Scott Gordon Attacks Tyler Livingston Over CES Letter

[Flemming]

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

Compiled from existing backyard anti Mormon sources, adding nothing new, and not recognizing that everything had already been addressed.

Tabloid.

[huckelberry]

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?

Flemming, I feel like welcoming anybody who wants to defend the LDS church in some thoughtful ways, so welcome. This board is not innocent of snark and in fact some posters are fluent. So your comment warrants some allowance.

However it really is a bit lame to make such shallow characterization of a poster. I very much doubt any poster here is this limited in knowledge. How about more substance, you may well have the potential for making valuable contribution. There is a bit too much one sidedness here.

[Flemming]

However it really is a bit lame to make such shallow characterization of a poster. I very much doubt any poster here is this limited in knowledge. How about more substance, you may well have the potential for making valuable contribution. There is a bit too much one sidedness here.

I only have - and really only can - comment on other comments, right? Dr. Shades comment displayed a childish understanding of truth and scholarship, and I called it out. I’m no scholar, but even I understand a tabloidesque document when I read one, even if it satiates my hatred for something.

[Gadianton]

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.

Compiled from existing backyard anti Mormon sources, adding nothing new, and not recognizing that everything had already been addressed.

Tabloid.

While it's true that the apologists address everything a hundred times over, the addressing is clearly inadequate, otherwise it wouldn't trigger the "faith crisis" that Kishkumen spoke of. Did the CES letter get people to question their faith, yes or no? If not, then a point could be made that it was inadequate. If so, and if FAIR's "asked and answered" resources didn't immediately resolve the concerns, then the letter did its job.

Look, you may want to hand over bags bags of money to a narcissistic heart surgeon who thinks he's a prophet, but others should at least have the choice also. Without contrary information, there is no choice. It even says so in your stupid scriptures. The CES letter wasn't intended to be next-level Mormon scholarship -- that dreg doesn't have much bearing on choices regarding faith anyway except for weird intellectuals on the margins.

The CES letter got important information members should be aware of in front of their faces. It did a good job.

[Flemming]

While it's true that the apologists address everything a hundred times over, the addressing is clearly inadequate, otherwise it wouldn't trigger the "faith crisis" that Kishkumen spoke of. Did the CES letter get people to question their faith, yes or no? If not, then a point could be made that it was inadequate. If so, and if FAIR's "asked and answered" resources didn't immediately resolve the concerns, then the letter did its job.

Look, you may want to hand over bags bags of money to a narcissistic heart surgeon who thinks he's a prophet, but others should at least have the choice also. Without contrary information, there is no choice. It even says so in your stupid scriptures. The CES letter wasn't intended to be next-level Mormon scholarship -- that dreg doesn't have much bearing on choices regarding faith anyway except for weird intellectuals on the margins.

The CES letter got important information members should be aware of in front of their faces. It did a good job.

There is always a choice. What are you talking about? There are thousands of religions and philosophies out there. The CES letter did not provide a choice that wasn’t already there. You give it *way* too much credit.

The National Enquirer is good as getting information in front of a lot of people as well. Is that the only measure of successful discourse?

And haven’t there been dozens of “CES letters”
- An Insider’s View
- Mormon Think
- Utah Lighthouse Ministry
- Saints Alive in Jesus
- Etc.

Is it really a “Super Mario Bros. Sledgehammer,” or another attempt at fame by feeding Pavlov’s anti Mormons?

[Gadianton]

The CES letter did not provide a choice that wasn’t already there

Sure it did. Mormons live in a bubble, thinking everything is rosy with their beliefs and everyone else's belief's are full of problems. They would never entertain any of those hundreds or thousands of ideas out there because there is no incentive. At best they'll gloss over what other faiths believes tepidly feeling highly superior the whole time knowing they have the truth. The CES letter was a splash of reality.

And haven’t there been dozens of “CES letters”

Sure. Just as dozens of commentators have criticized the Republican Party over the years.

[Flemming]

Sure it did. Mormons live in a bubble, thinking everything is rosy with their beliefs and everyone else's belief's are full of problems. They would never entertain any of those hundreds or thousands of ideas out there because there is no incentive. At best they'll gloss over what other faiths believes tepidly feeling highly superior the whole time knowing they have the truth. The CES letter was a splash of reality.

In the 1950s this may have been partially been true. Then, one had to work harder to get information - world news, etc. - but it was still available in libraries and such.

But I know of no “bubble;” how long have you been out? It seems odd to believe such a thing, honestly, unless you’re just a Mormonism=bad therefore not-Mormonism=good binary kind of guy.

And haven’t there been dozens of “CES letters”

Sure. Just as dozens of commentators have criticized the Republican Party over the years.

I wonder if there is a difference between a religion and a political alignment. What do you think?

[Physics Guy]

I don't see why it's a bad thing about the CES letter, that it collects a lot of old problems with Mormonism. I never got the impression that Runnells was claiming to have any brilliant new insights. On the contrary, I thought his claim was to be raising obvious questions. If people liked his new collection of old issues, that's not his or his document's fault.

The weird thing is how Mormonism still has a good half-dozen or so major issues, that have been around for a century or so, and that are supposed to have been "addressed" many times. Nonetheless the same issues have not gone away, or even changed very much. It's weird to have that big a stalemate going on for that long. The long stalemate of addressed-but-persistent issues has become an issue itself.

The typical Mormon explanation for this meta-issue is that biased anti-Mormons just refuse to listen to the clear and sufficient apologetic rebuttals of their critiques. If the rebuttals were both sufficient and clear, though, we would expect the church to have publicised these great rebuttals so well that critics would have had to drop the old issues and look for new ones.

I think that what Mormons must really believe about their apologetic defences on the perennial issues is that the defences are sufficient, but not really that clear. They're not quick, snappy comebacks that shoot the issue through the heart in a way that is obvious to any neutral and intelligent observer. Instead they're long, pedantic treatments full of reframings and refocusings. I reckon that faithful conservative Mormons truly believe that these long answers are convincing, but they must recognize that the long answers are long.

In particular there is no way to condense the long answers into short summaries that still seem convincing. In any short form, the apologetic defences come across as flimsy and doubtful. So there is no good way to publicise these sufficient answers to the general public, or even within the Mormon church. The supposedly good answers remain buried in long, scholarly treatments that virtually no-one has read.

Apologists and their supporters can therefore complain indignantly that their ignorant critics have been too lazy or dull to follow their well established answers. My own view, I'm afraid, is that this is an important part of the long-answer strategy.

The long answers that always look sketchy when summarised are like out-of-focus photos of Bigfoot at dusk. All that length and sophistication is really just concealing bad arguments. It takes ten pages to make the conclusion seem plausible. In all that verbiage, though, there is room for apologists to hide from their opponents. If they attack any one point, the apologists can retreat into the others and claim that the critics have misunderstood the whole line of argument. It's a guerrilla campaign that avoids decisive engagements on purpose—because they would only be lost, every time.

In fact there are no good Mormon answers on those old chestnut issues. There is nothing that could stand cross-examination. There are only long snow-job evasions. These can't be publicised effectively, because they lose all impact when shortened. So the issues persist, along with the Mormon impression that they have all been "addressed".

[Dr. Shades]

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?

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.

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?

You didn’t answer a single one of my questions.

Let’s try again: Which parts of the CES letter are untrue, if any?

[Kishkumen]

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

Hello, huckelberry! So, as I tried to say above, both are caricatures of what they portray. One is a Christian caricature to make Mormonism look Satanic or pagan, while the other is a secular caricature that makes Mormonism look woefully factually wrong. They just use different lenses to do the same thing: distort the target.

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.

It can and does not infrequently make people implode emotionally as they wonder why they wasted their lives on something that is so factually blinkered and full of “lies.”

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.

Does it bother you that Genesis, Job, Daniel, and Revelation are not history? Does it bother you to know that while Jesus most likely lived, and that Pilate most definitely did, we really don’t know how much of what Mark wrote actually happened? How do you prove that the Resurrection of Christ happened? Do you trust it because some old book says 500 people witnessed him or some such? What were their names? What did they “see,” exactly?

I don’t consider the Gospels to be “real history” in the sense that Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War is. We don’t even know who the authors of the Gospels are. Not really. At least I can say I know that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. The genius of the New Testament partly is that we have no idea who actually wrote the books, nor can we know much about the authors. If we knew the authors, people would use them as a means of invalidating everything they wrote.

In any case, if your sister was unhappy in the LDS Church, she found a way of extricating herself. And, honestly, I blame the Church a lot more than I blame Jeremy Runnells. The LDS Church failed him too. I wish both your sister and Jeremy all the best. The current model for the LDS Church’s way for dealing with this crisis of faith is still, unfortunately, to ask the disaffected member what they did wrong. Not explicitly, but that is the implicit assumption that every relatively satisfied member carries around: if you wander from the one true church, then Satan got you.

I say that most people who leave are unhappy with the LDS Church before they find Jeremy Runnells or John Dehlin. I don’t think most people actually like going to the LDS Church, and what they really need to hang on is the big payoff the LDS Church promises: keeping your eternal family in a blissful future. It is no wonder that so many parents, especially mothers, drag themselves to boring meetings and do tedious tasks in an aesthetically and sensory deprived environment for decades. They have the hope that in the end they will all be happy together, and every problem will be solved.

So, as soon as someone tells them how many things Joseph Smith may have gotten wrong or lied about, it is almost a huge relief until they remember that they could lose or may have already lost that fond dream of an eternal family. That is when the panic may set in. I know I am not covering every possibility here, but I do not think I am far off when it comes to a fair chunk of the people who leave with the “help” of the CES letter and John Dehlin.