Recent findings suggest the vast majority of Mormons have few doubts about their religion (apparently half have none whatsoever), but there are some working hard to change that. Just in time for Christmas, Jeremy Runnells has released both printed and electronic copies of his CES Letter 2.0 (promising he “softened the tone”). In previous editions of the letter, Runnells covered a controversial theory proposed by Vernal Holley on Book of Mormon geography. I wrote a post about this theory over six months ago, covering arguments from both the CES Letter and apologists, so I was curious how it was handled in this latest edition. Even though Runnells was open in the past about doubting the validity of the Holley maps, it’s becoming clear the effectiveness of those maps in destroying testimonies is just too precious to undermine or give up.
Background on the CES Letter
For those who don’t know, the current publication, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts, is the latest incarnation of an April 2013 document Jeremy Runnells sent to a CES director (hence the original title, Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony). I recommend listening to Mormon Stories Episode 480 where John Dehlin interviewed Jeremy Runnells to get the full story, but here’s a summary. Runnells was raised in the church, went through the typical milestones (even met his spouse at BYU), and, like many others, got blindsided by disturbing church history facts around the age of 30. What sent him down the rabbit hole was a news article (if not this, then something similar) quoting Elder Marlin K. Jensen, Church Historian, about a modern-day apostasy due to church history concerns. Runnells went to Wikipedia for explanations, and from there he hit up both apologetic and critical sources of information about the church. The faith crisis began in February 2012, and by summer his testimony was gone.
In October 2012 he posted to Reddit a sarcastic “Open Letter to Elder Quentin L. Cook” (explaining in the Mormon Stories interview that he was “pissed off” over Cook’s recent general conference remarks). After long conversations with his grandfather, Runnells was offered the opportunity in early 2013 to correspond with a CES Director. The director asked Runnells for his concerns, and Runnells opted to take advantage of an opportunity to get some real, official answers. He compiled a massive PDF (over 80 pages) of pretty much every critique he could think of, and posted it on Reddit to get some feedback before sending it to the director in late April 2013.
The letter spread quickly on Reddit and made it’s way to the MormonThink website, where it then went viral. The publication is credited with starting thousands (if not tens of thousands) of people on journeys out of the church and has inspired other “big list” compilations of arguments discrediting the Mormon church, like Letter For My Wife and Letter to an Apostle.
The Smaller Problem
In this post, we’re focusing on ONE section, Book of Mormon Geography (p. 13-15). I am fully aware there are dozens of other arguments in this 135-page book, but those aren’t what make me angry right now.
In this section, Runnells promotes a theory created by a guy named Vernal Holley that the setting of the Book of Mormon was based on the Great Lakes region. As I explained in my Vernal Holley post last May, the argument goes that Joseph Smith lifted place names from his surroundings and put them in the Book of Mormon. Holley created maps and a list of around 29 place name correlations. In the original 2013 version of the CES Letter, Runnells included Holley’s maps and list, leaving them mostly intact. The only change was removing three towns from the list that had already been debunked by FairMormon (St. Agathe/Ogath, Angola, Tecumseh/Teancum).
It appears that Runnells didn’t feel a need to research any other places on that list, though. When FairMormon debunked the original CES Letter, Runnells suddenly became motivated. He agreed with FairMormon that some connections were weak, or that certain towns really didn’t exist before 1829. But he fought back on other towns, offering his own data. His 2014 and 2015 updates to the CES Letter reflected these changes, and he posted his in-depth response to that FairMormon debunking, covering arguments for each location, on his website here. When people accused him a few months ago (in 2017) of using bad data in the Holley argument, he responded,
This was true in the original CES Letter that I wrote 4 years ago, which I immediately corrected when the errors came to my attention. It is not true for the updated and revised CES Letter today….
I have already done a thorough line-by-line detailed response and rebuttal on this. I have already gone through this with FairMormon and I revised the list based on evidence. You can find my response here: http://cesletter.org/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#8
But Runnells is wrong. It is still true for the updated and revised CES Letter today, because Runnells never bothered to do more research beyond responding to FairMormon’s original 2014 critique. And since FairMormon’s rebuttal was often stupid, like “The name ‘Shiloh’ is a biblical name.” Runnells didn’t have to contend with much,
Again, the fact that the name “Shiloh” is in the Bible is beside the point. The fact that it also existed as a geographical place in Joseph’s time and place and in a setting that Joseph taught early on to be the geographical site of the Book of Mormon is the point.
So, you’d think that Runnells would confirm that the town Shiloh, Pennsylvania, existed in Joseph’s time and place, right? Except he didn’t. And it didn’t. That’s the problem. And since Runnells didn’t update anything for his most current CES Letter 2.0, any apologist can still attack his list and claim that several towns did not, in fact, exist in 1829. How do I know? Because over 6 months ago I posted data for people to do exactly that. Places on his current list like Alma, Antioch, Boaz, Noah Lakes, and Shiloh DON’T WORK for 1829 plagiarism. (Incidentally, I also included data in that post that could help someone make a Vernal Holley argument with real, legitimate pre-1829 place names and location.)
But it’s not just what Runnells didn’t bother to research. In at least one situation, Runnells withheld pertinent information from a source he was very clear about consulting. On his website, Runnells makes an important argument that for a settlement’s name, you need to look deeper than when it was incorporated. Often places will be known by a moniker for many years before it’s official. This is a valid point (and it totally works for the town Mantua, Ohio, on his list). But Runnells uses a bad example to apply the principle.
FairMormon claimed that Jerusalem, Ohio does not show up on a 1822 map. If one searches on the internet for when Jerusalem was first settled, they won’t find any information. So, the logical conclusion would be to assume that Jerusalem wasn’t established before the publication of the Book of Mormon. However, this would be incorrect as there is evidence that the first house in Jerusalem, Ohio was built in 1825. I was able to locate a resident who volunteered to go to the Monroe County Public Library in Woodsfield, Ohio and search for the information. She found it an offline book entitled Monroe County, Ohio: A History.
So the hard-to-find book said the first house was built in 1825. Cool. Guess when the second house was built in that community? 1838. Yep, thirteen years later, and nine years after the Book of Mormon was published. How do I know? Because it’s in the very next sentence of that hard-to-find book. You know what’s in the following paragraph? The fact that town was most likely named after a church built in the northeastern part of the town. So, do you think a church was built to service a single house standing in 1829?
The frustrating thing is that Runnells didn’t even have to depend on Jerusalem, Ohio, for his argument. There are better locations named Jerusalem that fit the right time period.
The Bigger Problem
I’m sure Runnells will have no problem fixing those mistakes. After all,
I have no problem whatsoever admitting my mistakes and errors. I care more about the information being correct and accurate than I do about my ego.
So what’s the bigger problem, why I actually wrote this post? Because of this, what Runnells wrote to the Reddit community in August 2015.
Hey guys,
I’m about 90-95% on removing the entire Book of Mormon Geography/Vernal Holley Maps out of the CES Letter but I wanted to gather your thoughts and assessment.
In the original CES Letter, there were errors contained in Holley’s maps that I fixed and revised in a later version of the CES Letter. Here’s my back and forth on the maps with FairMormon: http://cesletter.com/debunking-fairmormon/book-of-mormon.html#8
Even though the maps and list have been updated and corrected, I believe that it’s the weakest part of the CES Letter. The evidence, to me, is meh and not strong enough for my taste.
The only way I’d probably keep it in the CES Letter is with a disclaimer of some sort basically saying something to the effect of, “Vernal Holley’s maps and parallels are controversial. This information is not incorrect but it’s not strong either. Here are resources for further research.”
My current plan is to remove it and in the CES Letter Updates page explain this removal and why I removed it.
Thoughts? Keep? Remove? Why?
Two years ago, Runnells considered the Holley maps/Book of Mormon geography argument the weakest part of the CES Letter. If kept, he felt it should be relegated to an appendix or at least have some sort of disclaimer. (Notably, neither the copycats Letter to my Wife nor Letter to an Apostle include the Holley maps in their list of grievances.)
So what can we find in the CES Letter 2.0 today? The exact same Book of Mormon geography argument and a link to the exact same online evidence. No appendix. No disclaimer. The section even retained it’s place toward the beginning of the document, primed for maximum impact. So what gives?
Based on what people told Runnells in that August 2015 Reddit forum, the Holley maps are effective.
- “When I read the CES letter this part actually blew my mind! I was sure you were wrong and researched it. This is what kept me reading the letter.”
- “Reword it, asterisk it, push it to the appendix, whatever you need to do to help you feel it has the proper level of integrity, but please don’t just delete it.”
- “Going down a list of names and seeing place after place after place in common was really a “wow” moment for me, and it’s one of the most memorable sections of the CES Letter in my opinion.”
- “That’s the part that helped my wife consider that the church isn’t true.”
- “When my husband and I read the letter together in July seeing the maps is what actually pushed him over the edge.”
Makes sense. If the Holley maps are that effective, why would Runnells care if they hold up to objective scrutiny? After all, not everything useful has to be true.
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I guess when it comes right down to it, I don’t particularly understand people like Mr. Runnells. His personal goal seems to be to destroy people’s faith, and I’m a firm believer that even if I don’t agree with someone (and I’m more than happy to discuss/argue out those disagreements), I still want to support the person in the path they are choosing for themselves. For me, that is the center of Loving One’s Neighbor.
That Mr. Runnell is willing to use effective, but defective information to do that seems a stain on him personally. As does the fact that he’s no charging money for this version 2.0, so there is the added motivation of money thrown in as well. From that perspective actually, adding in as much info as possible probably makes sense. $11 for a 125 page book is super, super high. And the way he is marketing it as a ‘donation’ rather than a set price is a dodgy ploy for people to support him rather than the book (the book then being a free give-away for the support), it’s also a way to get individuals to send MORE money than the requested amount to no appear cheap. All kinds of nonprofits use this same tactic.
At the end of the day those that make this donation and get their gift are likely going to be people who already support him whole-heartedly and don’t likely care about the accuracy of his claims anyway.
Having said all that, I’m glad Mr. Runnells wrote the original CES in all its flawed, simplistic glory. It has opened up a conversation that needed to happen. I just wish that conversation had become more academic and more ingrained into the church rather than weaponized.
In my opinion, Fair Mormon apologists are the absolute worst! These people do far more harm to “The Church” than the most ardent (so-called) anti-mormon. Generally speaking their arguments are nonsensical and have the quality of a kindergarten class. The CES has it’s flaws – but some of the arguments against it (or, so called rebuttals) are just childish.
ReTx, “Having said all that, I’m glad Mr. Runnells wrote the original CES in all its flawed, simplistic glory. It has opened up a conversation that needed to happen. I just wish that conversation had become more academic and more ingrained into the church rather than weaponized.” I agree.
Lefthandloafer55, as FairMormon is a conglomerate of volunteers of varying backgrounds and expertise, you can’t paint it all with a single brush. They are also one of the few apologetic platforms willing to offer a response to any criticism, no matter how much merit they believe it contains. However, I agree that many times arguments are lacking, and I was quite open in my Holley post with disappointment over how they’ve handled this theory in the last 30 years. If something like the CES Letter hadn’t brought the Holley argument back into the limelight, they would’ve never exerted even this much effort at debunking it given their track record.
If you don’t like the answers FAIR provides I bet people at FAIR would love better answers. I’ll admit some answers at FAIR aren’t the best but overall I think they do a good job. I suspect the reason the FAIR article took exception to the Biblical names is simply because Joseph could have gotten those from the Bible. That is they’re looking at the names as the key correlation to raise doubt rather than name + location. Both approaches have their own merits although one would hope they’d include both considerations in the future.
Part of the problem with apologetics is that ultimately what matters is what’s persuasive to a particular individual rather than necessarily the strength of the argument. What’s persuasive tends to be very subjective to the individual. Often what’s persuasive is quite at odds with what’s most rational. Added into this mix is that often the best apologetics can do is explain why something is possible or plausible but not offer compelling answer for why one should believe it rather than the alternative. This then bothers people who don’t merely want plausibility arguments but want an argument more or less making belief the most compelling result. It’s rare apologetics can do that. That’s not a problem with the arguments but due to the fact that typically there’s just not a lot of data out of which to argue. That means if we’re merely going to believe the most compelling explanation in terms of the public facts, that paucity of data will almost always lead to doubt even if further evidence down the road may reverse that.
Belief in Mormonism really requires that spiritual revelation that it is true. At that point apologetics can help by showing how one can believe and still be rational. That is, revelation, changes how we interpret the evidence.
People who fought against the Church all these years have always had a monetary objective, even the Churches actively involved. I saw it for myself many times in the presentations I saw at other Churches. The offering baskets always came out as a “love offering” for the presenters. The new methodology is Internet donations. Same thing, different packaging.
Mary Ann —that is really interesting.
ReTx stated “At the end of the day those that make this donation and get their gift are likely going to be people who already support him whole-heartedly and don’t likely care about the accuracy of his claims anyway.”
I purchased the CES Letter book. I absolutely care about the accuracy of its contents. Your characterization of the people that are likely to purchase his book is misguided, based on my experience. Not only do I care about the accuracy of the CES Letter, I also care about the accuracy of the claims that Joseph Smith made. I care about the accuracy of the claims that the church continues to make. I care about the accuracy of FAIR, and other apologetic resources. In short, I want to make an informed decision based on the best scholarship that is available to me.
I also included a donation on top of the purchase price of the book. I don’t think that the fact that Runnells is charging for his book discredits him, or “stains” him, in any way. Runnells has costs to cover. He has a family to feed. I don’t fault him for charging for the book. I certainly wouldn’t expect him to give away a hard copy book for free. I’ve spent much more at Deseret Book for books from Apostles, GAs, BYU professors and church historians, over the years. The fact that we’re asked to pay for content doesn’t necessarily diminish the value and accuracy/inaccuracy of the content. Isn’t the purchase price of a book irrelevant to the value and accuracy of its content? Have you seen the cost for the Joseph Smith Papers hardback books? These typically start at $50. The CES Letter book was a bargain, by comparison.
Regarding the Vern Holley maps, thank you Mary Ann for the commentary. I think it’s good that Runnells is getting pushback on this. Personally, it’s a minor issue to my analysis of the Joseph Smith claims.
MTB – I clearly offended you, for which I apologize. My comment came off as a blanket pronouncement on why people would purchase this book, and I will absolutely concede that people make choices for a variety of reasons. To convince me you represent the majority of those in this situation, you will have to show me some empirical evidence though. I have a feeling you are an outlier. I don’t expect you to accept my thoughts in the matter. That’s the joy and the pain of opinions on the internet.
” I don’t think that the fact that Runnells is charging for his book discredits him, or “stains” him, in any way. ” ~ If he were charging .99 for an e-copy (pretty standard for self-pubbed on Amazon), I’d agree with you.
Yes, when I saw Jacobsburg and Jacobugath, I though, now we’ve got him. This indisputable evidence that Joseph is a fraud.
By his cunning, he developed he figured he could make -ugath into something and so later in the story, developed a completely new story of the North people with a city named Ogath thus leaving a plausible sub-story of a man named Jacob who ran to the north and found probably the remains of a city name Ogath and called it Jacobugath.
That Joseph, he’s a tricky guy. I would have followed the standard nephite naming convention of calling the city Jacob. This just shows the levels that Joseph was willing to go to make a plausible complicated story. (eye roll)
I never let ignorance stop me from having an opinion. If the CES letter could be condensed to two pages, maybe I’d read it.
I have a globe, some countries listed are the USSR, British Honduras, East Pakistan and Bechuanaland. I get an idea from this about when the globe was made. I also get a clue about the reach of the British empire.(even if New England is not listed)
When it comes to plausibility, I see a commonality of biblical naming practices in the movement of early 19th century New England peoples and not pre European conquest. What I don’t see in the Book of Mormon, where I should, is influence from ancient America. And I don’t see in ancient America, any biblical influence. But then, as has been pointed out, we don’t know what little city in some obscure jungle, where the Nephites claimed home.
So I consider the Holley maps interesting when I have a quick look at them, but to me the important thing is the range of places we see the name Jerusalem. But that would make the CES letter way longer and who would read that.
Thank you, Mary Ann, excellent post, as always. I think we, as LDS people, are terrified of the CES Letter and we don’t need to be. I think we should have institute classes, BYU classes and stake firesides that look at its claims. My study of it finds things that are true, things that are taken out of context and things that are flawed (also, why the heck is he so up in arms about the name of the church changing? I don’t understand that one). You did a good job of pointing out something that is flawed. The CES Letter raises some valid questions and points out some big holes in the narrative. That is why we are so afraid of it, we’re afraid of acknowledging what he gets right, which requires a paradigm shift. I really like this response from Churchistrue http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/. I think apologetic responses like the ones from FAIR are unsatisfying because they refuse to acknowledge the validity of the questions and what Runnells gets right. The other classic response to the CES Letter is “these arguments have been around forever and aren’t even worth going into . . .” I don’t think we, institutionally, can keep pretending these things aren’t problematic. There are good answers, they just require a paradigm shift. It may not be the role of the institutional church to do this, but BYU or a group of faithful should certainly take this on and make these answers available to institute classes and through Deseret Book.
“There are good answers, they just require a paradigm shift. It may not be the role of the institutional church to do this, but BYU or a group of faithful should certainly take this on and make these answers available to institute classes and through Deseret Book.”
This is a great idea! We don’t have to hide from this stuff. We don’t have to protect people. We have to teach them the scriptures and teach them how to find their own answers. Also, we need to teach that there’s some things we just don’t get but that doesn’t mean you throw everything away because we don’t have a good answer now.
Archeology changes well established paradigms overnight.
The youtube video Howlers in the Book of Mormon is the best example of how things end up working themselves out with time.
I mostly agree with your assessment here on this one specific point. But I think it’s a mistake to hammer on this. The reason is that if you put yourself in the shoes of a totally blind sided young person studying the issues. Imagine you have just spent a thousand hours studying all the CES Letter issues from critical, faithful, and neutral sources, I believe you’re going to come away with something pretty close to “darn I guess most of the CES Letter was right.” And posts like this or a lot of what FairMormon does is going to come across petty, disingenuous, obfuscating, manipulative, etc. I think a better approach is to say, yep, Jeremy’s mostly right (or rather the document crowd sourced from the best of Exmo reddit is right). It sucks. I’m sorry. He’s destroyed an unsustainable version of Mormonism you probably have been clinging to. But all is not lost. You don’t need to trade the faith of your fathers overnight for anti-God new atheism duty bound to stamp out religion and live and die by the cold hard steel of science and logic. My approach to the CES Letter and these kind of issues http://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/ is to acknowledge it and to introduce another paradigm that is more sustainable.
Some great discussions here. Very well done, Mary Ann. One observation….before we condemn Jeremy Runnells to strongly, if anyone can watch the recording or his LDS “Court of Love” and not come away with a feeling of disgust – well, you’re a better person than me. What a travesty that was! In fairness to the Stake President involved – I believe this was all orchestrated from SLC – which turned this SP into a pathetic puppet. It still makes me made that we would treat someone that way!
My apologies re: my spell checker. Corrections made.
Some great discussions here. Very well done, Mary Ann. One observation….before we condemn Jeremy Runnells to strongly, if anyone can watch the recording of his LDS “Court of Love” and not come away with a feeling of disgust – well, you’re a better person than me. What a travesty that was! In fairness to the Stake President involved – I believe this was all orchestrated from SLC – which turned this SP into a pathetic puppet. It still makes me mad that we would treat someone that way!
I agree with your analysis, Mary Ann, that in this case Runnells, despite his disclaimers about being unaffected by egoism, is more interested in gaining or maintaining followers than being factually accurate or maintaining intellectual integrity. I’m not an orthodox Mormon, so it’s easy for me to acknowledge that many of the points that Runnells made in his first letter, and in its subsequent iterations, are completely valid points. Neither the LDS Church nor FAIR do a good job of rebutting the majority of what he and other commentators have to say in their writings. But when it comes to Book of Mormon criticism, Runnells, like almost everyone else, is chronically in over his head, and scrupulously avoids dealing with the discoveries from the best up-to-date BoM scholarship. He prefers to cherry-pick and respond to weakly-reasoned articles by FAIR or the LDS Church, but doesn’t even acknowledge, much less rebut, the evidence-heavy and strongly-reasoned stuff. In my opinion, he makes the same fatal mistake that is made critics and apologists alike, whether learned or not: Having discovered that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Abraham, most or all of the D&C revelations, and many crucial events in church history, they go on to assume that the Book of Mormon must also be fraudulently produced, and having jumped to that conclusion, they abandon intellectual rigor and fail to keep track of the amazingly strong evidence or arguments being accumulated in its favor. They do this because they consider it impossible that Joseph Smith could make true and verifiable claims through the early part of 1830, but thereafter start fabricating events, scriptural understanding, revelations and translation abilities. To them, he was either a lifelong fraud, or was never a fraud, and never the twain shall meet.
Churchistrue, I get where you’re coming from, and I think that approach will indeed help a lot of people. But I disagree that hammering the “small stuff” is a bad idea. The fact is, someone should’ve done the research legwork on the Holley maps *decades* ago. The 1989 FARMS Review article that covered the article was never intended to be an official comprehensive response, but people used it as such for 20 some-odd years because it was never deemed worth anyone’s time. So Holley’s theory was allowed to fester. For a lot of people blindsided by church issues, they have no way of immediately understanding which aspects of the CES Letter is “big stuff,” the really difficult valid issues that the church is only barely starting to deal with, or “small stuff.” Every argument in the book is presented as having equal weight. That was my point in the OP about the maps being so effective. Your approach is more of a pastoral one, which is definitely needed. But it does not mean the other apologetic styles (engagement, educative, scholarly) are wrong or unnecessary. At some point, you will get people who need to see what evidence is out there, pro or con, but don’t have the training to know how to research it on their own. Even when it’s the little issues, I feel like there is an obligation to get the most accurate data possible available to people.
Andy, fyi, that first sarcastic comment of yours is an apologetic style I *really* don’t like. As to your second comment, I agree we don’t need to hide from this.
Lefthandloafer55, I fail to see how Jeremy’s treatment in his disciplinary hearing has any bearing on this conversation. The only thing I can think of is that it would make him more angry at the church, so he’d be even more biased. That doesn’t make him look any better. As I made clear in the OP, this was about one section. It does not mean the other aspects of the letter have no merit.
Churchistrue, I don’t get props for sharing the link to your blog before you did? I’ve always been a big fan of that blog post and have shared it with a lot of people over the last few years. I agree with Mary Ann that we need to take Runnells to task for sloppy research, but we lost credibility when the rebuttals don’t come across as honest and don’t acknowledge what he gets right. By being overly apologetic and refusing to give an inch, the FARMS rebuttal loses credibility and is unpersuasive for many people. If we could have an honest and more scholarly dialogue, we could call BS on what Runnells gets wrong, instead of just saying all of it is wrong. I think the thing of Runnells’ disciplinary hearing that is relevant is that repeatedly asked his stake president to show him what was wrong in the CES Letter. The stake president wouldn’t ever address anything substantive or specific. Proponents of the CES Letter take that as a tacit acknowledgment by the Church that he is right and we are just threatened by the information. That allows critics to write the narrative and makes the CES Letter into something more scary than it actually is. But, let’s talk about it and not just try to defend the faith. To quote the wisdom of the ages as spoken by Salt N’ Peppa: Let’s talk about you and me, let’s talk about all the good things and the bad things that may be . . .”
Point(s) well taken, Mary Ann. From my perspective, I mentioned Jeremy’s “Court of Love” because I believe if someone would have simply had the courage to acknowledge that most of what he had written (unprofessional and unedited as it may be) had some factual basis and that his questions had merit – rather than relying on the “puff and blow” out of FAIR – we might have been able to (to a certain degree) avoid the monumental, informational “cluster” we are now left with. Thanks again.
felix. thanks. i skimmed your comment and didn’t notice. *sorry* thanks for the nice compliment.
Thanks for this Mary Ann.
So, extending your position, should we remove the racist references in the Book of Mormon and the polygamous references in section 132..??
Jeff I don’t mean to be offensive but the irony of your comment is simply too great to pass up. In my limited experiences those other churches you mention almost always make their budgets available to their members. Unlike ours . More importantly you can give or not without fear of retaliation or blowback. In ours if you don’t pay out you don’t get to go to your kids wedding in the Temple or your own for that matter . The LDS Church would routinely publish its income and expense items each April Conference up to 1959. Look it up it is on line in the conference report for that year. Then suddenly those facts were not only hidden from us but most of the hierarchy will tell you than even to ask is to show a lack of faith and is a warning sign you are on the road to apostasy. I will take the Protestant way anytime rather than the LDS “ pay to play“ method. – thank you very much.. This all sounds too much like Moronis warning in Mormon 8 about our church in the last days. Not only does he tell us that we will transfigured the holy word of God and corrupt his church but our works will be works of darkness done in secret. Ask you bishop for a detailed accounting of the use of your tithing and he will tell you ion essence it is a secret.
Oh the irony! People who complain about Mr. Runnells charging $11.00 for a book while they pays 10% of their income to an organization that provides no transparency as to how the funds are spent.
I feel like this article is straining at gnats while swallowing camels. I can’t think of a single person I know who left the Church over the Vernal Holley stuff, nor would I ever encourage anyone to do so. If you’re really looking at the evidence and really examining the history you’ll be in tune enough to know that the Vernal Holley stuff is not worth investigating deeply or relying on too heavily.
Instead, this article feels like just another attempt at “if I discredit part of the CES Letter then maybe I can convince people to just discredit all of it.” Unfortunately, the fact remains that even if Runnells pulled the Vernal Holley maps the number of people leaving the Church after reading the CES Letter would likely not change in any significant way (random Reddit comments notwithstanding).
As FELIXFABULOUS already said above, the root issue here is that “The CES Letter raises some valid questions and points out some big holes in the narrative.” These sideline issues of Vernal Holley and claims of “Shock Value Trumps Plausibility” do little to really move the ball forward. Book of Abraham, Book of Mormon (translation, historicity, DNA, etc.), polygamy, race issues, lack of financial transparency, and LGBTQ issues (in no particular order) are what really matter because these are the issues that involve deep questions of ethics, morals, faith, and what it means to truly be a “Christian.” Until the Church can get some collective momentum established around addressing these issues in powerful and meaningful ways (e.g., fearlessly by the GA’s from the general conference pulpit) then things won’t materially change and the incredible loss of membership (and the accompanying heartbreak people feel when leaving the Church and watching their belief system crumble, or when watching their loved ones walk away from the faith) will continue.
Sadly, when one looks at the current leadership vacuum the Church is experiencing and the lack of any real courage around the tougher issues, it seems very unlikely that things will be turned around any time soon (if ever).
Meanwhile, instead of Mary Ann spending time writing about minor symptoms and the possibly questionable ethics of Runnells allegedly using an approach of “Shock Value Trumps Plausibility” (though she does make valid points in her article) she’d likely get much better mileage if she focused on addressing real root causes. As just one example, how about an article explaining why accepting Joseph’s marrying of his 17 y.o. fatherless legal ward who was dependent on him for disbursements from her deceased father’s estate (see Sarah Lawrence) does not require one to engage in moral relativism. Or, if it does require moral relativism why it is okay in this instance. I know posing a tough question like that might get me some hate, but it’s only real, deep articles (i.e., no relying on claims of ‘it was common back then for men to marry younger women’ when the historical record shows that it was not at all common) that address those real, tough subjects that will ultimately make a difference in keeping people in the Church.
Scott, you make great points. My problem is that Runnells puts gnats and camels on equal footing. Thus, any attempt at killing the gnats will get you rebuked for ignoring the camels. That’s why I tried to emphasize that I am fully aware that there are MANY other arguments in this book.
Scott, I’d love an article on Sarah Lawrence and moral relativism – that’s the exact kind of discussions this particular blog is so good for. Have you thought of submitting one?
@Mary Ann–You said that “My problem is that Runnells puts gnats and camels on equal footing.” This is a good point and a fair response. I may not 100% agree that he always puts them on equal footing (though he arguably sometimes does), but I see how one might feel that way, see your point, and consider it a valid one. Thanks for the response.
@ReTx–What else can I say to this? You’re right. I should “put up or shut up,” as they say. Honestly, I’d love to write a post about on how one goes about squaring the Church’s very outward disdain for moral relativism (at least in the last couple of decades) with its implicit requirement that one accept Joseph’s morally questionable approach to polygamy if one wishes to be considered a faithful member. I’ll have to give this some serious thought. Would be great to see something like that published either here, at BCC, or at Rational Faiths.
Excellent article and demonstration of how critics like to spin the truth. It would be great to have you @Mary Ann present at one of our 2018 Uplift events. Please email me if you’re interested (leowinegar@gmail.com). Take care and God bless.
Well, the first person to ever bring up the CES letter with me brought it up in context with the Holly arguments and according to the Reddit discussions it appears to have remained front and center because of how effective it is.
I’d say that speaks for itself.
Reminds me of the Zina Petersen story.
The anti version relies on “eye witness” accounts from two ant-Mormon lecture circuit guys who it turns out were not there.
When the RLDS got to interview her (as a part of historical research and ongoing litigation) she was unable to give them a year or a month for her sealing and when pressed said it was a spiritual ritual rather than something that stuck in her memory.
That is a far different story.
But, doesn’t have the shock value either.
The problem is that when you start wading through the morass of such things every one that turns out to be baseless is then dismissed as not meaningful—even though you have to wonder why they were included or presented that way if they were not.
Question for those who have studied this map issue in more detail than me [which isn’t hard, as my response to the entire letter was “meh”]: Has anyone done a statistical study of random spots on the globe with Anglophile names and seen what the default ‘match rate’ is? I’m not sure that the short list that matches up shown in the list here really is statistically significant. I suspect, though have not done the checking, that you’d get at least some proportion of matches based on any location in the Anglo speaking world.
As a stats teacher, I’m now really really tempted to assign this as a project to my students: given a list of names, and a GPS coordinate, look for all matching place names in a 100 mile radius, with matching defined suitably by syllables somehow [this is my fuzzy part: how to define ‘similar’ names quantifiably]. I guess the list here is no larger than the list for most GPS coordinates you could choose in the US, Canada, UK, or Australia.
Lankiel, I’m not aware if anyone has figured out a default match rate. In my research I came across an ex-Mormon, Jonathan at Main Street Plaza, who had come up with a similar number of matches when comparing Book of Mormon names to (1) the state of Virginia and (2) Chinese place names. Mormon apologist Jeff Lindsay did the same comparing Book of Mormon names to Hawaiian names. I could’ve sworn there was someone else who did the same thing in a different part of the world, but I can’t think of who it was off the top of my head.
Jonathan – http://mainstreetplaza.com/2010/08/20/popular-book-of-mormon-criticism-debunked/
Jeff Lindsay – http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2007/07/book-of-mormon-plagiarism-hawaiian.html?m=1
This is a persuasive post as to this issue and I wish Jeremy had taken this out.
Following up on what churchistrue and Scott said, hammering away at this one point while not acknowledging the effective deconstruction of other truth claims is like taking on the weakest thesis of Martin Luther’s 95 as a way to deflect attention from his central criticisms. Yes, you’ve pointed out there are arguments you agree with, but which ones specifically and what are the implications of those arguments?
If you can’t acknowledge that the dominant narrative as to translation, historicity, polyandry and race issues pre-original CES Letter was simply wrong, then this just looks like nitpicking.
@Lankiel — not just Anglo-speaking, but all the places colonized by Europeans at various times in history. Place-names are fun because different parts of the globe have different “rules” for how place-names came to be. I’m not an expert, but the Google Map APIs can be accessed for free (at least on a limited basis), and one could use those to pull out the necessary data. Actually, the better source would be the GeoNames database — http://www.geonames.org/ In the start-up world, that’s what people often use for map-related stuff so you don’t have to give money to Google. Anyways, considering that Christianity spread through the world relatively early on and made it pretty far, I’d suspect that you have at least “Biblical” names all over the place. Some areas (like Ethiopia) will have more because of their historic Christian communities. In those places, what might be an “Anglo” name is actually not due to European influence, but is perfectly in line with the local history.
As per the CES letter, I’m also “meh”. Religion to me is in a different basket than, say, science or math or even secular history. YMMV. I do think there are lots of valid discussions to be had, though, about issues like dealing with JS’ polygamy or polyandry (both for people who stay in the Church and people who leave), or how we square ourselves with the “institutional” aspect of the Church, and so on. At the end of the day, you’d likely get as many different responses as there are people in the world. But, sharing experiences can be useful for others who may be in the same boat, again that goes both ways; people who want to leave the Church can benefit from how others who have done the same have dealt with things, and people who stay in the Church can benefit from reading about how others who choose to stay deal with the same things.
Dan, does it not count that I’ve done just that in other posts? Or does criticism of the CES Letter only work if you comment on every single point within the same post?
@Scott – thank you – this is the crux of it.
The first time I read the CES letter my first reaction was – this is so bogus.
And then I saw there was a FAIR rebuttal and after reading it , I came to the understanding that the Q15 has purposely misled us. The facts of the early church didn’t fit the current narrative and so they have purposely misled us. Fawn Brodie spoke many truths but didn’t fit the current narrative and was ex-ed.
At this point it doesn’t matter whether Jeremy has 99 of 100 or 75 of 100 correct. The fact that there is even 1 broke my trust of the Q15.
I have been on the exmo reddit site. Here I don’t find anti people, but rather people that have been hurt by the Church. People that have had relationships destroyed by arcane rules and rigidness. There is no Christlike love in these chapels, but rather furtive glances at each month wondering who has broken what sin.
With different eyes, I sat down to tithing settlement last week. (why is that we don’t have word of wisdom and law of chastity settlement BTW?)
As the bishop glanced over my statement with a furrowed brow, he asked if I was a full tithe payer. I said yes. He looked again at his screen and said, this seems to be a low amount. The insanity of this whole process. My voluntary charitable contribution is dissected and scorned all for a ticket to the temple.
Were it not for my kids and living in Utah County, I would walk out those doors and never return again.
The face to face where they proclaimed “We haven’t hid anything” is laughable. Trust is gone and will never return.
@Steve – I too used to dismiss everything as “anti”. I like to instead think of it as a “contrary viewpoint”. It’s important to have as a balance to balance the churches attempt to whitewash our past.
Jeff
There’s a part of me that is shaking my head at some of these comments. I’ve been following W&T for a while just because it pokes at so many and such a variety of issues. I guess none of those count for some posters because they aren’t specifically labelled as to how they tie into the CES letter? Or is it that commenters are more interested in seeing any criticism as an attack?
This is a really weird hobby you have, and I frankly can’t understand why mormons OR exmos spend so much time arguing doctrine and truth claims, when Mormon kids are killing themselves.
There’s a petition right now with tens of thousands of signatures, against the practice of unaccompanied youth interviews where the bishop can (and frequently does with no oversight) ask kids where their boyfriend touched them, if they liked it, and whether or not they came. Mine weren’t quite as prurient, but I still got threatened with church discipline because I felt guilty for masturbating, and it almost led me to kill myself.
Why the hell hasn’t W&T addressed or commented on this new development? Why is it so tragic if those mean old exmormons destroy someone’s faith, when your church produces so many victims? When the voices of thousands of children will condemn it at the day of judgment?
You know what? I don’t even care what your answer is. To literal hell with you. All of you.
Dan, I don’t see Mary Ann’s post as nitpicking. When everybody’s made their decision about things, the details don’t matter to them any more. However, it strikes of particular hypocrisy to complain that you’ve been lied to and then also intentionally deceive in your attempt to get back at them. You lose your moral high ground entirely. Furthermore, when you’re just a nobody, you can often feel justified in digging a pit for your neighbor, especially if your neighbor is an authority. But now that Runnells is an authority (to the point that he can charge money), I think it’s fair to turn the tables a bit. Besides, intent matters. I think what Mary Ann’s interested in is keeping everybody honest, and I appreciate that.
Thanks Mary Ann — I find that very telling that they get approximately similar matching names in China and Hawaii. Likely telling us far more about the general number of syllables in use in any language, and far less about the Book of Mormon.
Jewelfox — I once had a judge ask why people were fighting over a humane society when there were real problems in the world. The bottom line is that not everyone covers only the things at the top of someone else’s list — especially when someone else is covering it.
I’m sorry you were almost led to kill yourself.
But as to the national spike in teen suicides, from around 4 to around 8 per 100k by 2015 or so (and growing since), it is a terrible tragedy.
To quote from the NPR article on teen suicide:
[blockquote]
In the ’80s and ’90s, America’s suicide trend was headed in the right direction: down.
“It had been decreasing almost steadily since 1986, and then what happened is there was a turnaround,” says Sally Curtin, a statistician with the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The suicide rate has risen by a quarter, to 13 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 10.5 in 1999, according to an analysis by Curtin and her colleagues that was released Friday.
/blockquote]
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/22/474888854/suicide-rates-climb-in-u-s-especially-among-adolescent-girls
Everyone can read more at http://prp.jasonfoundation.com/facts/youth-suicide-statistics/ and at https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/suicide/index.shtml
The 15-24 age range in 2014 was 4.6 for girls and 18.2 for males. (I know, that gives a blended total of closer to 11 or 12 than 8).
In 2014, for Utah age 10-17 the rate was 8.5. You will note that is a different statistical chunk than the National Institute for Health statistical grouping.
Anyway, it is a complicated and difficult issue.
@lankiel — It should be fairly easy to search all the names everywhere, actually (or at least a good chunk of them) using the GeoNames database — http://www.geonames.org. You can do it through the site using their search feature, or just download the whole db and do a search that way (maybe pop it into ElasticSearch or something similar). If I find a free hour or so I might set that up myself, and then go whole-hog and do the entire list. Tools like ElasticSearch have all the fancy things for semantic near-matches and such and can rate search results on % match, among other things.
Anyways, I too am of the “meh” group who aren’t terribly moved by the CES letter. I do however think it’d be neat to have a place where people posted their personal experiences/thoughts on various issues (yeah yeah, that place is called the “internet”, but still…), both those who are in the church and those who’ve left, or those who have opinions for whatever reason. I think personal experiences like that would be interesting to read, so people could get a sense of what people who are aware of all the “issues” and are members think, and also see what people who decided to leave (or not join in the first place) think about the same topics.
This linguistically challenged person looks at the Chinese and Hawaiian and thinks, nope. Don’t see it. But Virginia looks spot on.
I’ve heard that the shape of Middle Earth is taken from the shape of Europe. Could be, but the rivers don’t make much sense. Tolkien may know his Beowulf, but his hydrology is nonsensical.
I do not know jeremy and have never met him. I agree that part of the letter is weak, however much of the other stuff is quite strong. That is not my purpose for commenting though. I do think he is a sincere seeker of truth. I respect him for that. What I do not respect are people who cling to a idea or religious institution and reject knowledge that would give one pause. I think there is too much ad hominem attacks in the Church against those who point out flaws.
Dan, I don’t acknowledge that Runnells is right in his “translation and historicity” arguments. I believe, as I said, that he’s avoided all the strong pro-BoM authenticity evidence (thereby swallowing the camel) and strained at many BoM gnats. Worse, he hasn’t dealt successfully with those gnats. His Book of Mormon arguments are all misinformed, and strongly demonstrate that he doesn’t want the BoM to turn out to be authentic. This orientation causes him to not bother to keep up with the latest scholarship which proves him wrong. Which of his Book of Mormon criticisms do you, or anyone else, find persuasive? Why is Runnells not required to keep abreast of the issues he weighs in on? If he doesn’t do it, shouldn’t we? The evidence now proves conclusively that Joseph Smith had zero authorial or editorial input into the BoM text. If Runnels wants credibility for his BoM criticism, let him address the findings of Skousen and Carmack, Welch, Aston, Stubbs, etc. like any other true scholars would do if they honestly sought the truth.
And why do you mix in polyandry in a discussion about Runnels’ BoM criticism (and why racism?!) Yes, Joseph faked divine approval for his multiple wives. Yes, it was ugly and immoral, and he faked lots of other stuff, too. But Runnels being right in 75% of his criticisms against church teachings doesn’t mean he got anything right in what he said about the Book of Mormon. As Mary Ann pointed out, Runnells showed here that having taken a position on BoM geography that many people found persuasive, the truth, when revealed, didn’t matter enough to him to admit he was wrong. But if truth is what we’re all pursuing, we have to both weigh carefully the older arguments and follow the latest research, even if it eventually causes us to have to change our minds about our earlier conclusions, and issue a dreaded retraction.
I Have shared this over on the Mormon Dialogue and Discussion Board and there are multiple comments and links to responses to Jeremy Runnels and his book and update.
The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine Doctrine
Washing My Garment It In His Blood
In His Eternal Debt/Grace
KalEl Anakin Skywalker
LDS Sentinel Son Of Thunder Kryptonian
Msbrothers,what would you put as the 7 or 8 things I favor of the BOM?
ReTX, you know that you can download the entire letter free right? At https://cesletter.org, or free as an ePub or Kindle coming soon? The only thing he’s charging for is the hard copy book, which costs money.
Your argument is silly.
Hi Mary,
I have a couple of questions about points you made and would love to have a quick friendly chat. Can you email me at cesletter@gmail.com?
Thanks!
Jeremy
KalEl Anakin Skywalker — do you have a link you could share?
Hi Jeremy, I appreciate you weighing in. I’ll email shortly.
Good discussion, the value of Jeremy’s work comes from the cumulative effect all his analysis brings to ones understanding of the truthfulness of the LDS dominant narrative and the character of Joseph Smith.
Holley is one error n his quiver and a very.scrawny one at that.
But when you read about the dearth of any archeological and anthropological evidence, the myriad anachronisms found in the BOM, the DNA problems, plagiarism in the BOM, the thousands of changes to it and the unrealistic population growth it suggests, it gives one pause.
Couple this with the problems Joseph Smith presents. – The various accounts of the first vision, his numerous false prophecies, his lengthy. criminal ‘rap sheet,’ his changing views on the. Godhead, his method of translation, his use of coercion in acquiring teenage brides, some as young as 14, lying to Emmas and the Saints about his polygamy, the Book of Abraham, the Kinderhook plates and then all the Council of 50 stuff just to mention a few.
FairMormon is beginning to go the way of FARMS. I do not doubt that those volunteering their time and talents to FairMormon believe the things they have been taught. But ignorant fervor, or a strong, “testimony” should not be our only standard. Romans Chapter 10, Verse 2 tells us, “For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge.”
I would contend that FairMormon’s conclusions have been set before they have even given ear to any research or evidence and that, my friends, is ‘confirmation bias,’ and it is intellectually dishonest..
The other concern I have with FairMormon’s apologetic efforts, which follows from their Mormon mindset, is that feelings, always trumps facts. FairMormon prefers to speak about possibilities than probabilities.
I personally think hit is time that the G15 personally address the list of concerns that we find in the CES. letter or even in greater depth in ‘A Letter to an Apostle.’
The worse is Jeremy’s outright lie that the proposed map is “constructed from internal comparisons in the Book of Mormon.” Completely shameless.