Truth and light letter
Created
Updated
Write down my thoughts here.
I want to look at the claims and arguments and see where it goes.
The cover page has this quote
Avoid contentions and vain disputes with men of corrupt minds, who do not desire to know the truth. JOSEPH SMITH JR. Joseph Smith Papers
It's a good quote I guess. Contention is generally not useful or worth it. I agree that the truth should be the end goal no matter where it leads.
The author states
As a result of my search for more light and truth, some questions troubled me. The following issues are among my main concerns.
That summarizes the purpose of the page. It sounds very similar to the ces letter just backwards. It's a little odd to me to then have questions about the anti side. I don't view the anti side in the same way I guess. There are lots of claims I don't find valid. Even in the church I think it's hard to “denounce” certain claims. It ultimately comes down to Joseph and the book of Mormon. I suppose there is an argument for another branch instead of the Brighamite branch. At the moment that isn't my focus
He issues a disclosure about using random social media user pots.
During one six-month period in 2024, I collected most of the X (Twitter), Reddit, and other social media or forum-type comments quoted in this letter. Some comments have been hard to find again, or the original contributor removed them. I used brackets for clarity purposes without changing the intended meaning. Any particular comment is not important. I see the essence of every statement listed here almost daily on social media. My goal is not to make online commentators feel bad but to illustrate the arguments of critics of the Church online
I'm not generally a fan of using random users like that. I mean who cares about random people. It's probably fine but are there not more prominent people to quote instead?
Manipulation and Fallacies
The author here briefly outlines very little about his faith crisis. I wish he would have outlined it more. It doesn't feel personal at the moment. I would like to read his crisis and what happened. This quote is most of it.
I was ready to leave, but there was a problem. I am not sure when it happened, but eventually, I started noticing a long list of techniques being employed against me by critics of the Church. I could begin to see that I was being tricked into accepting false premises and half-truths. That is when I developed serious concerns about how critics made their case. Below is a list of tactics and fallacies4 I have identified over the years that many critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints use and why each is manipulative or wrong.
He builds out a table of logical fallacies and examples. I want to look at each one and comment on them as well.
| Manipulation Tactic | Example | Why it is manipulative | My comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distrust in authority Assuming that any institutional structure with a hierarchy is up to no good. | "If the Church donated that money, it must have been for nefarious reasons." The attitude that anything positive the Church does must have had sinister motives. | This is designed to make the target distrust church leaders. The manipulator wins if the target believes they cannot trust the Church. | The problem here is the author is displaying these same deceptive concepts trying to refute the “anti” narrative. Is the tactic itself deceitful? Yes. Have I seen ant people using it? Yes. Have I seen the church use similar tactics as well? Yes. Specifically though referring to distrust in authority. I think this is the dumbest one of all. We should all distrust authority. Don't trust, verify. The problem is people don't verify and trust whatever authority they view as credible. The anti people view there people as credible and the church and apologists view their authority as credible. If this is such a problem why is the example given a made up straw man argument. No one I have seen is specifically using this specific example as proof from what I have seen. Has a random x user said it? Probably buy that isn't credible or helpful here |
| Myth of Infallibility An assumption that church leaders are infallible | Any quote or policy from church leaders in the past that does not align with what we practice or believe today. | It assumes something the restoration never does. Namely, God's servants should be near perfect and not succumb to popular false teachings. The formula for critics is easy. 1). Assume church leaders are infallible 2). Show an example of fallibility. | This is another straw man argument here. The myth of infallibility i suppose on it’s face is valid. We should not expect people, even prophets, to be perfect. That’s generally not the real argument though. Also My issues with the church that would stem from this comes from future prophets throwing older prophets or potentially even God under the bus when discussing older statements. As a real example the Theory preached by Brigham Young. It’s well known and i don’t have an issue with the doctrine per se if it’s true and correct. The issue for me is that at the time of Brigham Young this was doctrine. Then it became not doctrine. If we take that theory to it’s conclusion why do we believe the prophet now if what he says may become invalid. I already see the church moving into a much more progressive theology. It won’t be long until the Family Proclamation is deemed just as heretical as the Adam - God theory. That theory has nothing to do with the man Brigham, but what he taught. The same goes for Polygamy, the priesthood ban. It’s view on Race. The word of wisdom is another great example where the revelation is given, but in the revelation itself is stated that this is not a commandment. It is very difficult to tell what i s a ‘temporary’ commandment and a ‘permanent’ commandment let’s say. |
| False Compromise Presenting opposed narratives and then assuming, "Well, the truth must lie between these two extremes.” | "Joseph Smith said he translated the golden plates with the gift and power of God. However, he was just a treasure-seeking, peep-stone-looking fraud.” | Critics do not need their target to agree with their view. They only need the victim to reject the traditional narrative. The middle ground between truth and lies is not where the truth is. | This seems a little weird to me to put in. I don’t know how you have a false compromise in much of the truth claims one way or another. Joseph Smith either did translate by the gift and power of God or he didn’t. There isn’t really a compromise there. There could be an argument about the specific process of translating. Did he use the Urim and Thummim or his seer stone and the hat? or both? The process though doesn’t change if he did or did not actually translate the book of Mormon. How would the truth landing in the middle of a debate harm the church? There could be some arguments or debates, but generally the ones i am thinking of don’t really have a middle ground to begin with. You could have a prophet say that I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture. Then the critic position is they all lie all the time. Then the truth may be somewhere in the middle which seems to be the churches claim right now. I guess depending on the specific argument, but I really don’t see this in dealing with truth claims. I suppose you could say something like the critics claim the geography is based on the land specifically around Palymyra New York. They point out all the similar names and the land north and south. Then people point out issues with that theory so the reader is left to imply the “truth” is in the middle??? Maybe. |
| The Big List (Gish Gallop or Proof by Verbosity) An illusion of proof by the sheer mass of material provided. | The CES Letter. It culminates the critiques of the Church of Jesus Christ's truth claims. | Overwhelm the reader or listener. Critics who use the big list tactic want to create the illusion that even if one concern has an answer, there are 100 more. It is the hydra of manipulation strategies. | This one I would generally agree with. The CES letter is pretty long and could be overwhelming. I also see something like Mormon stories or LDS Discussions as being overwhelming amount of information. On the other hand though how else are you suppose to put forth your ideas? I don’t agree with much of the CES letter about some of the claims proving the church is false. It also feels weird to complain about this issue when the lightandtruthletter.org is a big list of counter arguments and the same thing, just the other side. |
| Half Truth Mixing truth with deceit to confuse the issue. | The CES Letter seeks to explain how Joseph Smith came up with so many unique place names in the Book of Mormon. A table lists place names and potential candidates in and around upstate New York. The idea is not a half-truth; it is more like a tenth truth. Most modern cities on the list did not exist until after the publication of the Book of Mormon. | A half-truth is still a lie at its core. It is more destructive than a lie because a half-truth requires untangling the lie from the truth. | This is rich since my biggest issue with the Church and it’s leadership is filled with half truths and or omissions. Joseph Feilding Smith cutting out the account of Joseph’s Smith first vision in his 1832 journal. Then taping it back in when he could no longer hide it. The church creating shell companies and investments without fully telling it’s members. Denying the seer stone while having the seer stone in their vault. Denying the 1826 trial. Joseph’s Smith’s involvement in Polygamy. The problem is most of the history aspects they would have known, denied until they could no longer do so, then admit in part at least but downplay it’s significance. |
| Presentism Assuming historical figures see the world in the same way that a person would today. Judging the past based on today’s standards. | Church leaders phased in the word of wisdom from its 1833 introduction to 1921. That was when it became required for a temple recommend. Critics point out that early church leaders did not adhere to the Word of Wisdom as we know it today. | Judging people in the past based on today's standards is popular but misleading. Imagine getting speeding tickets for driving 35 mph in a 25 mph zone in your neighborhood—except that the speed limit was only recently changed from 35 mph to 25 mph.5 If critics lived at the same time as the people they criticize, they would believe and act similarly (or worse). Anything from 200 years ago seems weird without historical and cultural context. | Presentism is a problem, but again it’s another issue I see coming more from the pro church side. The example given is stupid. I don’t know any person arguing the point that the church is wrong or bad because the early church didn’t follow the word of wisdom always back in the 1800’s. I do see issues with the church ignoring certain aspects of the social milieu at the time of Joseph Smith to make their claims greater. For example Joseph Smith’s first vision and seeing of multiple angels throughout his life. In todays world that is unheard of. Back then people had “visions” of Jesus coming to them and forgiving their sins. . That page argues that all these other visions are a good thing. I grew up anyway with the impression that this was a very unique event and this was one of the reasons Joseph was persecuted. He said Jesus appeared to him in a vision and the Methodist ministers hated him for it. Looking back now with more historical context that doesn’t make any sense. There were lots of Methodists seeing Jesus and being forgiven of their sins. The Book of Mormon discussing secret and hidden combinations would have read to the people at the time to be direct reference to freemasonry, and the huge anti mason movement going on at the time. I’ve also seen references in regard to Polygamy from the church saying it was more common or less strange that it would be now. Joseph and the Fannie Alger incident. He was a married adult and potentially has this tryst with Fanny Alger when she was 14. I’ve seen some apologetics discuss the young age not being as big of a deal back then. From what i have seen it very much would have been out of place even then. Again I feel like the author here is pointing out the mote in his opponents eye and ignoring the Beam in the other side. I haven’t dug down into his arguments too much. Maybe he isn’t using any of these tactics. I’ll look at them and see. |
| Quote Mining Mining for unflattering quotes made in the past. | A meme on social media by a critic6 - "My wife has borne to me fifteen children. Anything short of this would have been less than her duty and privilege." - George F. Richards, Relief Society Magazine, July 1916. | It is disingenuous. Scouring a target's social media feeds to find anything damaging is similar. Often, these quotes lack context or fall into the "presentism" category. | This is an issue everywhere. It’s easy to use quotes out of context. I really don’t know enough specific anti quotes to know where the church may be doing it, but it’s members and everybody does this. I definitely agree that quote mining is very disingenuous. Ultimately it is up to the reader to do their homework and Don't trust, Verify. Most important thing we can do as individuals. |
| Meat before Milk Presenting complicated issues without first establishing the fundamental building blocks for understanding. | "Mormons believe they will all have their own planet." "Mormons believe that only they will get into heaven.” | Critics who use this tactic either 1). Do not understand the issue, or more likely, 2). Understand it, but know that jumping to the conclusion first will lead people to avoid engaging the Church’s sincere claims. | Sure this could definitely be a thing. I think more of an issue with investigators or non member. |
| Naturalist Assumptions Assuming no supernatural or spiritual forces are at play in the universe. | "Angels don't appear to men to give them golden plates.” | Critics who have naturalist assumptions are close-minded by definition. They are limited in their pursuit of truth. Eliminating supernatural forces from the universe closes off an entire dimension of truth. | This is a little weird to me. I’ve always been under the assumption that God is a master physicist. He knows and understands everything. If an Angel was to appear or whatever miracle may have happened may not be explained in a way we currently understand. There is obviously a process whereby it could happen we just don’t know it. Sure if someone needs to know how everything works then you are going to have problems convincing them, but I don’t think this is some fallacy. I think it’s more strange when people don’t question something. By this logic do Mormons believe everything supernatural? Why don’t Mormons believe in reincarnation, Mohamad, the various people throughout history that have claimed to be Jesus come back again? Obviously not. The Naturalist Assumption is the correct one. From there though we may examine other factors and come to a conclusion that isn’t Naturalist, but it should be the starting point. |
| Bully on the Playground Use of mockery and name-calling. | “Oh, he is just a TBM (‘True Believing Mormon’). “You’re in a cult.” | Critics attempt to manipulate people into accepting their worldviews by name-calling or labeling. No one wants to hear that what they are doing is weird. This method is effective, especially if someone is unsure of their convictions. | Sure, I don’t see this with every anti person. I do also see this with plenty of faithful Mormons as well. We should all be nice even if we don’t agree. That being said though just because someone is a dick and an asshole doesn’t mean they aren’t right or wrong. They can also be right in some cases and wrong in others. This has very little bearing on the veracity of the claims themselves. |
Mostly to sum up. These are all tactics used by every group of people that try to convince others. I very much dislike this tactic he is already using here. He is at least making it appear that all of the critics of the church use these tactics. While I am sure some do. These tactics are also used by members of the church as well. No one should get a pass on disingenuous manipulation. It’s hard for me to blanket statement all manipulation is bad. Every action we take in a day with others could be interpreted in some way as a form of manipulation. During presidential debates the very clothes the candidates where are picked to try and manipulate the people in any way they can to vote for them. Is that wrong? no. Even if they didn’t intentionally pick clothes to manipulate, whatever they are wearing will factor into peoples subconscious. That’s just the way we are as humans. The issue becomes when someone is knowingly manipulative. If the members of the 12 apostles were to all know the church is not true, then i think they are massively in the wrong. They are knowingly lying and causing people to believe something that they don’t for their own gain. The same is true for anti people. If Jeremy Runnels knows his arguments are wrong and still espouses them as if they are true then that is a terrible sin. This is obviously a very simplified version of the problem. In reality do i think the members of the 12 believe in the church, yes. Were they aware of the ensign peek investments? yes. Did they intentionally try and hide those from the members? yes. Does that mean they don’t speak for God? no, not by itself. I think the doctrine they teach becomes problematic because of things like this, but by itself no. They are 12 men and capable of their own agency. If God still speaks to them so be it. I am not God. The same leniency though should be stated for the other side. If the prophets can lie, what hope do we have for anybody else.
My next issue with this so far is that this is page 3 basically of the site. We are issuing a blanket statement that the anti crowd are guilty of all these manipulations. At the top of the page we have 4 anti quotes front and center. Two of them are just random twitter users. Why use them? I am not sure the point except to manipulate the reader. According the writer this is bad.
He next goes into a fallacy section.
Fallacy section
| Fallacy | Example | Why it’s wrong | My Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Straw Man Set up the opponent's argument to be weaker than it is. Then, proceed to demolish the false, weak version and claim victory. | "Mormons believe you need magic underwear to get into heaven. We believe you need Jesus.” | It is dishonest because it does not genuinely engage with the opposing party's arguments. It may win points for the “home team” of like-minded people, but it does not bring anyone closer to the truth. | Exactly. I wish he wasn’t guilty of this as well. Fair mormon and the books i’ve read by apologetics are full of straw man arguments. Of all the straw man arguments this one is not a very good example. The truth is Mormons do believe you need to wear your garments day and night no enter into the temple. If you aren’t righteous enough to enter the temple you probably won’t make it to the celestial kingdom. The church should have no problem saying we believe all members should wear their garments day and night. It’s a commandment from God. It’s a potential Ad Hominem attack because of the wording. It could be used to attack the person who believes in wearing garments without addressing the issue, but as an argument itself that is the church position on wearing garments. |
| Ad Hominem Attacking the person instead of their arguments. | "John is a Latter-day Saint. We should not invite him to this equality debate because Mormons are bigots.” | Does not address the issue or lead to any understanding. | Yes, obviously we shouldn’t attack the person. Just be nice. We should be able to debate. |
| Hasty Generalization An inference is drawn from insufficient evidence. Leaping to a conclusion. | "The Church's affiliated investment manager, Ensign Peak, was fined $5 million for insufficient reporting of securities owned. So, the Church is sketchy.” | We all tend to take lazy shortcuts when we encounter new information. It is easier to write something off than to engage with the issue. One or two more insights may address the concern. | You shouldn’t believe everything you hear. We should all be critical of information. I have a problem with the example because i have looked at this issue and it is very very “sketchy” in my opinion. End of the world i guess not, but it’s where at best it’s an oversight and unintentional business practice that cost tithing paying members. At worst outright intentional fraud. Which is fine for a corporation hellbent on profits by why with a church that preaches transparency and truthfulness. |
| Double Standard Treating two or more people or circumstances differently even though they should be treated the same. | When Christians say, "If the golden plates are real, then where are they?" Atheists use the same logic for the Ten Commandments written on stone tablets. "The Book of Mormon witnesses are unreliable. They were Joseph Smith's friends and family." That logic can be applied to the witnesses of Christ's resurrection. | This shows that the critic is being internally inconsistent. They use an argument when it is convenient for them without applying it equally to other situations, including those that would reflect poorly on their position. | Yes, if you are going to be critical of the BOM you should also be critical of the other religious texts. Which i am. I should say my study of the old and new testaments as well as the history around them caused me to question their “truth” claims and come to the conclusion there are a lot of liars out there and half truths. We should be consistent though in our own thought processes. |
| Appeal to Authority Claiming that something must be true (or false) because it is believed (or not) by someone who is said to be an authority on the subject. | “There is no archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon in the Americas.” Black-and-white statements from an unknown expert. These usually start with "there is no evidence" and explain why some aspect of the Book of Mormon is false. | We are naturally inclined to believe an expert. Faith crisis victims do not have the time to be expert archeologists, historians, chemists, linguists, lawyers, doctors, and authors. It is easier to trust an expert. Critics rely on our belief in experts to make bad arguments. The "authority" of the source referenced may be unreliable. Note that actual authorities rarely speak in black-and-white terms. | Claims of authority hold very little weight for me. I may be more inclined to believe someone that taught themselves and can show their thought process and logic over believe me because I learned this in School. |
| Bandwagon Claiming something to be true because “most people believe it.” | “Most Christians believe that the Bible canon is closed, so it must be so.” | This fallacy preys on the tendency to want to follow the crowd. Advertisers and salespeople use this tactic all the time. | Don’t be stupid. Think for yourself. |
| Appeal to Emotion Seeking to win an argument through the manipulation of emotions. Especially in the absence of evidence. | "The Mormon Church is a bigoted cult! It hates the LGBTQ community and destroys people's lives!” | Critics will use inflammatory or prejudicial language to influence their target. When someone speaks passionately, we want to believe that they are telling the truth. | Church member and official will use inflammatory or prejudicial language to influence their target. When someone speaks passionately, we want to believe that they are telling the truth. This is the worst at least for me thinking about leaving. I have a lot of emotional ties to the church. I feel a lot of pressure to just go along even though I do not think it’s right anymore. This really only matters though at the end of the day/life when we see who is right. If the church is true then the church should try and convince people to stay. Same for the other side though. |
| The False Dilemma or Dichotomy (The “either-or” fallacy) Discussing an issue as if there are only two alternatives and no compromises. | "If you have sincere questions about the gospel, then your family will hate and abandon you.” | Critics use this fallacy to create rifts between a questioning Latter-day Saint and their families and wards. In the example given, the critic is trying to create resentment toward the family and the ward, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy. | I agree. But can be applied to both sides. For me I feel pressure to just go along with the church. |
| Begging the Question - False Premise Reaching a conclusion based on a premise that lacks support. | "The Church hid the fact that Joseph Smith used a seer stone in the translation process. Thus, the Church is immoral.” | It subtly takes a giant leap in logic to influence the victim. The victim will likely agree with the conclusion if a false premise is assumed. Even if the target does not agree with the conclusion, the believed false premise itself can generate doubt. | Generally very true. I don’t agree with the example though. The main issue is we could ask the church why they hid this information for so long? They say they didn’t hide it, but didn’t focus or advertise it. I would then ask why not advertise it if that’s what happened. I don’t care about how the translation was done. In this case i don’t care about the stone in the hat. I do care more about the church hiding and implying other mechanisms for translation. This example is really more of a half truth to me. |
| Non-Sequitur A conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Non Sequitur is Latin for "it does not follow.” | "Russell M. Nelson was a member of a college secret fraternity, ‘Skull & Bones.’ How is he God's prophet?” | A massive leap in logic from the opening statement to the conclusion. The end result is a conclusion that illogically flows from the underlying premise. | The previous example is a better use of Non-Sequitur in my opinion. Right though, just because of A doesn’t necessarily imply B. |
| Argument from Ignorance Asserts that a proposition is true because it is not yet proven false. Alternatively, that silence is an admission of guilt. | Before metal plates with writing in ancient Israel were found, critics would say, “We’ve never seen ancient people write on metal plates. Therefore, the Book of Mormon is false.” | Critics argue that something cannot be because they cannot imagine how it could be. This intellectual shortcut does not seriously consider the totality of the available evidence. | I guess, but at the same time you could say no we’ve never seen a big foot carcass so big foot doesn’t exist. Does that mean big foot exists or doesn’t? This is particularly interesting because there is Mormon lore around big foot and Cain. So sure this wouldn’t prove big foot doesn’t exist, but are you going to go around proclaiming big foot is alive? probably not. You will never know for sure, but it’s something of note that is interesting. If it was common to have plates of Gold in ancient times it would lead more credibility to the BOM. It could also just mean it was rare and we’ve never found a comparable example. |
| Red Herrings Using an unrelated issue to distract attention away from the relevant question. “Whataboutism" used by political pundits is a form of using a red herring. | "The Church focuses on moral issues? That's rich considering its roots in polygamy!” | Distracts attention away from the issues raised without addressing them. | Yes it’s stupid. |
| Poisoning the Well (or Bulverism) Attempts to discredit a person before their arguments are even heard. | "Oh, you can't read anything a BYU scholar says because they're on the Church's payroll!” | Critics hope their target will not engage in the information that may answer important questions. | Yes, no one should do it. |
| Slippery Slope Assuming catastrophic results from a premise. | "It is dangerous to accept the doctrine of personal revelation from God. Before you know it, we’ll see criminals committing heinous acts claiming revelation from God.” | It is a false idea meant to exploit the target’s risk aversion. | The concept is bad, but the example is dumb. I would argue that muslims have much more faith in their religion than we do. We won’t send our missionaries out without purse or script, but they are willing to blow themselves up for their God. Even if you want to just stick it to Mormonism, what about the fundamentalist sects. Hiram Page from D&C. Personal Revelation can be an issue. It’s not unique to Mormonism though. |
| Questionable Cause (Correlation vs. Causation) Oversimplification. Presumes there is a single cause of a more complex phenomenon. It is often used to insinuate that a correlated variable is the cause of an outcome. | "Utah has a higher-than-average suicide rate. Thus, the LDS Church makes people depressed and suicidal.” | In my experience, questionable cause is the primary type of data critics use (aside from personal stories). When the manipulator lacks evidence, his/her only corroboration is questionable correlations. | Sure, The church does this too though. so what do you do. People should just be as honest as they can. |
| Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy This fallacy takes data out of its context and tries to make it appear more impressive than it is. The name of this fallacy comes from an example of a Texas gunslinger who shoots randomly at a barn door. Afterward, a target is painted around each bullet hole. The holes are random, but the painted targets appear to prove that the gunslinger is a great shot. | "View of the Hebrews and The Late War have some parallels with the Book of Mormon. So, that must have been the source for the Book of Mormon!" | To me, this is grasping at straws. Book of Mormon critics tend to compare loose parallels with other books and then exaggerate how they are "bullseyes" for the source of the Book of Mormon. | We shouldn’t do this. Again so does the church. |
| Shifting the Burden of Proof Making a claim that needs evidence, then shifting the responsibility for disproof of that claim to another party. | "Brigham Young conspired to get Joseph Smith killed. Prove that I'm wrong.” | Critics point to weak, coincidental, and often contradictory connections, and then, in place of evidence, they shift the burden of proof back onto the Church or the believer. | none of these are unique. If i cared enough i could find examples |
| Generalization A claim based on insufficient evidence. Drawing a conclusion about a large population using a small, unrepresentative sample. | "Local ward and stake leaders did not respond adequately enough to an instance of abuse. Therefore, the Church is abusive.” | Claims of abuse in the Church or hostilities toward sexual or other minorities often fall into this category. Critics use anecdotal examples to prove an untrue conclusion. | same here. whatever. This is a weird example. If it was just a small subset why change the whole church policy over it. It’s fine not a huge issue. It’s a big organization. |
Then he goes on to talk about doubt bombing as a tactic. Asks
- I don’t know why Rennels did the CES letter the way he did, but what’s the other approach? It’s also public. If i was to talk to someone about my issues with the church i wouldn’t throw them the CES letter for example. I would use a few small pieces and see what they think. Then move on organically to another topic. Even podcasts and things will usually just cover one or two topics an episode, but if you start listening to them there are so many you could listen for days.
- sure why can’t they? there are plenty of legitimate concerns. Obviously not all of them.
Building up vs Tearing Down
He starts off saying this.
The sheer hatred in the critical community alarmed me. I could not identify with that. It never felt like we were building something, only tearing down. I owed a lot to the Church, and even in my worst faith crisis moments, I felt gratitude for my upbringing. Not all critics become bitter, and I applaud those who are not.
To some extent I agree. I haven’t however seen a sheer amount of hatred from the critical community, but I am not really on reddit or X or other social media. In my opinion those places are breeding grounds for that no matter what. Those people are also just random social users why do I care about their opinions. I’ll listen to Mormon Stories. I am selective about it though. I also have listened to a few where I just think it misses the point completely. I don’t think that’s bad though. I was able to hear some interviews and get different perspectives. I don’t have to agree with all of them.
Above all, I was alarmed by the critic’s strategic use of distrust in family.
This would also terrify my. I have not really seen that though. I can’t speak to it at all. I believe much of it comes from the LGTQ community. I don’t think it’s unique to anti mormon. That community is very toxic and needs to separate families in order to survive. I know Jon Dellin is super hard and excited for his LGBTQ people, but i don’t agree with them at all politically, morally, or socially. That community is just another cult to me not better than any religious organizing. I’m a libertarian at heart. Do what you want. I’m not paying for it and leave me alone. My view on that position has not changed just because i don’t believe Joseph was really a prophet.
These critics calculate the right things to say to influence the victim
I do have a problem with him calling the people victims. If you believed the same as them you would probably do the same. We don’t call investigators victims, but the anti people would. So calling them victims is behaving in the same manner as those you are fighting against.
I get the impression that misery loves company. It was not enough to leave. Their goal, mission, vision, and conquest is to tear down faith in God
It’s a fine quote. Misery loves company, but so does joy and happiness. Isn’t that the plan of salvation? It’s this disconnect that drives me nuts. Both sides do it. If the gospel is true then the church should be proclaiming it and trying to get as many members as they can in. The same is true for the other side. If the church isn’t true then please for the love of all that is holy get the people out. Whatever the truth may be.
Some critics, like John Dehlin from Mormon Stories, provide coaching services for people who have left the Church to help them handle the trauma of leaving their church community. Is that a conflict of interest?
This line kinda cracks me up. Only because is this not poisoning the well? Trying to discredit John Dehlin because he has a couching service, also ad hominin. The issue i have is not that the author brings this up, but why go through all these things that the other side does that are in bad faith and do this. I think it’s relevant information. People should know if they listen that he does have a financial incentive. So does the church though. If you impose rules and restrictions for the other side i find you less credible. Say your point and let people decide. Morally should you lie or misrepresent the other side? no.
He then asks
Is it right for a critic to actively influence a victim into a faith crisis and then charge for groups and counseling sessions for handling the crisis?
It’s a stupid question. It should be obvious, but if John Dehlin believes the church is false and lying then he believes he is truly helping then why shouldn’t he? He is entitle to make money and charge. If this is his life’s work. In this view point he is opening their eyes and knows that there will be emotional fallout. So provide the service. It’s only immoral in my opinion if he thinks the church is true or that it does good for the people to stay in.
He posts this update for some reason. Not sure the source on the claim, but i guess it’s fine.
Update: In recent years, critics of the Church have deemphasized how much happier they are since leaving the Church in favor of a narrative emphasizing how hard it is to leave. This is likely intentional to convince their targets that exiting the Church is the hard thing but the right thing to do. It may also help resolve some cognitive dissonance in leaving. The reality is that while it may initially be challenging to abandon a belief system, it takes deep discipline over a lifetime to be a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ. A few months or years of faith deconstruction does not outweigh the lifelong service of selfless sacrifice to God and mankind.To be an atheist is to be culturally relevant and celebrated. Atheists are not bullied at the university or places of employment for their beliefs. To be a believer is to move against the cultural current of skepticism. Following Christ is hard to do—it always has been.
I have several problems with this line of thinking.
- In general i would agree with this statement. Leaving an organization will usually mean leaving behind friends. It will really depend on the situation. Some people it may be easier to leave and others not. In my situation though I have a hard time leaving. What do i do with my family? do i have the kids go to church or not? Do i continue to go even though i don’t believe? If I am out and my 6 year old son want to be baptized at 8 and i can’t do it what do i do?
- Then what? the only option is Atheism? I am no Atheist, but now that the religion I grew up in has fallen away what now? I may agree that abandoning the belief system is hard, but It’s much harder to build a new one. Now i have to read, study, and contemplate the nature of reality and life. I can’t fall back on an old belief structure. I am at the bottom of Jacobs ladder and must start the climb anew.
- I don’t think you know what a faithful disciple of Jesus Christ is. You have not followed in Christs footsteps, you have been a pretender to his name. you have not walked in the valley of the shadow of death else you would not say these things. What discipline does it take to go to church every sunday, pretend to listen in sacrament meeting, go to a class and go home.
- It is easy to be an atheist online, In the real world I imagine it quite lonely, In a place like Utah. Being a Mormon is easier. This obviously depends on the geographics of where you live. In a university compared to other staff members being Atheist is probably easier.
I don’t know if it’s worth going on. It’s just more aggravating.
The internet is a great place to find out when Taco Bell closes. But ask Google which political party to vote for? Should I be pro-choice or pro-life? How about pro-Palestine or pro-Israel? Is the Mormon Church a cult? Yikes. Anything remotely controversial on the internet is a mess of disinformation and propaganda.
Good point i guess. I’ll just only use the internet to find out information that is 100% factual and never venture out on my own to think about other topics. Whatever my opinion is right now on politics is the way i am forever.
Seriously we are trying to convince people not to use the internet because there might be something uncomfortable there. Or you could use your brain a little and think ok just because i see something doesn’t mean i need to believe it.
Here is a better idea. Look at the pro-choice side, look at the pro-life side. Think about it for more than 2 seconds. Ask why do some people believe one way and other the other way. What will happen if we ban abortion. Play out the scenario in your head. What about different scenarios, ban at 2,4,8, or 15 weeks. What if i was a women and was raped? When does life begin? There are lots of arguments for both sides of the issue. There really is no correct choice it’s not a taco bell with a closing time. It’s a complex issue. The only time you will grow as a person is to encounter something hard and overcome it. Everything, and i mean everything. If you are just going to church, taking the sacrament, doing your calling every week you are not progressing. We live in a time where we have access to more information than ever before and the argument from God is to just ignore everyone that doesn’t have something nice to say about the church. That’s insane. Look at your scripture. Even the book of Mormon is full of examples of the church falling away. The Levite priests, the priests of Noah, King Daniel and Solomon. The resources are all there to really dig in and learn. If you can go through and read the anti and come out with your testimony still good for you, you’ll be an even stronger person in the faith.
Short, quick, and easy-to-understand answers are the most appealing at first glance. More so with the advent of social media. When confronted with challenging and unflattering information, it is tempting to accept it. At times, it felt easier for me to say that the Church was lying and that Joseph Smith was a fraud. Knowing the whole story would take too much effort. When I realized this, I started to see how manipulative critics of the Church can be with their use of the internet. They want to capitalize on the natural tendency to want simple answers with little work.
While I agree that most people have this problem and social media is the worst thing on the internet that does not prove anything. Again this is a generalization claim. I lost my testimony reading the hebrew old testament, reading about the history of the Israelites, then reading Joseph Smith’s Personal Writings, History of Joseph Smith by his mother, Rough Stone Rolling, Early Mormon Documents, the early newspapers Messenger and Advocate, The Evening and Morning star, other early 1800 literature, and the making of a prophet. When i found the CES letter i already knew about most of the issues he brings up. There were some i had not found, but all it did for me was confirm i wasn’t the only one at least missing stuff.
So to say that people lose their faith because they don’t know enough is insulting to me. I admit their might be something i am missing as i have only deeply studied the the 1800-1830 really. I haven’t delved deep into Kirtland or Nauvoo yet. Maybe i am missing things there. We’ll see. I really hope i do. I want more than anything for the gospel according the the LDS church to be true.
I was (and in some way still am) one of these members. I did not know nearly enough, even after engaging with critics of the Church for years. Part of the problem is that I have a job and a family. Who has the time, resources, and capacity to become a historian and scholar overnight? That’s the trick. I could feel critics egging me on to shift the burden of proof onto the Church. All the critic has done is share a half-truth with a negative implication. This tactic has a dark motive and is very effective for propagandists. Over time, I found that the negative narratives spun by critics almost always had a good answer. All I had to do was learn more.
I really don’t think he knows as much as he thinks. Yes it’s a big problem i have neglected work and other responsibilities at times to dig into this. At the end of the day though what is more important than the immortal soul. You just have to dig into it. I would like to think the church would offer something, but I fear if they dig too deep the members won’t like what they find. I also have found very few good answers to the many questions out there. I have also looked at church resources as well as fair Mormon and other faithful interpretations.
The Coming forth of the book of mormon
- Joseph Smith was a poor farm boy from upstate New York with a limited frontier education. Until the Book of Mormon, he had never written a book or demonstrated a knack for long dictation. When the original manuscript was finished in the summer of 1829, Joseph was 23 years old. Critics attempt to explain the Book of Mormon with far-fetched and contradictory claims.
- Dan Vogel I believe gives the best example. Joseph was known to be a story teller. His family would gather at night and listen to him tell his stories. Prior to Alvin’s death they were most likely stories about the gold plates he saw. After Alvin’s death the family couldn’t handle discussing the book for a long period. Really it would have been Joseph that dictated it. Joseph Smith would have been a great orator. He may not have been able to write, but he could tell a story. He would have been thinking about these stories since 1823 when he had the visitation from the Angel Moroni. This deserves a whole page, but when you actually look at the whole history it makes perfect sense that he wrote it himself. The church likes to use the antagonistic sources to prove how dumb and poor Joseph was, but ignore everything else they have to say. Earlier in this section the author quotes Able Chase who says [The Smiths] were poorly educated, ignorant, and superstitious. In the same interview of Chase we see that the Smiths were kind of shiftless…they used to call Joe, ‘Lobby Joe.’ He got a singular looking stone, which was dug up out of my father’s well; it belonged to my brother Willard, and he could never get it. He talks about the stone more as well. He also mentions hearing about Joseph interpreting the book in a cave that was nearby. The church in this case only uses this one quote to prove how dumb he is, but ignores the talk about the stone and the cave. Joseph also ‘stole’ this stone and would not give it back. I believe this is the Stone that Joseph used to translate the book of Mormon to begin with. Again the church hides much of that. Is the statement truthful, well maybe… maybe not. It was quoted in 1881 while Abel chase was an older man 67. He is recalling events from when he was much younger. He would have been 19 when Joseph translated the book. The basic facts though seem to be Joseph was definitely uneducated. Would have probably been taught at home by others. Hyrum did go to school. Hyrum also becomes a school teacher later in life. He also spend countless nights by Josephs bed while he recovered from his leg infection. I would imagine they would discuss things including religion and philosophy. I am sure they discussed the mounds and where they came from . There is definitely a thought at the time that the Natives may have been decedents of the lost tribes. There are a lot of these religious concepts that were deeply discussed at the time that end up in the book of Mormon. There is more than enough evidence for me to say that Joseph could have written it by himself. Does that mean he did for sure? no. There are still lots of oddities and questions about the book of Mormon to completely write it off. I think it’s extremely possible he wrote it. He is probably the only one who could have written it.
RFM Podcast
After I started reading and writing my thoughts on this i also listened to these podcasts from RFM where he covers his thoughts on the letter. Everything above here I wrote before the podcasts had come out, but his podcasts echoed much of my thoughts as well.
https://youtu.be/063FQud7ssM?si=4mApY1kmQZ90tmIk