Scott Gordon Attacks Tyler Livingston Over CES Letter

[Equality]

The LDS Church seeks to use its traditional tools to make the lives of its members better.

It does? How so? And does it succeed in that endeavor?

Would it be "bad" for a Flat-earth Cultist to post questions and information about the flaws in Flat-Earthism, knowing that some Flat Earthers might suffer a crisis as a result of learning information about which they had previously ignorant?

[Equality]

Let me suggest that one reason that it is not easy to respond to these things is that the hostile and outraged questioner has freed themselves of any positive goal that takes sufficient account of the impact of their actions on others.

It sounds like what you are suggesting is that the people who reveal the truth to the people who have been lied to by the church are responsible for any negative consequences that might result from the lied-to individuals experiencing a crisis of faith. Personally, I think the people who lied to the church members are the ones who are responsible for such repercussions regardless of whether the people who told the lies justified the lies to themselves on the grounds that they were just trying to help the church "make the lives of its members better."

[Kishkumen]

Have you asked yourself why someone leaving a church would result in the breakup of their family, the loss of friends, or the loss of a job?

The assumption behind this question is that it almost inevitably results in those things, whereas I have framed this in regard to the minority for whom this is a problem. I don't find that minority acceptable, but I also reject your reading of my statements.

Does this typically happen when someone leaves, say, the Presbyterian church? I know it happens when Scientologists leave Scientology and when Jehovah's Witnesses leave the JWs, and when Moonies leave the Unification Church. What do those organizations have in common that they don't have with the Presbyterians?

Presbyterianism is boring? Sorry, I shouldn't be so flip. Presbyterianism is a very low-key, mainstream social activity with low stakes and low demands. So, people barely notice when you stop doing it. Kinda like tv shows don't notice when I stop watching them, or grocery stores hardly mourn when I seek a different grocery store that works better for me.

[Kishkumen]

It does? How so? And does it succeed in that endeavor?

Yes, it gives them a spiritual community. Which has been, for millennia, a valuable thing for humanity. It does succeed at providing one. I was relatively happy in it for nearly 40 years. I still don't feel traumatized by it or victimized by it. It quit working for me, so I stopped going. Punkt.

Would it be "bad" for a Flat-earth Cultist to post questions and information about the flaws in Flat-Earthism, knowing that some Flat Earthers might suffer a crisis as a result of learning information about which they had previously ignorant?

What is a Flat-Earth Cultist? Is there such a thing? Or is that a derogatory term you made up for Flat-Earthers?

[Kishkumen]

Let me suggest that one reason that it is not easy to respond to these things is that the hostile and outraged questioner has freed themselves of any positive goal that takes sufficient account of the impact of their actions on others.

It sounds like what you are suggesting is that the people who reveal the truth to the people who have been lied to by the church are responsible for any negative consequences that might result from the lied-to individuals experiencing a crisis of faith. Personally, I think the people who lied to the church members are the ones who are responsible for such repercussions regardless of whether the people who told the lies justified the lies to themselves on the grounds that they were just trying to help the church "make the lives of its members better."

So, here is one of the HUGE problems with what you are saying. You equate religious myth making with lying, and you characterize those who contradict myth making as "revealers of truth." All you are doing here is flipping the religious script on its head. It was once the case--for many aeons in fact--that the religious mythmakers were revealers of spiritual truth, whereas the world they offered refuge from was perceived to be lying to you.

In my view, the myth makers are not liars. They are myth makers. The truth that they deal in is one of spiritual meaning. Those who poke holes in all of this in the guise of "revealers of truth" are committing category errors and pronouncing victory. All of this works really well because we have been trained to be Ralph Naders of religion, some of whom take things to an extreme by saying that religion itself is an unmitigated harm. I think that it is a good thing to stand up for yourself and refuse to take crap from people who claim to have the right to lord it over you, but I also think there are limits to the positives. Once you go from asserting yourself and protecting yourself to tearing down cities, then you have probably gone too far.

Of course, there are reasons why I am not LDS. At present, I cannot in good conscience do what membership in the LDS Church requires one to do. That is my decision based on the dictates of my conscience, but I know lots of good people who do good in the world partly as an outcome of their commitment to leading a salutary LDS life.

[Equality]

In my view, the myth makers are not liars. They are myth makers.

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.

[Marcus]

...the myth makers are not liars. They are myth makers...

So, mythmakers can't be liars?

Calling Smith et al mythmakers doesn't make it so, nor does it obviate all the actual lies that have been documented. Nor has it been established that something done for eons is the right thing to continue doing. This line of reasoning deflects from the real issues that people are dealing with--that the LDS church does considerable damage to many people and continues to tell many lies about its history and about what it defines as scripture.

These concerns about how damaging the CES letter is amount to nothing more than protecting a status quo that is already damaging. I agree with PG's comment:

...Calling something "bad scholarship" is also a potentially weaselly way to try to get people to ignore it. The implication is that the thing is full of subtle, technical flaws that no expert scholar would tolerate. Well, if the piece in question is trying to present itself as a bunch of subtle and technical stuff that is really important even though lay people wouldn't appreciate it, then pointing out that it doesn't actually get the technicalities right is indeed damning. If a piece presents itself as a bunch of simple observations that anyone can grasp once they notice them, though, then complaining about a few technical details does not make its simple observations go away.

If I tell you that you have to stop eating Corn Flakes right now because quantum electrodynamics reveals that Corn Flakes produce positrons that will decohere your brain's alpha waves, then you can safely throw my warning away after someone else points out that I got the electric charge of the positron wrong and that my frequency of alpha waves is a million times too high. If instead I tell you not to jump off a high building because you'll accelerate downwards at 10 meters per second squared, you should not laugh at me and jump just because somebody archly observes that it's much closer to 9.8 meters per second squared—not even if they rub it in hard about how badly I'd be laughed off the stage at a rocketry conference.

[Kishkumen]

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. I don't have to accept an insider's beliefs as my own to analyze a culture. That, to me, is at the heart of the issue.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It kind of appears like you do.



I mean, existential terror and social death aside.

- Doc

I have qualified what I said in what I think are appropriate and responsible ways. I think the CES letter can be devastating to individuals and families, but certainly not societies. I never said that the suffering of individuals who have experienced crisis is not something to be upset and compassionate about, and I am really disappointed in you for misrepresenting me in that way.

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

[Kishkumen]

So, mythmakers can't be liars?

A myth maker can tell lies. A myth maker can be a liar. That does not mean that the myth is necessarily a lie.

Calling Smith et al mythmakers doesn't make it so, nor does it obviate all the actual lies that have been documented.

No, it does not make lies Joseph Smith told about anything truths. But it does invite us to be more critical in the way we approach his different activities. What makes him a myth maker is the Book of Mormon and his other scriptural productions in their various stages. He made myths about Nephi, Abraham, Moses, Enoch, et al. THAT made him a myth maker.

Nor has it been established that something done for eons is the right thing to continue doing.

People will continue to do it whether I or you think it is right or not. It is just part of the human condition.

This line of reasoning deflects from the real issues that people are dealing with--that the LDS church does considerable damage to many people and continues to tell many lies about its history and about what it defines as scripture.

It doesn't have to. I am not saying that the LDS Church cannot be criticized. I do think it is more fruitfully and convincingly criticized when its critics exercise good judgment and critical thinking.

These concerns about how damaging the CES letter is amount to nothing more than protecting a status quo that is already damaging. I agree with PG's comment:

...Calling something "bad scholarship" is also a potentially weaselly way to try to get people to ignore it. The implication is that the thing is full of subtle, technical flaws that no expert scholar would tolerate. Well, if the piece in question is trying to present itself as a bunch of subtle and technical stuff that is really important even though lay people wouldn't appreciate it, then pointing out that it doesn't actually get the technicalities right is indeed damning. If a piece presents itself as a bunch of simple observations that anyone can grasp once they notice them, though, then complaining about a few technical details does not make its simple observations go away.

If I tell you that you have to stop eating Corn Flakes right now because quantum electrodynamics reveals that Corn Flakes produce positrons that will decohere your brain's alpha waves, then you can safely throw my warning away after someone else points out that I got the electric charge of the positron wrong and that my frequency of alpha waves is a million times too high. If instead I tell you not to jump off a high building because you'll accelerate downwards at 10 meters per second squared, you should not laugh at me and jump just because somebody archly observes that it's much closer to 9.8 meters per second squared—not even if they rub it in hard about how badly I'd be laughed off the stage at a rocketry conference.

OK, I told you why I think the CES letter is bad. I am not therefore enlisted to defend why other people call it bad. I am also not required to answer Jeremy's defenses of his work to other people's arguments against it. Do I think apologists engage in slippery defenses against the CES letter? Yes. Are these criticisms all convincing? No. That said, I am not at all persuaded by his analogy. Christianity and Mormonism, which is a subset of Christianity, are mythological system that promise their followers eternal salvation. As such, they operate in a framework that has absolutely nothing to do with the laws of physics, etc. Category error. Now, believers do make claims that sound testable, but they really don't seriously go beyond the myth in what they truly lean on in the end. They talk about feeling the spirit and their hope for eternal life. Jeremy is talking about things that have nothing to do with that, because he decided he wanted to operate in the world where these kinds questions, the ones that exclude spiritual feelings and myths about eternal life, are the only questions that matter. That's his right.