility. You're the guy who always has an excuse but never picks up the check.

The Mormon apologetic answers are all excuse stories. They never come up with the money. That's why the issues don't go away.

The apologetic room for faith is usually shrinking for many believers who at first find refuge in such room. Sort of like a weigh station on the way out. If one is troubled by the criticism that he or she needs to find some apologetic room, it is from my observation of others more often temporary and fleeting than somewhere one can long remain. The prophylactic efforts of apologetics, those to try and divert the eyes of the believer from taking a serious first look, are the only ones that really keep the potential strayer in the flock. By the time one has doubts that have taken root, there's no doubting your doubts that works for very long.

[Markk]

The irony is that DCP knows the real reason it went viral. He likes to say the case for Mormonism is not about one piece of evidence. It’s the about cumulative total of all the little pieces when seen and considered together.

The CES letter went viral for exactly that reason. All of the problems with the church in one place, where they can be considered together. Not explained away with narrow mutually exclusive ad-hoc rationalizations like FAIRMormon and Interpreter peddle.

That is true in that it is in one place, but itis also true it is just a re-organized "Mormonism Shadow or Reality" with some updated material. Jeremy even admits that in an interview. I believe the reason it took off was yes, it was in one place, but also timing, he published it when social medial was booming, when the church was is a identity crisis with the younger members. It was a perfect storm and just a click away. If it was not for the internet, it would just be another anti book read only by those that sought it out, not for the average person with doubts who actually have better things to do in their lives.

When it came out a niece of mine sent it to me via a text message, so I checked it out and got a few pages in and then just skimmed through it and there was really nothing new....but to her it was as if it was as just discovered, to her and her Utah County peers.

[drumdude]

Can we bypass Rosebud's off-topic rants and get back to the topic?

That is true in that it is in one place, but itis also true it is just a re-organized "Mormonism Shadow or Reality" with some updated material. Jeremy even admits that in an interview. I believe the reason it took off was yes, it was in one place, but also timing, he published it when social medial was booming, when the church was is a identity crisis with the younger members. It was a perfect storm and just a click away. If it was not for the internet, it would just be another anti book read only by those that sought it out, not for the average person with doubts who actually have better things to do in their lives.

When it came out a niece of mine sent it to me via a text message, so I checked it out and got a few pages in and then just skimmed through it and there was really nothing new....but to her it was as if it was as just discovered, to her and her Utah County peers.

Yep. Jeremy never claimed he found anything new. There were just a lot of Mormons who at that time had never been exposed to any of that information.

When I was a Mormon I remember a lot of members making the argument that polygamy was instituted to take care of all the widows on the frontier. They didn't have any clue as to its actual origins. These false arguments were taught to me as an investigator, and I hope now in part because of the CES letter, they're no longer being used.

[Kishkumen]

That is true in that it is in one place, but itis also true it is just a re-organized "Mormonism Shadow or Reality" with some updated material. Jeremy even admits that in an interview. I believe the reason it took off was yes, it was in one place, but also timing, he published it when social medial was booming, when the church was is a identity crisis with the younger members. It was a perfect storm and just a click away. If it was not for the internet, it would just be another anti book read only by those that sought it out, not for the average person with doubts who actually have better things to do in their lives.

When it came out a niece of mine sent it to me via a text message, so I checked it out and got a few pages in and then just skimmed through it and there was really nothing new....but to her it was as if it was as just discovered, to her and her Utah County peers.

Insider's View was in some ways the same kind of thing. It came out at the right time and packed some material in the right way to bring it to the attention of a bigger readership. It was not great history and it was too speculative ("Golden Pot"), but it was effective at making people see things in a new light.

[Physics Guy]

Perhaps part of why Mormonism seems to keep having to re-fight the same old battles is that a big part of the appeal of Mormonism is the promise of not having to fight battles at all. The most attractive form of Mormonism is surely “chapel Mormonism” with its unchallenged literal miracles, priesthood power, and so on.

Having to weigh excuses for moral failings of prophets is kind of like getting hit with a drinks bill at a resort that was supposed to be all-inclusive. The problem isn’t that the bill is unreasonable as a price for what you received. The problem is that the whole reason you came was that there weren’t going to be any bills.

Apologists keep on justifying the bar prices, but missionaries and teachers keep on selling the all-inclusive deal with no bills. The fact that there are in fact bills to pay remains news.