tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post3908305314472350666..comments2023-12-13T12:48:29.436-07:00Comments on Mormon Puzzle Pieces: Answers to CES Letter Questions and Concerns, Part IUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-41546774087290608282015-10-28T10:27:56.185-06:002015-10-28T10:27:56.185-06:00I appreciate your review of the CES Letter. I use...I appreciate your review of the CES Letter. I used some of your logic in my own review, thought I take a more liberal approach to historicity. http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07483570896266238547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-57699994329069426702015-08-06T15:03:09.391-06:002015-08-06T15:03:09.391-06:00What circumstances would be necessary for you to b...What circumstances would be necessary for you to believe otherwise?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623980118764230707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-18270505475290199542015-08-06T04:22:58.766-06:002015-08-06T04:22:58.766-06:00I would like to hear the issues you talk about her...I would like to hear the issues you talk about here. I sent a friend invite on facebook, you can message me there. <br /><br />While I would never conclude that the Church is false, I don't think that makes discussion pointless. It just means that the conclusions I reach will be about the strength of arguments, not about transcendent truth. Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623980118764230707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-75408018880115384462015-08-05T18:43:00.491-06:002015-08-05T18:43:00.491-06:00The fact is, a large number of arguments do hold u...The fact is, a large number of arguments do hold up under scrutiny. I'd be happy to go through them individually, but this is hardly the forum for that. However, I am currently working on a document outlining only indisputable facts as I believe the church can be entirely discredited on a small subset of the arguments that are not really debatable - just facts with a logical conclusion. I want to stay clear of all the disputable facts or facts that can be reasonably contested by apologists. However, many apologist arguments range from deceiving to outright lying and those facts will still be included with responses to apologetic claims explaining the deception.<br /><br />Sadly, even the church essays and other information they are publishing is still riddled with deceptive statements. That's why, in all cases, it is critical to review source material. I expect the same level of scholarship and honesty on both sides of the discussion about facts. In fact, I just called someone out for making such an unsubstantiated claim against the church earlier today. I don't care what side someone takes, for the discussion to move forward we need to work on provable information and be open and honest about it. IMO, this isn't about convincing anyone, it's about getting to the truth.<br /><br />People or organizations who have made up their mind and seek to prove their viewpoint hide facts that might conflict. The problem with apologetics is that the process starts with a foregone conclusion. For LDS apologists this means that the truth of the church is beyond question. They simply try to find ways to justify the claims or explain away the problems. To have a real discussion on the truth claims of anything, no conclusion can be set in stone or beyond question. Can you honestly say that you are willing to consider the possibility that the church is not true? Until you can, discussion is futile.<br /><br />I have always advocated that people do their own research, be skeptical and search out primary source material. I would never want nor expect anyone to take my word for it or question their faith just because I claim there are a lot of issues. It is my hope that members will search for themselves and discover the truth for themselves. OTOH, I feel somewhat disheartened at times because I've come to realize that very few want to or know how to do proper research or think critically. I only hope that the research that I've done will be able to help others.Justin Warkentinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552366033084409785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-32433061701696147782015-08-04T23:08:27.310-06:002015-08-04T23:08:27.310-06:00I believe most of the Nephites were natives. If yo...I believe most of the Nephites were natives. If you read the post, I do go into that a bit.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623980118764230707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-25055082070237120532015-08-04T23:01:15.286-06:002015-08-04T23:01:15.286-06:00Justin, you assume that a large set of the anti-Mo...Justin, you assume that a large set of the anti-Mormon arguments hold up under scrutiny and therefore can be cited in aggregation, to overwhelm. My experience has been that critics often use that type of thinking in conjunction with the claim that apologists are using strained mental gymnastics to slip out of arguments, with the idea being that a couple of improbable things might be possible but a big list of them can't be explained away. The problem is, I don't ever get to see objective proof showing the probability of specific apologetic explanations. What it amounts to IMHO is critics saying that each explanation "feels" improbable to them, so therefore must be improbable, and therefore the list taken together must be super improbable - as though the Church being true is like winning the lottery 50 times in a row. Then, critics put their feeling-based probability argument in contrast to testimony - which they dismiss for being feeling based.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623980118764230707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-19270683196354005082015-08-04T16:24:03.573-06:002015-08-04T16:24:03.573-06:00so in my opinion the genetic makeup had to survive...so in my opinion the genetic makeup had to survived in some shape or form. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-3340554488601922862015-08-04T16:15:13.040-06:002015-08-04T16:15:13.040-06:00Which leads me to my second question. what happend...Which leads me to my second question. what happend to the women, children and turn coats? There had to be survivors of the war at cumorah. would you take your wife and kids to the middle of a battlefield, no. No sane person would bring your wife and kids to fight. I would tell them to run like hell out of there and don't come back. also the turn coats they would have completely stayed away from civilization or kept close to friendly lamanites (not all germans were butchers)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-10668601326743930742015-08-04T15:50:23.426-06:002015-08-04T15:50:23.426-06:00How would their genome completely disappear if the...How would their genome completely disappear if they were not allowed to mingle with lamanites? besides the fact that they "were killed off"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-54975301109631901062015-08-04T15:47:34.495-06:002015-08-04T15:47:34.495-06:00Nice article very well written I do have some ques...Nice article very well written I do have some question about your article:<br />2nd Nephi 5:21-25 1st the lord caused the blackness not their own choice; 2nd Nephites were comanded not to mingle with Lamanites it would be hard to mingle with the natives if they were mingling with the lamanites as well. only way to tell was the blackness of their skin. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-71063647010144665732015-08-04T01:50:36.604-06:002015-08-04T01:50:36.604-06:00I feel like I should also mention that as much as ...I feel like I should also mention that as much as it sucks leaving the church initially, there is hope and happiness outside the church. TBH, I think I'm happier now than I've ever been, but it would take a lot longer to explain all the reasons why. I'm at peace with my life outside the church now, though at the time I left it was very difficult and I freaked out a lot. That is to be expected when walking away from a way of life and all the comfort of the "knowledge" you once had and into the scary unknowns.<br /><br />I mention this only because I don't want my comment to be misconstrued as many in the church often do as unhappiness. I have found that many members seem to think that anyone outside the church or not obeying the church's commandments must be miserable and unhappy. That is simply not true.Justin Warkentinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552366033084409785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-1947098125055881672015-08-04T01:42:56.276-06:002015-08-04T01:42:56.276-06:00Thank you for your reply. I have realized that the...Thank you for your reply. I have realized that the answer I am really seeking in relation to the character and behavior of God will require me to write a much more lengthy explanation of the question. It has more to do with God's M.O. I think to answer many questions we need to build a psychological profile of God. I will have to see if I can find some time and write more about the specific inconsistencies and issues I see. I have written much more extensively about a lot of issues as well as my specific reasoning about God, but I would prefer to share it privately for now. I may message you on Reddit.Justin Warkentinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552366033084409785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-80156843347418859862015-08-04T01:35:10.733-06:002015-08-04T01:35:10.733-06:00Additionally, the fact that you or Richard Bushman...Additionally, the fact that you or Richard Bushman are still in the church is neither surprising nor does it give me pause. I fully understand the mentality that keeps a person there, regardless of logic. Leaving the church is one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. I was tempted many times just to stay even though I didn't believe it, just because of how difficult it is to leave and be shunned and ostracized by family and friends. Though even that pales in comparison to realizing that the whole framework you've built your life upon has crumbled beneath you and you are now left with more questions and no answers. Frankly, it just sucks. But I couldn't force my mind to believe in the face of the evidence I've seen. Some people can. I can't blame anyone because it is hard and there's a lot of crazy psychology behind it.<br /><br />Richard Bushman is a very interesting case, IMO. He states that "The closer you get to Joseph Smith in the sources, the stronger he will appear, rather than the reverse, as is so often assumed by critics." However, I've found that the closer I get to Joseph Smith in the sources the weaker he appears. Frankly, that is a very subjective statement anyway and thus not admissible as any sort of evidence. I believe Bushman already had an idea in his mind of who he thought Joseph was (which should be a forgone conclusion as he has long been an active enthusiastic defender of the faith) and simply gave greater emphasis to the sources that supported his view - this is called confirmation bias.<br /><br />Also, I believe it is a very ignorant and arrogant statement to say, "I sincerely doubt that you have anything to show that would surprise me." Despite my extensive research I am always amazed to learn of new things about church history that call into question its truth claims. It seems that the issues are endless. I am confident that you haven't heard them all. And it is also an unprovable claim to state that you have.Justin Warkentinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552366033084409785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-18017396777770525572015-08-04T01:34:53.182-06:002015-08-04T01:34:53.182-06:00Sorry I have to break this into two comments. Appa...Sorry I have to break this into two comments. Apparently it's too long.<br /><br />I never insisted on focusing on the KJV. You asked, "Why is the KJV language in the Book of Mormon such a dealbreaker?" My initial post was actually doing the opposite of focusing on the KJV. It was pointing out that the KJV issues alone are not a deal breaker, IMO, though they may be for some. You criticized me for widening the focus beyond the KJV.<br /><br />While it is easier in some cases to try to tackle one issue at a time, the KJV issues are a small part of the larger issue of the translation of the Book of Mormon that must be considered as a whole. It is simply one facet that provides evidence of the truthfulness as a whole.<br /><br />I think it's critical to establish what the translation process looked like, and to do it based on actual solid evidence (not speculation). While at least the vast majority of evidence, if not all, points to a tight translation of the BoM, there are many things which can only be explained by a loose translation. Of course, there are other things that can only be explained by a tight translation. The only valid argument that allows the BoM to be true is a mixture of tight and loose translation. Of course, for an inspired work that is supposed to be the basis of a restored church and that is supposed to be "the most correct of any book on earth" it's not good to have serious translation errors. Especially ones that affect doctrine. These errors bring the whole work into question. We have no idea which parts were tight, which were loose and what's really reliable. I believe any claims of a loose translation lead to a much more serious problem of the work's reliability as a basis for religious belief.<br /><br />There are countless issues working against the truth claims of the Book of Mormon as a whole, which taken together are very difficult to overcome. While not an all-inclusive list, there are some that I believe are very critical issues that need a reasonable explanation. These include things such as the KJV translation errors, the 19th-century protestant theology and wording mentioned by Richard Bushman, the middle english phrasing mentioned by Royal Skousen, the deutero-isaiah chapters, the Malachi verses, the high amount of correlation with The Late War (among others books), the process itself using a stone he found on his neighbors property instead of the Urim and Thummim - he used the same method for translating the BoM that failed previously in finding buried treasure, the fact that after the time it supposedly took him to get the plates he didn't actually use the plates in translating the BoM - which then negates the need for the witnesses at all, the countless anachronisms and lack of archaeological support. It's all too much to be taken seriously.Justin Warkentinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552366033084409785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-7986070382353822242015-08-03T19:25:48.731-06:002015-08-03T19:25:48.731-06:00Justin, thank you. You raise a good point. I actua...Justin, thank you. You raise a good point. I actually have not read your comments, because my mind is a little overloaded right now. The reason I have thanked others is that I'm encouraged by their presence here which offsets the harsh negative comments which are in great abundance. And now I see that you also help offset those, by raising the level of discourse to a substantive one. And I thank you for that.<br /><br />As for the character and behavior of God, He gives us two governing principles which seem paramount. First, our agency - this includes our decision to come to earth knowing fully the pains, trials, hardships and confusion we would endure. Second, His work and glory is to bring to pass our progress, turning us into beings which He can share everything He has with. In other words, the principle of love. God, knowing everything, is well aware of how every experience will shape us in the long run. <br /><br />If God simply wanted us to be convinced of truth, He could easily persuade us. That's not an obstacle for an all-powerful God. The reason God doesn't do so is because our earth life is structured specifically so we are separated from God and do not cognitively remember Him, living in a confusing storm of distractions. God doesn't want us merely to believe, but to believe for the right reason. There's a reason God used an uneducated farm boy to do His work. God wants us to feel His Spirit, and recognize Him from the pre-existence, and let us decide how much that relationship means to us. Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623980118764230707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-37455861750914023912015-08-03T15:48:05.210-06:002015-08-03T15:48:05.210-06:00Don't worry. I have not "missed the point...Don't worry. I have not "missed the point". I am just mocking you (I hope gently enough for you not to take offense), for your insistence on focusing on the KJV. It is truly a minor point that somehow gets blown way out of proportion by critics such as yourself. When a passage comes up that looks like Isaiah 48, isn't it easier to just copy it down, rather than re-translate from scratch? With some minor changes inserted where warranted. This is what I myself do (I am a translator of languages by profession). It is just easier to do. Joseph Smith himself admitted that he did this. Toward the end of his life, in a sermon he quoted the Bible, pausing to say "I might have rendered a plainer translation, but this will suffice."<br /><br />I agree that Isaiah could have been translated differently (or better). So? But it "suffices" for the time being. Later, he tries something else, in the JST, perhaps a little differently, to capture the same ancient thought. But this is not confusion or deception, as you seem to think. It is just how translation works. Even when God is behind it, you ask? Yes, I say, even when God is behind it.<br /><br />So you say that just one would not do. That there are hundreds of issues. So there are. But it is certainly more rational to tackle one issue at a time than to attempt to blast away at several hundred. If I can convince you that KJV is not a deal breaker, then we can move on to the next.<br /><br />Finally, you are lecturing the wrong person when you say I should read up more on Church history. I have been reading everything that is out there for decades, pro, anti, and every shade in between. The CES letter (which I finally, grudgingly, got around to last year, and it was as shallow and poorly thought out as I suspected it would be), the FAIR response, the counter-response, etcetera ad nauseum.<br /><br />It is all old-hat. I sincerely doubt that you have anything to show that would surprise me.<br /><br />And yet I am still here, and you are not. This should give you pause. (But if you don't think my example is worthy enough, how about Richard Bushman, who wrote a whole biography of that notorious Joseph Smith. Surely he knows more about JS than anyone alive, and yet he is still here.)<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09136691374042080154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-50291425840309753032015-08-03T09:26:36.162-06:002015-08-03T09:26:36.162-06:00Ryan, I just want to point out that you've onl...Ryan, I just want to point out that you've only responded positively to comments that agree with you. My comments have all been level headed and simply stated facts and my reasoning. The facts tell a different story and the reasoning disagrees with your conclusion. I understand that you don't like those comments since you disagree with my conclusion but I would argue that they are still positive contributions because they contribute positively to the discussion.<br /><br />If you only stick to audiences or comments that agree with you then you are unlikely to achieve your stated purpose of "softening hearts". While many people are understandably upset after learning the facts of church history, many of us are also less upset and simply following the logical truth where it takes us. Of course, that also requires that explanations for facts fall within a certain degree of plausibility.<br /><br />I'm actually very interested in your thoughts on the character and behavior of God. The reason my shelf broke and I finally left the church is because I realized that not only is the Mormon god inconsistent with himself, but the Mormon god as demonstrated by countless examples in church history is also inconsistent with the Mormon teachings of who god is. It doesn't follow that the Mormon god can be the author of Mormonism. If so, that is not a god I can worship. I would like to see a plausible explanation for God that can still fit the teachings but also explain His behavior in relation to history.<br /><br />Obviously there are many more issues to deal with in terms of church history and I'm happy for any answers I can get. I would simply like not to have to do a lot of crazy mental gymnastics to get there. The fact is, even if some of the explanations are theoretically possible, the amount of stretching and assuming required means I don't actually believe it when there's a much more plausible explanation at hand. I would also like not to have to shelve things and just say, "because I felt a good feeling all those other things don't matter". It's already been hashed and rehashed how bad feelings are at determining or measuring truth.Justin Warkentinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552366033084409785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-55112253751066209202015-08-03T04:10:31.185-06:002015-08-03T04:10:31.185-06:00David, I'm grateful for your positive contribu...David, I'm grateful for your positive contributions to the comments! :)Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623980118764230707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-34008960862436415772015-08-03T04:07:04.626-06:002015-08-03T04:07:04.626-06:00Anonymous, that is a response to straw men he inve...Anonymous, that is a response to straw men he invented after filtering out my statements he didn't like. I responded to it, pointing out the error in his method.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17623980118764230707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-40619155126041124472015-08-02T20:30:29.187-06:002015-08-02T20:30:29.187-06:00David, you are correct in stating that polygamy ha...David, you are correct in stating that polygamy has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon being false. The only thing it has to do with is Joseph Smith's claims of being a prophet led by God. However, that does have to do with Book of Mormon truth claims.<br /><br />Also, you are committing a fallacy in asserting that Joseph did not consummate those marriages. We cannot currently prove that he did, nor can we prove that he didn't so technically neither of you are accurate in your statements. However, we do have first and second hand accounts of claims that he did consummate some marriages.<br /><br />I'd also like to know by what authority he married Fanny Alger in early 1833 since he didn't receive the sealing power until April 1836 and it wasn't a legal marriage. Also, it's funny that he had to apparently be coerced by an angel with a drawn sword to practice polygamy in 1834 since he was already practicing in 1833. I like how the church essay side steps this issue by stating that the Fanny Alger marriage was "in the mid-1830s" which is technically accurate but misleading. It just avoids the inevitable timeline questions that arise if they gave a more exact date.Justin Warkentinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552366033084409785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-81555520750334891062015-08-02T20:03:33.808-06:002015-08-02T20:03:33.808-06:00You totally missed the point. I'm pretty certa...You totally missed the point. I'm pretty certain that almost no one has left the church over just the KJV errors in the BoM. You're committing a fallacy by focusing on just the one issue and assuming that's what everyone's problem is. Even worse, you're building a strawman when you state that the issue is "over-use of KJV language". The issue is the specific KJV translation errors that appear in the BoM. They are the errors that are found in the specific version of the bible available in Joseph Smith's family home.<br /><br />It's about use of KJV language added only by English translators between 1000-2000+ years after the original text was written in a different language. So basically, either God was reading from the KJV when giving Joseph the text (based on a tight translation) or Joseph was copying it which means it wasn't inspired. Otherwise you have to argue that Nephite prophets had a way to view and record the English translation errors on the plates that would be written in thousands of years and they chose to write them down. It doesn't make sense that it was from God though anyway because God later had Joseph correct some of the verses in the BoM for his JST but didn't correct them in the BoM. So it should be pretty clear that it wasn't inspired.<br /><br />Regardless, it does no good to focus on the one issue. All issues must be viewed as a whole. If that were the only issue, I would definitely still be in the church. There are literally hundreds of issues compounding against the church and the only answers the church has require a lot of mental gymnastics as well as shelving a lot of issues.<br /><br />Anyway, rather than debating things here you should read up more on church history. You can research the individual issues, like I did. You can also read the CES Letter, FAIR's response and then Jeremy's response to FAIR. Look at primary sources and reason for yourself. If you want some links to get you started I can give you a hundred or two.<br /><br />I'm happy to continue this discussion if you'd like, but I want to make sure we're on the same page as far as facts go.Justin Warkentinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17552366033084409785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-59007734266322559972015-08-02T15:14:23.761-06:002015-08-02T15:14:23.761-06:00Stephen, if you consider Ryan's letter an expo...Stephen, if you consider Ryan's letter an exposé on the CES Letter or Runnells, you're unreasonable and delusional. The following debunking of Ryan's letter demonstrates this:<br /><br />https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3fg43a/lets_pull_out_the_testable_claims_from_the/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-44326300480596890212015-08-02T15:05:36.964-06:002015-08-02T15:05:36.964-06:00Two amateur "me too" Mormon apologists h...Two amateur "me too" Mormon apologists high-fiveing and back slapping each other over an embarrassing and poorly written peice...how cute.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-73191110632869032722015-08-02T15:02:11.319-06:002015-08-02T15:02:11.319-06:00Here's a debunking of your letter, Ryan.
http...Here's a debunking of your letter, Ryan.<br /><br />https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/3fg43a/lets_pull_out_the_testable_claims_from_the/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3916334562384780452.post-60229612441902001482015-08-02T09:40:10.057-06:002015-08-02T09:40:10.057-06:00I asked why the KJV is such a problem. You started...I asked why the KJV is such a problem. You started to answer it, and then wandered off into wider and wider tangents until it descended into arm-waving (well, its all not true, because, well, its not true). Thanks, but I'm not buying it.<br /><br />Regarding Deutero-Isaiah (to take one of your objections at random), the standard theory of its provenance is 6th to 7th century bce (Isaiah lived in the 8th century bce), with some liner notes added in by later readers. As my friend Bill Hamblin has pointed out, this is early enough for Lehi, et al, to have seen it before their departure from Jerusalem. (And the liner notes, referencing Cyrus, for example, who lived a generation or two after the departure, are NOT in the BofM, btw. Fancy that stupid ignoramus Joseph Smith being so dumb as to include Deutero-Isaiah and then manage to avoid all sections that are demonstrably late. Lucky boy he was.) <br /><br />As a deluded believer, I actually enjoy all the Bible references in the Book of Mormon, because they are woven into the narrative so well. My favorite is Moroni 7, which is a mash-up of Paul's lecture on charity in Corinthians and a deification reference in 1 John. Combined, the effect is remarkable, one of the most powerful sermons in all of scripture.<br /><br />This is just one example of what you have decided to abandon, just because of supposed over-use of KJV language.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09136691374042080154noreply@blogger.com