Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _moksha »

Madison54 wrote:
grindael wrote:And they closed the topic! Why do they do that?

Because the mods (I suspect it was Bluebell this time: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/674 ... 1209921987 ), know to avoid discussing the actual content of the CES letter.

They shut down posters like ALarson (one of the most intelligent and fair poster on that board and they know he'd nail them to the wall if they allowed the discussion to continue). Period. But, their board/their rules.

It's not that apologists are incapable of a factual discussion. They are forced into contentions of empty bravado and name-calling attacks simply because the bulk of the CES Letter was correct. It made sense for Hestia to break the exchange off before PacMan became uncontrollably rabid.

Because of this, Scott Gordon's idea of deemphasizing former factual claims of the Church seems a novel approach for defending the Church.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Madison54
_Emeritus
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 6:37 pm

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _Madison54 »

There's now a new thread over on MD&D specifically about Scott Gordon's presentation:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/721 ... ropaganda/

Smac gives his usual, awful, long, boring, disjointed opinion:

Two items from literature come to mind when I think of the CES Letter.

The first is that the CES Letter is like the Palantir from The Lord of the Rings, as explained here:

Quote
Okay, the first time Pippin looks in the Palantir and Sauron sees him. Sauron draws the conclusion from that, he sees a Hobbit in the Palantir. He knows that the Palantir belongs to Saruman. He concludes that the Hobbit is the ring bearer and that Saruman has the ring. What he sees is true, the conclusion he draws from it is wrong. The next thing is of course, that Sauron sees Aragorn in the {Orthanc} stone. He concludes from it, that Saruman had the {Orthanc} stone and the Hobbit and the ring. Aragorn now has the {Orthanc} stone so he must have the Hobbit and the ring. That is why Sauron strikes early, he makes a preemptive strike. Once again, what he says is true, but he draws from it the wrong conclusion.

Every time anyone looks in the Palantir, what they see is true and from it they draw the wrong conclusion. Why did Saruman give up and decide to ally himself with Sauron? Because he saw in the Palantir, the preparations that Sauron was making and he concluded wrongly. That there was no possibility of resistance. But the most decisive example I think, of looking in the Palantir and getting the wrong answer, is surely Denethor.
...
What has he seen? He seen Frodo in the hands apparently of Sauron. Once again then, Denethor has looked in the Palantir, has seen something, which actually is happening on that particular day. But he has drawn from it the wrong conclusion, and he then gives way to despair and to suicide.

And here:

Quote
A consultant for the "Lord of the Rings" movies discussed the differences between the trilogy and the books on which the films are based during a presentation Wednesday night.

T.A. Shippey, who was described as an "inspiration to young medievalist" by Randi Eldevik, associate professor of English, gave a presentation titled "Palantirs and Providence: Tolkien's Books and Jackson's Movies."
...
Shippey said one of the main differences he noticed between the books and the movies dealt with the use of a palantir, a device similar to a crystal ball.

"It seems to be in the book palantirs are used four times," Shippey said.

Shippey said that in the books, when characters look into a palantir, they draw the wrong conclusions.

"The moral of this is don't look in the damn thing," Shippey said.

In the films, the Palantiri showed something "real" to different characters (Sauron, Saruman, Denethor, Aragorn), but then encouraged them to draw the wrong conclusions about what they had seen.

So it is, I think, with the CES Letter.

The second item that comes to mind is a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series. A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey. Here's a character summary:

Quote
Shift's greed served as his primary motivation. His actions to satisfy his greed increased his vileness over time. From lying to his "friend" Puzzle, he moved to manipulating the other talking animals of Narnia. In the end he had no problem murdering them and selling them into slavery to increase his own wealth and power.

As Shift's actions became increasingly evil, he also became increasingly human in his appearance and in the way he presented himself. He donned human clothing and explained that he was not an ape, and that if he appeared as one, it was only because he was "so very old: hundreds and hundreds of years old."

Shift gained the power to pursue these actions by tricking Puzzle into impersonating Aslan, the true ruler of Narnia, using his claimed humanity as 'evidence' of his great wisdom to justify how he was the only one who could speak to Aslan.

Shift's scheme is summed up this way:

Quote
Shift, a Narnian ape, had been conspiring with the Tisroc, planning the overthrow of Narnia, for a long time. One day, as he was walking by Cauldron Pool with his friend Puzzle, they found the skin of a dumb lion who had been killed by a hunter in the Western Wild. Shift, ignoring Puzzle's protests, sewed the skin into a "fine new winter coat" for Puzzle, as he said. Gradually, he persuaded the donkey that Aslan wanted him to dress up in the lion skin so that Shift could use the Lion's authority to "put everything right" in Narnia. Although Puzzle was hesitant, he knew that Shift was far cleverer than himself and thought that the ape must know what Aslan would want, so he agreed.

...

Shift used the animals' firm faith in and longing for Aslan's return to facilitate his rise to power. He allowed Puzzle in the lion's skin to be sighted by several animals to start rumors, and then presented him openly to all the beasts...

The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme. They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further:

Quote
Rishda Tarkaan dragged the Ape up close to the fire. The pair of them turned to face the crowd, and this of course meant that their backs were towards Tirian and his friends.

"Now, Monkey," said Rishda Tarkaan in a low voice. "Say the words that wiser heads have put into thy mouth. And hold up thy head." As he spoke he gave the Ape a little prod or kick from behind with the point of his toe.

"Do leave me alone," muttered Shift. But he sat up straighter and began, in a louder voice——

"Now listen, all of you. A terrible thing has happened. A wicked thing. The wickedest thing that ever was done in Narnia. And Aslan ... is very angry about it."

There was a terrible silence while the Beasts waited to hear what new trouble was in store for them. The little party by the end-wall of the stable also held their breath. What on earth was coming now?

"Yes," said the Ape. "At this very moment, when the Terrible One himself is among us—there in the stable just behind me—one wicked Beast has chosen to do what you'd think no one would dare to do even if He were a thousand miles away. It has dressed itself up in a lionskin and is wandering about in these very woods pretending to be Aslan."

Jill wondered for a moment if the Ape had gone mad. Was he going to tell the whole truth? A roar of horror and rage went up from the Beasts. "Grrr!" came the growls, "Who is he? Where is he? Just let me get my teeth into him!"

"It was seen last night," screamed the Ape, "but it got away. It's a donkey! A common, miserable a$s! If any of you see that a$s——"

"Grrr!" growled the Beasts. "We will, we will. He'd better keep out of our way."

The heroes of the story respond this way:

Quote
Jill looked at the King: his mouth was open and his face was full of horror. And then she understood the devilish cunning of the enemies' plan. By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger. What was the good, now, of telling the Beasts that an a$s had been dressed up as a lion to deceive them? The Ape would only say, "That's just what I've said." What was the good of showing them Puzzle in his lionskin? They would only tear him in pieces. "That's taken the wind out of our sails," whispered Eustace. "The ground is taken from under our feet," said Tirian.

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken in the CES Letter. As Robert F. Smith put it (speaking of the authors of the CES Letter (written, or more accurately, compiled, by Jeremy Runnells, and a later derivative copycat, A Letter to My Wife, written by someone named "Zachary"): "Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naïve."

There have been many, many responses to Runnells' letter:

Kevin Christensen's article in Interpreter: Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay
Kevin Christensen's second article in Interpreter: Image is Everything: Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain
FAIR's "Response to 'Letter to a CES Director' and 'Debunking FAIR's Debunking' (Debunking FairMormon)
Michael Ash's "Bamboozled by the 'CES Letter'"
Jonathan's Cannon's "One Believer’s Reactions to the CES Letter"
Daniel Peterson's "Some Reflections On That Letter To a CES Director"
Anonymous ("Church is True")'s post, "CES Letter"
Jim Bennett's "A Reply from a Former CES Employee" (as well his many, many articles on Runnell's piece, though I haven't checked to see if they are duplicative of his "Reply")
Neal Rappleye's Text And History—Part 1: The Case For The Book of Mormon (An Open Letter To Jeremy Runnells)
Neal Rappleye's Text And History—Part 2: The Case For The Book of Mormon (An Open Letter To Jeremy Runnells)
Jeff Lindsay's "Coping with the 'Big List' of Attacks on the LDS Faith
Stephen Smoot's "The 'Real Scholars' of Jeremy Runnells"
Stephen Smoot's "More Blatant Misrepresentations from Jeremy Runnells"
Stephen Smoot's "Who's the Real Amateur?"
Brian Hales's "Jeremy Runnells – the New Expert on Joseph Smith’s Polygamy?"
I recognize that this is a lot of material to cover. That's sort of them problem that we run into when we get a neophyte like Runnells who presumes to speak broadly about a plethora of issues, but whose writings end up being a lot of "tinkling cymbals and sounding brass."

As you can tell, I don't think much of the CES Letter. I am open to reasoned and reasonable criticism of our faith. We have put ourselves out there, in the public sphere. Our claims can and should be subject to real scrutiny. As Pres. J. Reuben Clark so aptly put it: "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

But we don't get much in the way of "investigation" in the CES Letter. The "concerns" and "questions" in it are not fairly posed, and are instead presented in a "death by a thousand paper cuts"-type of compendium. Many are short, facile ("appearing neat and comprehensive only by ignoring the true complexities of an issue; superficial") questions/concerns designed to elicit long, complex answers and are presented with the intent to ensnare rather than to elicit information. They are intellectually dishonest in that they are cobbled-together complaints and criticisms from people hostile to the Restored Gospel being presented under the guise of "questions" or "concerns." His "questions" are, I think, obviously not the product of meaningful and rigorous study, but are instead just a cobbled-together list of complaints and criticisms he found online (or which he received from others whom he solicited online).

Virtually everything Runnells presents has been addressed over and over and over. It is one thing to disagree with those responses, but it is manifestly bad faith to pretend as if they don't exist, and to refuse to meaningfully interact with them at all.

In my view, Runnells is pretty much a yellow journalist. Unfortunately, yellow journalism, unethical journalism, shallow and largely-ignorant-of-the-subject-matter journalism, can nevertheless have a significant impact on the reading public.

The advice about the Palantir (see above) is aptly applied to the CES Letter: "The moral of this is don't look in the da{r}n thing." And if you do, don't just uncritically accept it and the conclusions you are supposed to draw from it. Give these matters some real time and study and effort. Seek out input from people other than Jeremy Runnells. Give the Church and its members an opportunity and fair hearing to respond.

"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive..." (Ephesians 4:14).

"And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart. For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it. Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven. These should then be attended to with great earnestness." (D&C 123:11-14).

Thanks,

-Smac
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _Lemmie »

Omg. The new MD&D thread is 3 pages and counting, but STILL no one is discussing the CONTENT! Well, except for Kevin Christensen, who referenced a 1970s article on the Anton manuscript as “evidence,” and also referred to the meredian magazine report on LIDAR as “evidence” supporting the Book of Mormon. No, really. He really did.

But mostly, it’s just page after page of deconstructing Runnel’s “intent,” as though that matters when investigating the issues.

3 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The point is the substance of the questions and the lack of good answers, not what his motivation was.

——
SMAC97 said:

I think the form and content of the questions matter. A lot....

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/721 ... /#comments

:rolleyes: Only when you can’t answer the questions and are attempting a punt in order to deflect.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _Lemmie »

And now, a brief re-enactment of the Jenkins-Hamblin debate, as interpreted by Smac97:
Smac97:

Let's do this: You present an issue raised by Jeremy Runnells which, in your view, has not been adequately or competently addressed in the various rebuttals I have linked to (many times now). Then we can discuss. Get down to brass tacks. Perhaps to keep things within the parameters of this thread, you could choose something that Scott Gordon addressed.
Exiled:

Answer the question that Professor Hamblin had such a hard time answering from Professor Jenkins a few years ago. Professor Jenkins waded into the Nahom question and asked if there was something in the new world, e.g. pottery, an inscription, etc. that ties the old world to the new.
Smac97:

That's a fair question.
12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Sadly,
Smac97:

How 'bout you present Professor's Hamblin's response?
12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Professor Hamblin's "responses" devolved into asking what is "evidence" anyway
Smac97:

I don't understand. How is that a devolution? Prof. Jenkins presupposed, but did not define, "evidence." Are you suggesting that we ignore the meaning of the word that is central to Prof. Jenkins' inquiry?
12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

and what does one even expect to find and how would one know it when one sees it, etc.
Smac97:

Again, please provide Prof. Hamblin's response(s).
12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

In other words,
Smac97:

How 'bout we refrain from A) critiquing a response which you haven't posted by B) re-framing that response in a way that may substantially deviate from the response itself?
12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

he never could answer Professor Jenkins in a good way
Smac97:

"In a good way?" What does that mean?

Let me illustrate my point: As an attorney...

[SNIPPED <a mind-numbingly long and pointless digression that IN NO WAY illustrates ANY POINT, let alone whatever he “as an attorney” has experienced. Sigh.>]
Still Smac97:

Again, the lawyer will (or should) object to the "form of the question" and instruct his client not to answer. This is because the question itself is defective in some way, such that the response to it will likewise be defective or otherwise problematic.

You seem somewhat eager to blow off "form of the question"-type concerns. I don't think that works here. If the question is crappy, then there really isn't a good reason to answer it.

You seem to be implying that Prof. Hamblin was being evasive or dishonest in bringing up "form of the question"-type concerns. I don't think that works here. Prof. Jenkins asked for "evidence," and Prof. Hamblin asked him to clarify what he (Jenkins) defines as "evidence." If that definition is problematic, then the two parties are not communicating well (as they may have different understandings about a key term, "evidence").
12 minutes ago, Exiled said:

because there isn't anything that ties the old world circa 600 B.C. to the new world. Maybe you could step into the fray?
Smac97:

Happy to. Let's contextualize things a bit. Please present Jenkins' inquiry, and Hamblin's response.

Thanks,

- Smac

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/721 ... da/page/4/

Omg. Performance art at its mind-numbing best. And STILL, no answer to Jenkins’ question.
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _Philo Sofee »

But now smac can say he has addressed the issue, and that's all the meek followers need. I am onto their strategy. They have no necessity in their own minds of actually addressing anything. But they can claim "Hey! We gave an answer!" Clever, but no cigar. I mean, I ain't goin back ta church on that dismal performance, so they still lose. I know no one here who is pleading for the church to let them back in either. I see no grand rush of the public to their baptismal fonts, nor increase in tithing either.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Dr Exiled
_Emeritus
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _Dr Exiled »

Lemmie wrote:And now, a brief re-enactment of the Jenkins-Hamblin debate, as interpreted by Smac97:

[SNIP!]

Omg. Performance art at its mind-numbing best. And STILL, no answer to Jenkins’ question.

Yes, no answer. Only crickets and obfuscation from our beloved mope attorney at law. I just requested that he answer the question. Let's see his response.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 
_Dr Exiled
_Emeritus
Posts: 3616
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:48 am

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _Dr Exiled »

Philo Sofee wrote:But now smac can say he has addressed the issue, and that's all the meek followers need. I am onto their strategy. They have no necessity in their own minds of actually addressing anything. But they can claim "Hey! We gave an answer!" Clever, but no cigar. I mean, I ain't goin back ta church on that dismal performance, so they still lose. I know no one here who is pleading for the church to let them back in either. I see no grand rush of the public to their baptismal fonts, nor increase in tithing either.

The answer is to blame Dr. Jenkins for even asking the question to begin with. I mean how dare he? His question is divisive and unbecoming a professor. Or how about questioning what evidence really means, a la Hamblin? My favorite, however, is to evade by claiming that the form of the question is "crappy" so any good lawyer wouldn't let his/her client answer the question, no matter how silly it makes the client look.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Exiled wrote:
Philo Sofee wrote:But now smac can say he has addressed the issue, and that's all the meek followers need. I am onto their strategy. They have no necessity in their own minds of actually addressing anything. But they can claim "Hey! We gave an answer!" Clever, but no cigar. I mean, I ain't goin back ta church on that dismal performance, so they still lose. I know no one here who is pleading for the church to let them back in either. I see no grand rush of the public to their baptismal fonts, nor increase in tithing either.

The answer is to blame Dr. Jenkins for even asking the question to begin with. I mean how dare he? His question is divisive and unbecoming a professor. Or how about questioning what evidence really means, a la Hamblin? My favorite, however, is to evade by claiming that the form of the question is "crappy" so any good lawyer wouldn't let his/her client answer the question, no matter how silly it makes the client look.

Like when Dallin Oaks didn't like one of the questions during Salamandergate, and so told the guy to rephrase the question to the way Oaks wanted it?! :lol: :lol: :lol: What an arrogant prick.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Gadianton
_Emeritus
Posts: 9947
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:12 am

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _Gadianton »

Exiled wrote:Or how about questioning what evidence really means, a la Hamblin?

Bill Hamblin himself had a thread at FAIR a long time ago that the moderators loved so much they pinned it to the top for something like a year. In that thread, Dr. Hamblin explained that the lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon was expected, given that the narrative takes place in a "limited geography" surrounded by "others" -- they were surrounded; destroyed; absorbed by the much larger neighboring cultures.

And so at that time, at least, he knew exactly what "evidence" was, and it was exactly what Dr. Jenkin's was talking about, and he appeared to agree with Dr. Jenkins.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
_grindael
_Emeritus
Posts: 6791
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:15 am

Re: Scott Gordon the CES Letter and Truth

Post by _grindael »

Wow. So not one single reference to a topic or problem, and no indication of where information can be found, just accusations that the issues noted represent “no effort to study,” and no effort to “meaningfully understand.” Plus an unwarranted attack on Runnels, that again bypasses the issues being presented.

Smac is really showing himself as panicked and desperate here. Does he really think a person will read his list of (obviously fabricated) problems with presentation, and mistake that for information about the actual issues? Anyone who reads his diatribes, with the exception of Scott Lloyd, maybe, will be put off by his attitude and investigate for themselves, so there is that to be grateful for, I suppose.


This is what they have all been doing to Jeremy since the beginning. It's nothing new. Christensen did it in the Interpreter. Tapir Dan jumped on board, as did Ash with his "Bamboozled" drivel. So many people taken in by simple word manipulation! It's so very laughable. Brian Hales launched a whole website against Jeremy. And you know what? It's gone NOWHERE and they are still at it! All their Mopologetics... useless against a simple young man's cry for help. And they are pissed because they have no answers. The "Essays" were a flop and did more harm than good. All they did was reinforce that the "Anti's" were right all along! The Mopologist BS were the real lies! And so now it's just temper tantrums and ranting and raving...

Thank you Bozo Hales! Thank you Kreepy Christensen! Michael crAsh! Tapir Dan! Loser Midgetly! Rot Gordon! Phony Baloney Kook Smoot! And your many Mopologist buddies! Thank you all for showing how lying never works!

We all thank you for showing that we were right all along...

Image

Bennett, Marquardt, Runnells, Stephenson, Streeter & Vogel - Sunstone, Aug. 2019
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 21, 2019 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Riding on a speeding train; trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain; Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world can change your direction:
One step where events converge may alter your perception.
Post Reply