Anyone debunked this CES Letter Response?

[Vlad the Emailer]

http://stallioncornell.com/blog/a-reply ... -employee/

Naturally it's mostly the same ol', same ol', but having not read it all, but jumped around a bit, I see a few new defenses, such as D&C 20 saying JS had received forgiveness of his sins as an 1830 (earlier than otherwise believed) support for the first vision.

Just wondering who has seen it and if it has been debunked.

[oliver_denom]

I couldn't get the page to load.

But it's always been the case that if you're creative enough, that you can find some way to explain away inconsistency and contradiction. If you're intellectually minded, but still want to be Mormon, then there are plenty of ways to invent this or that in order to stay that way. The real questions about Mormonism have always been about what you're willing to accept and what you're willing to do.

The CES Letter is more or less a collection of "I can't accept this" propositions, which will inevitably be answered by "I can accept this and here's why" responses. It would be impossible to answer them all. I personally think the "I am unwilling to do this" answers are more persuasive. For example, "I'm unwilling to teach my children bigotry" or "I'm unwilling to close myself off to the world". Once you have an "I'm unwilling to do X" proposition, then you don't really need justification based on "I can't accept this" propositions. You can simply state your case based on moral principle.

[Hagoth]

I haven't looked through it yet but I read the preface. He quotes Peterson as saying the CES letter is 90 pages long but it would take 500 pages to respond to it. I think that illustrates the problem right there. Good answers don't require that much verbal tap dancing.

[Red Ryder]

Daniel Peterson is a brilliant BYU professor who spends a lot of his time engaging in LDS apologetics. In August of 2014, Peterson gave a presentation to the apologetic group Fairmormon on the topic of a PDF booklet titled “Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony” by a guy named Jeremy Runnells.

I had to stop reading after the 5th word.

[moksha]

If you accept the premise that bluster equals both proof and a point by point refutation, then this response has it covered. If you are looking at it in terms of a rhetorical analysis, then you will find a lot of verbiage without satisfying answers.

[el-asherah]

I see a few new defenses, such as D&C 20 saying JS had received forgiveness of his sins as an 1830 (earlier than otherwise believed) support for the FirstVvision.
Just wondering who has seen it and if it has been debunked.

Since there have been no responses, I'll take a stab at it

D&C 20

5 After it was truly manifested unto this first elder that he had received a remission of his sins, he was entangled again in the vanities of the world;

6 But after repenting, and humbling himself sincerely, through faith, God ministered unto him by an holy angel, whose countenance was as lightning, and whose garments were pure and white above all other whiteness;

Verse 6 is referring to the Gold Plate Vision. I've seen lots of arguments about verse 5, apologists stating it is early reference to the Grove / First Vision, proof in 1830. However, the verse is very vague and can refer to numerous events other than the First Vision or it could refer to the First Vision.

I have no answers, but some ideas to further the discussion.

• The official canonized version of the First Vision makes no reference to the fact the Joseph received a remissions of sins, it is not there. The concept does exist in other non official versions of the First Vision.

• Joseph records numerous times through his life he had received a remission of sins ... yet... again, it seems to be a continual thing for him

• There is no dating, the event could of been anytime before 1823, such as when Joseph was 10 or 12

• "truely manifested that he had received a remission of his sins" could refer to any type of come to Jesus moment, such as he accepted Jesus and was saved, or he was baptized formally or informally, or he prayed and felt his sins were forgiven (not necessarily the first vision), felt the Holy Ghost, took communion, prayed in a grove, etc... this would of all been in the context of his family's early involvement with the Methodists, Folk magic, Masonry, camp meetings, etc..

• I believe Fawn Brody in "No Man Knows My History" states that Joseph was a Methodist Exhorter in his youth (the warm up act for the preacher?) for a short while. This would have required some sort of "come to Jesus moment"

If I have time I'll try to research this more, bottom line is that the reference is too vague to firmly support the idea that it is a reference to the First Vision, it could be almost anything

[Jeffret]

Goodness, I hope not. The CES letter is a somewhat readable 84 pages long. This response is a dreary 251 pages long. I can't imagine how dreadfully long the response to the response would be.

After praising Peterson, it's off to a very poor start.

I know a lot of people find a lot of meaning in the CES letter. Or it has been the impetus for a faith crisis. If so, that's fine.

Personally, it's never done much for me. I don't think I've ever made it through the whole thing. Whenever I do poke around in it, I find it a little dry. Maybe it's just that I've already heard so many of these things so many times and none of it is ever new. I'm sure for lots of people who haven't spent nearly as many years on these DAMU forums, there is a bunch of new and enlightening stuff in there. As a compendium of briefs on a number of the historical issues, it's quite well done. I find Palmer's "Insider's View" much more readable and interesting, but he covers far fewer topics and issues than Runnells does. As a thorough examination of the issues the CES Letter is rather lacking. There are lots of other considerations on many of them. Many of the points are very biased -- someone with an opposing bias can readily reach different conclusions. That's part of the reason why these rebuttal responses to the CES Letter have been so popular, including this one, which is extraordinary in effort if not necessarily in substance.

I like Oliver's distinctions between "I can't accept this" and "I'm unwilling to do this". People have lots of different response to issues with the Church. People approach them lots of different ways, all of which can work. Clearly the contents of the CES Letter work for Runnells and some others. These are really all historical issues, problems with the history of the Church and particularly its founding. I find these things fascinating from an academic perspective, but kind of lacking when it comes to what really matters to me. I'd be willing to forgive Joseph, and Brigham, a lot of their sins and weaknesses as I hope mine can be forgiven. I'd be willing to grant the same to today's Church leaders if they demonstrated a willingness to learn and improve. But, the big factors to me relate to the behaviors of the Church and its leaders today not years long past. While there are certainly some good things about the Church it's really not a place I want to be. I'd be willing to forgive today's Church leaders if they demonstrated a willingness to learn, grow, and demonstrate true humility and unrelenting love.

[Jeffret]

I thought I'd share a little more regarding how I approach much of these things. Perhaps it will be useful.

Let's take the issue of the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Does it contain an actual history of real people who once inhabited the earth?

I accept that there are some valid evidences supporting the BoM. There are a number of pieces that believers and supporters have used that have some decent validity. They're not outright proofs but they provide evidence in support of the position. We could spend lots of time arguing each of these points, because each is uncertain and limited, but I accept that they break in the believer's favor.

On the other hand, there is a vast mountain of evidence against the historicity. Runnells goes through a particular set of them that concern him. There are lots more from a wide variety of areas. My favorite source for evidences against its historicity are the pages of the book itself. If you read it openly and carefully there is no way it could be what it is purported to be. As one example, over the span of hundreds if not thousands of years its Christology (the understanding of Christ) it presents remains remarkably consistent. In contrast, if you look over real history you see wide shifts and variations in Christology. There are many other examples of unwarranted consistency over large time scales. The apologist could explain that away as being due to the hand of Mormon in compiling it, but then that raises other issues. It contradicts central aspects of the story about the BoM. It would convert it from anything resembling a reliable history to truly the book of Mormon. That just shifts the problem of creation from Joseph to Mormon, but there are so many problems with that construct.

So, some amount of evidences in support of the BoM. A mountain against. We could argue about each little piece. Those for. And those against. But, it doesn't change the mountain vs. the tiny pile. And the support unravels faster than the criticism. Those making the claim should be expected to provide the preponderance of evidence.

This is similar to a lot of the issues, such as raised in the CES Letter. There are certainly issues. There are often some valid responses and counter-evidences to answer Runnells questions. But, even at 251 pages, the responses are all lacking. They try to chip away piece by piece at the mountain of evidence but they accomplish little and don't create any coherent whole.

At the end, with the BoM, it comes down to me, does it provide value? It is meaningful, uplifting, or enlightening? Does it provide a sufficient amount within its pages for me to pay particular attention to it? Yes, meaning can be found in it. It does contain some useful ideas. But, ultimately, it's pretty lacking. It's characters are wooden, at best. It's situations are unreasonable. It's doctrine is good at times but not particularly outstanding. To me, that's the ultimate test and the historicity is just an interesting side light.