Last week, I posted about Scott Gordon’s presentation at FairMormon on the CES Letter. I’ll repeat that here, but I want to focus on my thoughts prompted by a comment in that thread.
Scott got emotional and choked up while talking about the effectiveness of this document as an “anti-Mormon” proselyting tool and the gravity of the CES Letter’s impact on the LDS world. Many families have been broken up and many people have had their lives disrupted. I share that emotion. I love this church, and I don’t like to see the number of people leaving it.
Scott spends part of the presentation describing generally the CES Letter and then spends a large amount of time going point by point for the first chapter of the CES Letter, showing that it is poor researched, sloppy, full of lies and half truths. By doing so, I think Scott completely misses why the CES Letter is so compelling and so effective in deconstructing a traditional LDS belief set.
Yes, the CES Letter is a little sloppy. Yes, it includes a few inaccuracies and many “half-truths”. Yes, it includes all the bad and none of the good regarding evidences that support LDS truth claims. All of that is true. But it’s at least 70% accurate. And that 70% is a whopper for most LDS.
Next to me, of course (https://www.churchistrue.com/blog/ces-letter/), Patrick Mason has given the best insight into how to process the CES Letter while retaining an LDS testimony. He said the CES Letter does a very good job attacking what he calls an unsustainable view of Mormonism. He then talks about how we have overfilled our “truth cart” and need to empty some of it. He believes there is a sustainable version of Mormonism that will come out on top. The CES Letter is effective in terms of identifying what needs to be tossed and what can stay.
I don’t think Scott Gordon’s defense of the CES Letter is effective, because I didn’t hear him acknowledge that point or encourage those struggling with doubt to shift their paradigm or adopt a more humble view of our doctrine and truth claims. His approach seems to be to just simply write it all off and defend the traditional narrative, with the overflowing truth cart, stuffing it back in as it keeps falling out.
Book of Abraham problems. Polygamy problems. Priesthood ban. Book of Mormon translation issues. Conflict in First Vision accounts. Details lacking in the priesthood restoration narrative. Old Testament Documentary Hypothesis. New Testament textual criticism. Evolution of doctrine in the restoration (and anciently).
None of these are simple problems. Every single one is a land mine ready to explode a traditional/literal/fundamentalistic testimony. The CES Letter is extremely effective at pointing this out. The process goes like this:
- Many LDS have a simple, white-washed, historically indefensible view on the issue. Usually the view includes a perspective that God is involved in a way that’s 100% certain, in a fundamentalistic, inerrant manner.
- The CES Letter blows away this view. (and imo, rightly so)
- The faith struggler then has three options.
a. Combat the new information to settle back into the initial perspective, or a slightly nuanced version that’s essentially the same. But basically retaining the notion that God is involved in a way that’s nearly 100% certain and inerrant.
b. Accept the new information and come to believe the Church is not “true” and either leave or try to stay in a state that’s very uncomfortable.
c. Accept the new information and reprocess the view of the Church into a version that’s less certain and more humanistic and built on true faith. This new view may not retain beliefs such that LDS is the one and only exclusively true church. But it does retain beliefs that God is in this Church in some way, and that it’s worthy of us devoting ourselves to.
I have a hunch that Scott Gordon and most of FairMormon would agree with me on this. But it’s very scary to say directly, considering that this more humanistic more epistemologically humble perspective is not the one taught over the pulpit at General Conference or on Sundays in our wards. It’s much easier to snipe around the borders of the CES Letter without really taking it on.
OK, and now the comment that I’ve been thinking a lot about.
Mormonism is a young, quite immature religion. It lacks confidence in itself, which manifests as overconfidence. The Church (by which I primarily mean Brigham’s church, as that’s what I’m most familiar with) demands all or nothing because it’s unsure whether people can accept its true, messy nature. The Church doesn’t seem to realize that human nature necessarily is messy, especially when it comes to faith. As an ex member, far be it from me to tell the Church what to do. But, if they were interested, I’d say that they need to stop trying to short-circuit faith journeys. Tell people that it’s okay to leave just as much as it’s okay to stay. Let people explore. If the Church is what it claims to be, then people will be drawn back into it. It should be confident enough in itself to allow those journeys to happen. Also, if it’s not what it claims to be, but it’s still good, then people will stay or return. Maybe it’s okay if the Church isn’t True, as long as the Church is good. But to get there the Church will need to grow up.
This made me think. I imagine the closer we go back to any one religion’s origins, the more it was promoted or marketed in terms of being the “one, true” religion. As religions mature, two things happen. 1) doubt in certain things becomes normalized within the faith community that causes some of the origination claims or “dominant narrative” to be less critical to the religion 2. there’s a shift within the religion of how it’s promoted and the value proposition for its members from “absolute truth” based reasons to “this is why our doctrines and practices are good/important/vital”.
I think we see this to some degree in world religions: Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism, Hinduism. I think these religions have a healthy mix of those who engage because of truth claims and those who engage because it’s good.
Mormonism is so young and its truth claims are so bold, that we are very, very new in this process. But we have beautiful doctrines.
- a well thought out view of Christianity with a good mix of grace and works
- the Book of Mormon: a beautiful piece of scripture that fits very well with the Bible
- Heavenly Mother
- an organizational structure based on revelation that facilitates progress
- a belief that we are literal children of God that can be like him and her
- restoration of what made the Old Testament and the origination of the Jewish religion great: temple, covenants, and desire to establish Zion
- we take our religion seriously
- a reputation for being do-gooders
Can our religion not stand as being great outside the foundational claims that seem hard to believe in a modern world? Can we incorporate those whose faith transitions from LDS as exclusively God’s one and only true church, to a church that’s not quite that but pretty awesome and the best I can find?
The information age is exploding this doubt into our community and forcing the process to happen at an extremely pace. It feels threatening and impossible. I used to think we had 20-50 years to allow this to unfold. But if we don’t want to lose the majority of an entire generation, I think we need to figure out how to do it a lot faster.
Wheat & Tares 
Good, thoughtful (and thought-provoking) post. The truth is, we’ve already lost a majority of an entire generation, so I think it’s not a good idea to focus on those who have already left, nor to focus on those who are remain. We need to focus on scrupulously and ethically telling the truth always. If we don’t know something (or don’t know why we do something), we need to say it. If we can dedicate ourselves to telling the truth and nothing but the truth about our history, our doctrine, our policies, our mistakes, etc., we may be able to earn a decent reputation in another century or so. And if the so-called “only true church” can dedicate itself to telling the truth and to become known as an organization that always tells the truth, no matter how messy, we may interest a few people along the way and regain some of the integrity we’ve thrown away precisely because of our immaturity as an institution.
As far as the CES letter goes, I agree that bout 60 or 70 percent of it is accurate enough. But the relative truth or falsity of it isn’t really the point. The fact is that it has become a symbol of the church’s lies and mistakes, even if the letter itself isn’t quite accurate in a number of its claims. And as we religious folk should know, symbols exert a powerful influence over the imagination and one’s worldview generally. And the letter works as a symbol because it makes obvious the church’s intentional whitewashing of many things. So in a weird way, the letter symbolizes the truth to some folks much more effectively and powerfully than the church itself does. And the church, of course, is to blame for this. Really, it all comes down to how willing the church is to tell the truth no matter what the consequences. If the church expects us to do exactly that, then surely it can manage to do the same.
The sustainable version of Mormonism can be found here: https://www.learnofchrist.org/
I agree 100% with Bro Sky. Be honest, let the chips fall where they may. Bring up comparative Biblical Studies where they show that the writers of the Bible tweaked things to make a point and what we have isn’t 100% true history. The differences in the synoptic gospels is based on tweaking the narrative to provide a story that addresses a larger theology.
If Joseph Smith tweaked the first vision, can’t we argue that he did so to prove that there are two distinct beings? Is a vision of the Lord any less miraculous? Is it such a huge deal for the church to point to the fact that when the Lord said, “none doeth good, no not one,” Joseph may have used to this say that he originally went in to the woods to ask which church is true? The answer is still the same,”none of the churches are true!”
Do I personally really care about Joseph asking about forgiveness of sins? No, but I do care that there’s no church out there doing what they’re supposed to be doing. So if Joseph changed the premise for going out to the garden, I understand why.
We’re dealing with a history that’s almost 200 years old. We can allow ourselves the leeway to say, “Look, we just aren’t 100% sure on motives and why the changes This is the narrative we go with because it’s the one Joseph felt was most important for us to follow.”
I have read the CES letter, or at least an early version of it. I also listened to a good portion of Scott Gordon’s FairMormon dismantling of the letter’s arguments. I found both to be amateurish. I am active in the Church, but I have a lot of questions and see many inconsistencies that the CES letter writer has never considered. These are issues that Scott Gordon has no answers for. There are so many problematic areas that I wouldn’t even try to list them here, but you’re right that the “only true church” claim is not sustainable. Certainty is the currency of the Mormon kingdom, but the more you learn, the less certain you become about a lot of things. Why? Life is complicated.
Rob, good article. What I find frustrating that nuanced apologists will reference something like “too much in the truth cart” but nearly always stop short of speaking to what should come out. Similar in nature to GAs who will readily admit the Church has made mistakes, but will not provide even a single example of a mistake. The reason is deep down those that know the narrative has serious issues don’t want to disrupt those literal believers in the narrative. This is a huge problem because people get so tired of pushing that heavy truth cart uphill. If we and the Church could be honest about things to remove, we’d have far fewer people abondoning their carts or being crushed by the sheer weight of it. For example, the following 3 can immediately come out of the truth cart taking a huge weight of ordinary members:
1) Polygamy
2) Temple/Priesthood Ban
3) Infallibility/Supremacy /”Special witness” of Church leaders
There are more of course, but faithful members carry the weight of the above throughout their whole lives – unnecessarily. The church is attempting to slowly inoculate the membership to the problems, but I think it’s going to be too little, too late.
I agree with your post. I appreciated David Ostler’s viewpoint from yesterday’s AMA at the r/latterdaysaints subreddit:
“The CES letter is effective because it builds off our binary belief. Its either all true or all false. If there is a problem (or many) that we can’t reconcile we are forced to throw it all out. In reality, the church is a work in progress (the restoration continues) and is full of humans (who make mistakes). People can find meaning and belief in the church, its doctrines and through participation even if they don’t belief everything or find mistakes in our past (or in those leaders). Since the CES letter presents so many issues it overwhelms people. And at times our ward leaders are unfamiliar or inexperienced with the issues so a member can’t get much help locally.”
I really worry about how quickly the Church can move when we have such a generational disparity between the top leaders and the generations who are at highest risk of disaffiliation. When you look at the last decade, though, we’ve made some incredible progress. If they can keep it up for another decade, maybe it’ll make a dent?
“Can our religion not stand as being great outside the foundational claims that seem hard to believe in a modern world?”
I guess it depends upon what those are. As you said the problem is a kind of black and white fundamentalism. I suspect those most rocked are those who see everything in black and white and are not terribly reflective. After all many black/white claims about leadership are hard to maintain when you’re in even minor leadership roles. Thinking that you are somehow unique in not fitting the black and white model is hard to maintain if one is reflective.
However I also think that there are many foundational claims that are absolutely true despite being hard to believe in a modern world. We tend to focus on things unique to our Church such as the gold plates or angels. However take the New Testament which arguably has the most difficult to believe elements. Do we reject the atonement of both sin and the resurrection because they seem hard to believe?
The Church presents itself as the one true church, so the members can hardly be faulted for having a binary construct. Same for the church-wide culture. Restorationist scripture is suffused with one-true-church exceptionalism. (See 1 Ne. 13; D&C 1; PGP Manifesto fine print [Wilford Woodruff’s declaration that no prophet can lead the Church astray].) Though science and history make this brittle position increasingly difficult to maintain, departure from it will be radical because it calls into question not only prophetic infallibility, but basic LDS epistemology. (See Moroni 10:3-5; James 1:5.) The Church cannot eject doctrinal items from its truth cart without trauma where countless members have received spiritual witnesses of those respective items. For example, what happens if the First Vision is spun in new ways after so many have received witness of the canonized 1838 version? — The status quo is impossible, but adjustment of our Story is no easy path.
Would you say it’s a pillar of the Middle Way approach to reject the idea that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the restored church of Jesus Christ? It seems to be a proposition that Middle Way folks find uniquely problematic. You frame it here in terms of maturity; would you suggest that the woman in your ward who claims to have been visited by multiple ancestors requesting she do their temple ordinances, is not mature? And those of us who believe both the fact of her testimony and our community’s understanding of its ontological value- are we immature? Arrogant? Incapable of critical thinking? Fundamentalists? Would you say those things are true of those of us who believe while also having a full awareness of critical scholarship and the historical questions? Is our epistemology inadequate or flawed in some way?
What the FAIR apologists seemed to fail to mention of Jeremy Runnells’ response to FAIR’s rebuttal which is titled Debunking of FAIR’s Debunking in which he acknowledges mistakes in the CES Letter, shows just how much FAIR actually agrees with his points in the CES Letter, reveals a litany of logical fallacies on the part of the FAIR apologists, and backs his points more thoroughly and effectively. The FAIR apologists have only cherry-picked a few points in Debunking to take on.
Let’s just take one of those beautiful doctrines you list and watch what happens. Heavenly Mother. This will show just how complicated it actually gets.
There are a few (very few) accounts told by early Saints that Joseph Smith taught them about Heavenly Mother. These come from women who were one of his plural wives. The Heavenly Mother doctrine gets a revamp when Brigham Young, claiming that Smith taught it to him, declared Heavenly Mother to be Eve.
The doctrine of Heavenly Mother currently is vague and entirely unsupported by the Standard Works.
The Mormon concept of God, which means an exalted man and woman, does not conform at all to the doctrine of the Godhead, which states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are each God, united in purpose. There has never been any attempt to fuse these two doctrines together. They simply exist side-by-side, and never are the two doctrines mentioned in the same breath in any Sunday School discussion. And who, exactly, is this “Holy Ghost” according to Mormon theology? A spiritual child of Elohim and his Eternal Wife? Was he the “second-begotten Son?”
So…sure. I guess it is a beautiful doctrine. What I find sort of funny is that Trinitarians have to endure accusations by Mormons that their doctrine comes from Greek philosophy, when the Mormon doctrine of a humanoid God with a wife looks an awful lot like the belief in Zeus and Hera.
My overall point is this: The “beautiful” doctrines themselves are landmines that, under a little investigation, tear the top off of that can of worms that is driving people out of the church. The LDS church doesn’t need doctrinal humility, it actually needs to define its doctrine. Latter-day Saints don’t really know what to believe.
I agree with J Ruben Clark’s view that ” if it is the truth it will not be harmed by investigation. If it is not the truth it should be harmed”. Of course both he and i are graduates of the same law school where we were taught not only critical thinking but a reverence for the truth. A reverence that is not readily apparent in today’s church.We have to be open and transparent as painful as that may be. It is not easy for me to explain to my sons that an man i knew and respected ( Joseph Fielding Smith ) was also the one who did everything in his power to hide the existence of of the earliest version of the first vision. It is troubling to explain to them that the Melchizedek Priest hood was not restored through the efforts of Peter ,James and John as they learned in church or that it was Nephi not Moroni that first appeared to Joseph Smith .We need to acknowledge that Moroni was talking about us when he accused the Gentiles of ” polluting the Holy Church of God “and ” transfiguring the Holy Word of God “. We do that when we choose the traditional narrative rather than the truth. Bushman is right – the traditional narrative has to be rejected and replaced with one that is more authentic and reflects our highest values. Based upon my experience in church however it is not likely to happen. Which is a tragedy because the CES lettter and things like it will win the day.
As someone else once said ” it isn’t that things that we don’t know that will damn us it is the things that we believe that aren’t true.” If we subscribe solely to the traditional binary narrative we will surly be damned.
Clark,
“I suspect those most rocked are those whosee everything in black and white and are not terribly reflective.”
A veiled jab at doubters and skeptics. This has not been my experience in my many interactions with ex-Mormons and other skeptic communities. The most common metaphor that doubters appear to use to describe why they doubt is that of a shelf collapsing, which suggests that they had reflected for quite some time and attempted to understand Mormonism with nuance for some time. The reason why the CES Letter was so effective was that it juxtaposed all the many issues with the LDS Church in a format that hadn’t really been done before. It showed readers that there are a heck of a lot of issues with the church and that it wasn’t just polygamy or the BOA or what have you.
Plus, if you want to call the doubters black-and-white-thinking fools, they seem to know a great deal more about the Mormon church, its history, as philosophy than your average person in the pew. Heck, I’ve heard dozens of stories of a doubters’ bishop or believing friend or family member not even knowing about the essays on sensitive gospel topics or that Joseph Smith had more than one wife. I had a student once who told me over lunch that she really liked my class but took issue with the textbook talking about how Joseph Smith had more than one wife. She insisted that it was Brigham Young that instituted polygamy and that its main purpose was to protect widows. I told her, “I hate to burst your bubble,” and directed her to the Gospel Topics essays.
And who, exactly, is this “Holy Ghost” according to Mormon theology? A spiritual child of Elohim and his Eternal Wife? Was he the “second-begotten Son?”
That’s the take that Orson Pratt and Heber C. Kimball took that approach.
Frankly, there are a number of approaches to reconciling the Godhead and Mother in Heaven from the Givens view to even some Catholic views.
I don’t read much of the Mormon blogosphere anymore, but I was intrigued by this article. When I really started reflecting on the information contained in the CES letter (I was well on my way out by the time the letter came out), and really studied the faith traditions of the world, I came to the conclusion that Mormonism actually has very little to bring to the table as far as theological richness or truth in the world. That made far less invested in trying to maintain a testimony.
There seems to be an undercurrent here that it’s *worth it* to maintain a Mormon testimony, and that, all other things being equal, we should be *trying* to figure out how we can still contain all the nuance and stay Mormon. That feeling held me back way longer than it should have. I simply don’t think Mormonism has anything new, special, or unique that makes it worth it to even burn a single calorie to maintain. Obviously, people’s opinions on this are going to differ. But from my perspective, anything good about Mormonism already existed, sometimes in better forms, prior to the “Restoration” (e.g., community, love, charity, “eternal” family, priesthood, temple work, an emphasis on our dead ancestors) and, as John Cline mentioned above, it’s unique “revealed” new doctrines tend to fall apart easily under scrutiny.
In hindsight, I think I just really wanted Mormonism to be true for two reasons. First, leaving Mormonism would have (and did) cause significant disruption in my life, and second, Mormonism promises a lot of wonderful things in the afterlife that are destroyed if you leave – and threatens consequences for leaving, too. The only reason I didn’t seriously consider other religious alternatives (at first) is that Mormonism does a pretty good job of poisoning the well of other belief systems, by viewing them all as basically equally false, and convincing Mormons that whatever problems exist in Mormonism basically exist in exactly the same way elsewhere so there’s no point in going to another church because you’d run into the same problems (which is false).
I guess what I’m saying is, if Mormons want to take stuff out of the faith basket and rebuild Mormonism from what remains, I have no idea what remaining ideas would make Mormonism compelling or useful at all. What new, unique truth does Mormonism actually bring to the table?
This is how Mormonism felt to me. Imagine a fantasy story where a knight is charged by the king to guard a chest full of treasure. The king never tells the knight what the treasure is, but assures the knight that it is precious beyond all measure. The knight valiantly spends years fighting off threats to the chest – robbers and monsters breaking in and trying to steal the chest, the castle catches on fire and the knight saves the chest from the fire, etc. After years of doing this, the knight starts to wonder why he is spending his life guarding this chest if he doesn’t even know what it is. But he finally comes to the conclusion that the chest MUST be valuable, because why else would he spend so much time fighting off threats to it? In fact, the chest of “treasure” is now incredibly valuable *to the knight,* because of all the time and work he’s put into guarding it. It’s precious to the knight – it has given his life meaning.
If the knight only turned around and opened the chest, he would see that the treasure is a paltry few coins. It was never worth much to begin with. Even worse – there are immense treasures elsewhere in the world that the knight will never see, because he has spent his life guarding this particular chest. The knight spent so much time fighting off this or that threat to the chest that he never really got the time to look back and really evaluate what it was that he was fighting for.
I spent 30 years in Mormonism – went on a mission, temple trips, endowed, married in the temple, taught seminary, taught institute classes… spent the whole time fighting off robbers and monsters. By 30 years I was going through the treasure chest and all it did was make me angry. If you are in Mormonism and somehow think it really is worth fighting for then I guess good for you. At this point (5 years out of Mormonism) I couldn’t even fathom going back and spending my Sundays watching a guy thumb through an app on his phone to teach a lesson in church, or sit through a fast and testimony meeting. To think that stuff had anything to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ is just unfathomable to me at this point.
John Cline,
I agree with you completely on the utter insufficiency of Mormon Theology and disagree whole heartedly with Rob on the below:
“a well thought out view of Christianity with a good mix of grace and works”
Truth is it is a very rudimentary blend of 70% Old Testament Theology, and 30% New Testament Theology. There are multitudes of theological contradictions. Look at the BoM’s Modalism, and the train wreck that is “good mix of works and grace.” The weakness of these theological concepts about God, led me to deeper research into traditional Christian theology. A particular blog by Orthodox Theologians opened my eyes to the coherence, consistency, and beauty of actual Theology. It’s a deep pursuit. The “Great Apostasy” as taught (at least was taught…) to me in my youth is a gross oversimplification of the early original Church. It is kind of a shame that we claim to be a restoration of the original church, but we make ZERO attempt to understand anything about the early Church, except as using the NT as a proof text for Mormonism.
John W, while I can’t claim to have read everything FAIR has done, and I do wish many of their pages were better, I’m not sure it’s fair to say they haven’t taken on the main points that people agree are fair criticisms. (Forgive the pun) Rather they just don’t necessarily engage things polyandry, polygamy and such in most responses. But you can certainly find various responses on the web that do engage with them. (Sometimes well, oft times not — but these are all volunteers and often without deep training in all the issues) So I think it’s bit misleading to say FAIR is unfair simply because they make an argument about bad faith engagement by Runnels.
I think it undeniable that some issues like polygamy or racism in the Church bother people a great deal. At a certain level particularly for black and white thinkers who think prophets are de facto without flaw you’ll never convince them. They’ve created a false theology and are judging the Church against that.
However I think that for some people FAIR’s responses are helpful and can offer a far more nuanced way to view the Gospel and the Church.
John W (sorry hit post before answering your second comment)
I don’t think that’s a jab at skeptics, merely an explanation of how a particular subset views it. Heaven knows there’s other groups who leave for different reasons. Some of them may have been reflective and simply have difficulty reconciling their value heirarchy to what a more nuanced believer holds. So, for exmaple, if you intrinsically think polygamy wrong there’s really no nuance that will change that. So I think you’re reading more into my comments than was there. Now I might, as a believer, argue that if one prays to God with ones doubt one can receive answers that the Church is true and thereby reorder ones valuations. But clearly not everyone has the same results there.
Doctrinal humility? Not likely to happen. The ever-humble Tad Callister spoke at FAIR and apparently has decided that Moroni was all wrong – it isn’t The Book of Mormon that is on trial at all, it’s you who are on trial. Yes, you are all on trial to see if you will be sufficiently sincere in your intent to discover the book’s presupposed truth. Any who question the veracity of Joseph’s claims about the book are not honest of heart. https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2019/06/07/tad-callister-interview-a-case-for-the-book-of-mormon
The manipulative tactics of Callister and others in church leadership are not the tactics of those who have confidence in their doctrines. And they clearly aren’t anything close to doctrinal humility. Rather they are the tactics of those who wish to silence and shun anybody who doesn’t walk in lock-step with the approved (and disproven) official narrative.
Clark: “I suspect those most rocked are those who see everything in black and white and are not terribly reflective. After all many black/white claims about leadership are hard to maintain when you’re in even minor leadership roles. Thinking that you are somehow unique in not fitting the black and white model is hard to maintain if one is reflective.”
Based on my observations, most active LDS are black/white thinkers. I once made a comment, while leading a HP group meeting discussion, that sometimes the general authorities and prophets can get it wrong. Immediately someone states “the prophet cannot lead the church astray” and most of the quorum nod their heads in agreement. I saw this all the time when I was still attending. While members do see bishop’s and stake president’s make mistakes on a local level, they do not extrapolate those observations to general authorities. Sure they’ll state the GA’s are imperfect people, but they’ll never point to a conference talk, instruction, or policy and identify a specific church related example which a GA got wrong. So I don’t buy the implication that those who are active in the church are particularly more “reflective” than those who leave.
Syphax—that is one of the best analogies I’ve ever seen.
Clark: “I suspect those most rocked are those who see everything in black and white and are not terribly reflective. After all many black/white claims about leadership are hard to maintain when you’re in even minor leadership roles. Thinking that you are somehow unique in not fitting the black and white model is hard to maintain if one is reflective.”
Things are changing. I went through my faith crisis about 12 years ago in my mid 30’s. At the time, I was a life long member, RM, BYU grad with advanced degree, father a BYU professor, had served as EQP, had read some Nibley and FARMS, took all my BYU religions classes seriously including Stephen Robinson and some other top notch religion professors, and in my opinion extremely thoughtful and reflective about my religion. CES Letter wasn’t out then, but I started encountering CES Letter type issues slowly in my adult life until I took on a more active study of them and over a several year time period hit them all. It completely rocked me. It’s total BS to put this back on people and claim they are not terribly reflective if it rocks them. Nonsense. Unless you consider 95% of the membership not reflective. In which case it’s not a very useful definition.
These are such interesting comments. Thank you. I think what sums it up for most of us is this: none of us really know much about anything at all, except that which God has influenced us with. Long ago I stopped counting on faith promoting rumors or leadership interpretations to do anything to inspire me. That is MY job to figure out how best to commune with God. I believe the scriptures have laid out some suggestions from history – but that is it. It’s a young persons game, worshiping leadership and praising people for being righteous. None of us are. The older we get, the more we come to realize the journey is ours – and we need to be accountable for that. I believe God will hold me accountable for going along with things that I clearly knew did not come from Him – even if I heard them from the pulpit. But I also believe He will hold me accountable for my earnest search for Him and His commandments. It’s a weird spot to be in…. but as already spoken “life is messy”.
Clark, the point is that FAIR has gone to great lengths to address the CES Letter, but has said very little about Jeremy Runnells’ Debunking, which is more thorough and articulate, and in which he points out common logical fallacies in apologist rhetoric. I would be very interested in reading apologist literature addressing charges of such logical fallacies, which is difficult to locate. Nonetheless, FAIR is mostly in agreement with the CES Letter, as Runnells points out in Debunking. What I find interesting is how many skeptics cite FAIR as confirming their decision to leave the church, because they confirmed as true what they thought was a lie, even if they tried to give an explanation of why it wasn’t a reason to doubt (i.e., “yes Joseph Smith married 14-year-old girls, but that doesn’t matter because of” x reason, or “wait, you didn’t know that Joseph Smith married 14-year-old girls, the church has written at length about this, you weren’t paying attention, you should have known.”)
As for taking a jab at skeptics for not being “reflective,” don’t try to walk back what was obvious in your comment. Just admit that it was misguided and incorrect. I take more kindly to such admissions than disingenuous claims that I, and others, somehow misinterpreted what you were saying. Come on, man. Give up the show.
Dave C. and churchistrue, spot on. What I have noticed is that a good number of folks in the pews are black-and-white thinkers. Heck, the conference talks are quite black-and-white (I distinctly remember President Hinckley in the April 2003 conference citing Revelation 3: 15-16 decrying “lukewarm” devotion to the church and then saying, “either the church is true, or it is a fraud.”). If skeptic rhetoric appears to be black-and-white, it is largely because it is a reaction to black-and-white thinking on the part of believers. Bear in mind that most skeptic rhetoric, particularly Runnells’ CES Letter, is not a response to the more nuanced thinking of apologists and intellectual defenders of the church. It is a response to what the actual church leaders are saying. And if we are to inform ourselves about what Mormonism actually is, doesn’t it make sense to look at what the leaders and authorities say about it first before seeing what apologists have to say about it?
Andrew S. once made a comment a while back during another “middle way” discussion that seems relevant to the black/white thinking:
“I think that exmormons and so-called traditional believing or true believing Mormons (“TBMs”) are easier to understand, because in general, TBMs and exmormons tend to be aligned with their picture of what Mormonism claims to be. In other words, it’s not that exmormons see what the church is supposed to be differently than traditional believers — the difference is just that traditional believers accept the church is what it claims to be, while exmormons don’t.” (Andrew’s emphasis on the word “claims” is unfortunately dropped.)
Regarding the idea that the church has “beautiful doctrines” and it might be worth sticking around: I left the church when I came to no longer believe it to be true. Prior to that one of the beautiful doctrines I believed and loved was we could live together as families in the eternities I had a profound sadness/emptiness when I realized I no longer had a basis for this belief. I’ve since moved to resignation that that’s probably the way things are. My new paradigm certainly has given me a new appreciation for the life and relationships I have now. But like Syphax, I can’t fathom going back to the church. Beautiful doctrines or not, they have no power for me when I don’t believe them.
I want to address Dan E.’s comment:
“You frame it here in terms of maturity; would you suggest that the woman in your ward who claims to have been visited by multiple ancestors requesting she do their temple ordinances, is not mature? And those of us who believe both the fact of her testimony and our community’s understanding of its ontological value- are we immature?” I’ve been doing family history for over a decade now. I’ve helped many a person (member and non-member) with their genealogy. I’ll be the first to tell you that there is an incredible power in turning our minds to our ancestors and connecting with them, whether or not you are in the Church. There is power in recognizing that every individual matters and should be accounted for in God’s plan, from the 1-day-old to the 99-year-old.
That being said, people who have worked with temple and family history work will also recognize that some nuance and intellectual humility is required. When a patron gets worked up over a sealing situation (or even living people that are in limbo because of sealing questions surrounding parents or spouses), the answer is usually a hug accompanied with an “I’m sorry. I don’t know. Things will work out.” Someone repeatedly screws up with your data in Family Tree? You move on. It’s not worth the angst. So no, trusting in the spiritual experience of the sister in your ward and believing that temple ordinances have value do not necessarily have to equate to the black-and-white thinking that Rob is criticizing in this post. You can respect those and still recognize that there are shades of grey to our understanding and experiences in mortality.
John W, that’s a fair point although I suspect most people are just familiar with the CES letter that got all the attention.
To your point about skeptics referring to FAIR, not much one can do about that. As I said somethings are intrinsically true. You either are able to conceptualize them within your values or you can’t. That’s why I wish FAIR did more theology, but then most people don’t exactly enjoy theology. So I’m not sure the best way to appraoch that issue as a practical matter. Clearly some people are fine with things like polygamy even if the idea is a bit yucky while others aren’t. The way I reconciled it was to ask if I’d want my wife to remarry if I died. I would. Whihc is pretty much de facto polygamy if I’m just separated temporarily. But I’ll admit I don’t like the idea in practice. But Joseph’s polygamy ultimately doesn’t disturb me. (Not to go down a tangent – just trying to explicate the idea I’m getting at of how valuation bothers some but not others)
As for skeptics, I’m not going to backtrack. I clearly think those with a black and white attitude have the hardest time. It doesn’t mean others don’t to. However I think it was pretty clear I didn’t mean everyone. I know lots of people who left the church for differing reasons and have discussed it many times. I think you and ChurchAreTrue are leaping at something that wasn’t in the comments. My exact words were:
“I suspect those most rocked are those who see everything in black and white and are not terribly reflective”
I still think that a correct statement. To take that as making a claim about everyone seems twisting the words.
So the CES Letter paints a caricatured picture of Mormonism and LDS doctrine in order to criticize it? Sounds like how missionaries have for decades, following a scripted approach, painted a caricatured picture of Christianity and the “Great Apostasy” in order to criticize it and offer Mormonism as the replacement. Or how Mormons paint a caricature of the Christian Trinity, then offer LDS tritheism as an improvement. Well, add Heavenly Mother and it’s quatro-theism. Add Michael and you’ve got quinto-theism. Let’s just call it LDS polytheism so we can add as many as we want without changing the title.
So the CES Letter stole the Mormon script, the Mormon approach, to critique Mormonism. Keep in mind this only works on people who are largely uninformed. So whose fault is it that Mormons are largely uninformed about LDS doctrine and history? Not the CES Letter guy. Ignorance is bliss until someone takes advantage of your ignorance. Too late the Church is trying to beef up its history teaching to members (Saints should have happened 20 years ago). The Church still isn’t doing much of anything to beef up its doctrinal teaching. When it comes to theology, the Church is bringing jello to a gunfight.
I’m not defending the CES Letter. It throws a lot of mud and some of it sticks. But the reason some of it sticks is because the Church has continued to maintain and defend positions it should have modified years ago, and it has done little to teach and educate its membership, as opposed to the sort of indoctrination that starts in youth Sunday School and Seminary, and continues more or less unchanged through Institute, BYU Religion classes, and adult Sunday School. To help address the problem, FAIR should be critiquing the LDS curriculum, not the CES Letter.
“I suspect those most rocked are those who see everything in black and white and are not terribly reflective”
I think the mistake in this statement is that “black and white” == “not reflective.”
I think that black and white thinkers DO have a bigger problem when they find stuff like the CES letter. I work with a couple folks that both worked for the church and ended up leaving the church (both employment and membership) who are both self-described black and white thinkers. I wouldn’t call either of them non-reflective.
I think the difference is more between those that are black and white thinkers vs. those more comfortable living with cognitive dissonance and nuance. It isn’t about being reflective or not reflective.
“I suspect those most rocked are those who see everything in black and white and are not terribly reflective”
This seems to imply not being “rocked” is better than being “rocked.” The straw that finally broke my back was Joseph Smith’s blessing to Sarah Ann Whitney. It promised Sarah, then 17 years old, that her family and father’s descendants would all be saved if she entered into a polygamous marriage with Joseph Smith – “honor and immortality and eternal life” to everyone. It was written in the voice of God. The evening I read it, it finally dawned on me Smith was a sexual predator using a young women’s belief in God to manipulate her. Why shouldn’t one be rocked at that realization? In fact, what virtue is there to learn things like this and not be “rocked”?
Part of what I kick myself for is KNOWING about things like Section 132 all this years and never questioning it. It didn’t “rock” me. It should have. Perhaps it was because I descend from quite a number of polygamists and I stewed in this stuff since childhood. But my hat is off to those who can “reflect” on such things enough to know when to be rocked.
Imagine my surprise when I learned by little Facebook comment was being featured in a blog post over here. Fun!
I don’t have much to add except to maybe clarify one thing (I say right before typing out five paragraphs of thoughts). When I said that the Church is immature, I mean exactly that: the organization, the belief system, etc. are immature. I made no comment about the beliefs of individuals. While I might doubt the heavenly source of a sister claiming her ancestors visited her asking that she do her temple work, I have no standing to claim she did not experience what she experienced. Her religious experience, and her interpretation of it, are not immature. My allowing that her experience is hers does not require that I believe the Gospel is True. Maturity in this sense is allowing other people to have their own faith journeys, and accepting that their journeys are valid.
Immaturity is only allowing some types of journeys. If I accept that the above sister believes in her experience, and feel no compunction to talk her out of it, then she is mature by accepting that I do not get any value out of the same belief system, despite years of trying, and that I am much happier now than I was before. She is immature if she says, “You used to have so much light, but not anymore,” or “You’ll be back because you know it’s true.” Those types of statements deny the validity of my own journey, and betrays an immature belief that there is ultimately only one way people can be happy and fulfilled.
I see the Church, both as an organization and as a culture, trying to arrest faith journeys before they can happen (“Stay in the boat,” “Where will you go,” etc.). My personal experience, the experiences of those I know, and some common sense tells me that such an approach works for some but not all. Maybe not even for most. Instead, this mindset and approach pushes away those for whom it doesn’t work. By raising the bar of undertaking a faith journey, the Church increases the pain, anger, and loneliness felt by those who are brave enough to go anyway.
I think the culture and the religion would be healthier, and probably happier, if it gave up on worrying about what is capital “T” True. Guess what? We don’t know. And if the only, or primary, value the Church brings is that it is True, then it’s not really worth all that much. It’s more important that the Church bring value and good to its members and communities than that it is True. I know that’s not a very Mormon way to look at it, but I’m no longer a Mormon and don’t really care. Arguments about whether it is True or Untrue are frankly rather boring. It’s much more interesting to ask whether it’s worthwhile. It will be for some, and it won’t be for others. And for some it will be necessary at some times but not others.
Being mature is accepting that human life is messy, that religious belief is messy, and loving it all despite the messiness. So let people take their journeys. Some will never return. But, if the Church is worthwhile and good, some will come back. The Church’s insistence on short-circuiting faith journeys, from keeping people from experiencing and exploring doubt, signals that the Church isn’t sure it’s worthwhile enough for anyone to come back. It needs to grow up. That would be best for everyone.
Maybe it is just me, but i find it ironic that Scott says the CES letter”sloppy. …includes a few inaccuracies and many “half-truths”. Isn’t Fair Mormon known for the same thing?
Bingo Dave B
“…the Church has continued to maintain and defend positions it should have modified years ago, and it has done little to teach and educate its membership, as opposed to the sort of indoctrination that starts in youth Sunday School and Seminary, and continues more or less unchanged through Institute, BYU Religion classes, and adult Sunday School. To help address the problem, FAIR should be critiquing the LDS curriculum, not the CES Letter.”
The CES letter, though sloppy, goes right at the major vulnerabilities of Mormonism – specifically its propensity to defend immorality and deception. As has been said, even if 20% of it is true, that’s devastating to the Church.
Clark I must add my voice to others regarding your comment about people who leave not being “reflective. I find that an odd attack on lots of people who even I thought you would concede were remarkably knowledgeable about the church,it’s history and it’s theology. Look at Bill Reel. Have you watch his progression from TBM and avid contributor to Fair Mormon to disbeliever in a few short years or less. Did you not hear the anguish in his voice in his pod casts as he wrestled with historical and doctrinal issues. How about Rock Waterman. Who has written extensively on Mormon issues on his popular blog. How about Denver Snuffer who’s has written more material on church issues than any man sinceJoseph himself. He ha.s written 20 books or so and totaling more than a million words and is in my opinion the most knowable historian of Mormonism in this dispensationWhatever you may think about his conclusions his grasp of history is indisputable.. What about my close friend who was my first asst when I was HP Group leaders an RM, a TW etc just resigned because after a decade of careful study he has come to the conclusion that we have “corrupted the holy church of God” Mormon 8. The brush with which you paint is too broad by half and perpetuate s a pernicious falsehood that obscures the real crisis facing the institution al church
Clark,
“The way I reconciled it was to ask if I’d want my wife to remarry if I died. I would.”
I fail to see how this is a good reconciliation when 1) marriage to multiple living partners is completely different from remarrying after a spouse dies and 2) the church has never taught that one woman can have multiple husbands.
As to your remark about those who are rocked the most, I’ll give it different treatment, fine. Here is the quote:
“I suspect those most rocked are those who see everything in black and white and are not terribly reflective. After all many black/white claims about leadership are hard to maintain when you’re in even minor leadership roles. Thinking that you are somehow unique in not fitting the black and white model is hard to maintain if one is reflective.”
If black-and-white thinkers are those who are rocked the most by the CES Letter, then we would expect the most faithful in the LDS church to be nuanced thinkers and the more austere, either-or, black-and-white thinkers to be the ones struggling with doubt. Any brief experience in a typical LDS ward would reveal that this is most certainly not the case. In fact, the leadership knows darn well that people in general don’t take well to uncertainty and are more likely to show loyalty in black-and-white contexts. Hence they push a black-and-white narrative and their most ardent loyalists appear to latch right on and emit a black-and-white narrative in return. People like certainty in answers. Some of the most ardent critics and skeptics of the LDS church are deeply reflective. The CES Letter is a product of deep and extensive reflection. It wasn’t written on a kneejerk reaction. It took some serious study and drafting for Runnells to compose that. Having read probably hundreds of exit stories, it is quite apparent that becoming an ex-Mormon (speaking of those in the Mormon belt who have deep roots in the church, not a Latin American soccer baptism, and it is pretty well implied in your comment that you are referring to the former types of folks) is more often than not a process of extremely deep reflection that can take a significant amount of time. It is hardly a black-and-white process. Many who are ex-Mormons have spent considerable time reading FAIR narratives, but find them unconvincing. In fact, the average person in the pews usually doesn’t appear to be too well acquainted with FAIR narratives, and mostly just sticks to general conference talks and the scriptures, and do not delve too deeply into the nuanced aspects of Mormonism. So, even giving your comment different treatment, I fail to see how it holds water. My advice is for you maybe to spend a bit more time studying the experiences of ex-Mormons.
Beau, thanks for weighing in.
I think those who are the most “rocked” when they find out details about church history are actually those with the most integrity. If you want to find some nuance to justify what Joseph Smith did to young women and girls, well….that isn’t exactly what I’d call “being reflective.”
I just thought of another reason why apologists often portray skeptics and critics as black-and-white thinkers: they tend to ask and answer binary questions. Some of these binaries are posed by the church leaders themselves (i.e., Hinckley’s talk on the church being either true or a fraud), but they also formulate a number of binaries themselves. By contrast, apologists and nuanced thinkers seem to squirm and dodge at all costs binary questions as if posing a binary at all is in and of itself black-and-white thinking that leads to an un-nuanced and therefore unenlightened understanding of Mormonism.
Binary questions can be perfectly valid, and the leading intellectuals and experts in many fields ask them all of the time. In criminology, the binary question of someone being guilty or not guilty of a particular charge is vital to having order in society. The prevailing philosophy is of course that the defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty, and is given a right to defense. There is a high demand for evidence of guilt and getting there can be a long, drawn-out process, as it should be. But the question has to be posed to a jury at some point. Advancement in sciences has only been achieved by asking binary questions. In my conversations with apologists, I have heard them completely reject and fail to answer simple binary questions posed to them, claiming that it is not a fair question and then telling me the question I should have asked. Sometimes the binaries don’t work. For instance, is the Book of Mormon true or false? Well, it depends on what you mean by true, as the word true can mean a lot of things. A binary question related to Book of Mormon historicity that I have found very valid is, does the Book of Mormon contain the works of ancient Americans about Jesus Christ? This is a perfectly valid question. And anyone who has generated any thought on the Book of Mormon historicity question can be placed neatly into one of two camps on this question.
I think the issue is not so much binary questions and black-and-white thinking, but jumping to conclusions. And almost all apologist rhetoric is based on a massive leap to an extraordinary conclusion that the Book of Mormon is historical, and then they proceed to work backwards from there. To begin with the assumption that the Book of Mormon isn’t historical really isn’t all that much of a jump. We would and should expect skepticism of extraordinary claims and maintain a high demand for evidence. Apologists narratives are lazy with evidence of the book’s historicity, declaring absolute certainty in historicity on scant and misinterpreted findings.
Sorry, been busy.
BD, you’re misreading what I wrote. I said those most rocked are those who see in black and white (i.e. no nuance) and not reflective. I’m not equating seeing in black and white as not being reflective, although I think seeing everything in simple categories tends to make it harder to be self reflective.
Dave C, I’m very skeptical most members are black and white thinkers. I think a problem is people wanting things to be simple so they don’t have to study much. But that might be different.
ChurchIsTrue, I’ve no clue how much of the church is religiously not reflective. However I think that in general it’s not something humans particularly like to do. For many people the character and basic views they have by their early 20s is what they’ll have their whole life unless life shocks them and forces them to change. That’s said, I should add. But how many of our population does that describe? I’ve not a clue.
John W, not sure I count as an apologist, although I do find the arguments interesting at times. However again I wasn’t in the least portraying skeptics and critcs all as black and white thinkers. I do stand by the claim that most I think shocked by these things are those who are both not self-reflective as well as being black and white thinkers. It is odd how so many comments have tried to turn that statement into something I don’t believe. That’s not to say there aren’t some binaries. But that’s just true of life as well although one often has to qualify carefully ones claims. (Is General Relativity true or false?)
Dave C: I love this sentence (taken out of one of your comments – “Beautiful doctrines or not, they have no power for me when I don’t believe them”. Man, that’s a home run, my friend. With your permission, I believe I’m going to have a desk plate made with that statement inscribed! When I wonder back into an LDS Chapel, I know look at these (so called) righteous people bumpling around – trying to make their way through life – JUST. LIKE. EVERYONE. ELSE.
I wonder if part of this discussion may be people talking past each other because they haven’t seen a distinction between “black and white” thinkers and “all or nothing” thinkers. I suspect those are not identical subsets. But, then, what do I know?
Lefthandloafer – Thanks; and go for it with the desk plate or whatever.
Clark (Goble from Times and Seasons? If not you sure sound like him), didn’t you jump the shark long ago? You know, with your comment about how you were OK with Joseph Smith’s polygamy because you would be fine with your wife remarying after you die? That remark got posted to the ex-Mormon subreddit by the way and they thought it was insane.
Anyhow, I love how in your most recent comment you both deny that you were calling ex-Mormons black-and-white thinkers and then in the same breath double down and call them unreflective black-and-white thinkers again.
Am I missing something here? Are you like some sort of a deadpan comedian who is pulling my leg? If not, who are you trying to convince on this blog? If the upvotes are indicative of anything, not many seem too convinced by your comments. And my rebuttals to your comments as well as others have been very well received here.
@John W, I’m not a fan of throwing vote counts at someone to try to convinced them. If Clark posted the same comment on different forums, he’d get dramatically different vote counts. So what?
@Clark, I don’t want to jump on a bandwagon, but since I’m commenting anyway, I feel I should say that (not an exact quote) “black and white thinking and not very (self) reflective” sounds a lot like “stupid and lazy”, even if that isn’t what you mean, and it’s hard to get past that. But I’ll take you at your word that you are being misunderstood.
“That remark got posted to the ex-Mormon subreddit by the way and they thought it was insane.”
“If the upvotes are indicative of anything, not many seem too convinced by your comments. And my rebuttals to your comments as well as others have been very well received here.”
lmao
Rockwell,
Right, Clark’s comments would get more upvotes on other blogs. But they aren’t getting them on this blog. Hence the question, who is he trying to convince here? And no, I have no hopes of convincing Clark of anything at this point. My aim is to make his positions look ridiculous, which I think I’ve pretty well accomplished, at least before the Wheat and Tares readers.
On doubters being black-and-white thinkers, he is pulling a motte-and-bailey fallacy on us. Basically implying that doubters are largely not deep-thinking but gullible, but then retreating to an easier-to-defend position when called out, saying that he wasn’t saying that and that you misinterpreted him, forcing you to concede his point. Classic Clark Goble tactic. Smoke and mirrors. That guy is a Grade A weasel.
John W, as much as I disagree with Clark, your comment at 5:14 is a personal attack and should be removed*. Keep it about the argument and not the person.
* I’m not a mod here, so (shrug)
Yes, Rockwell, I really went off on a screed about Clark and hit him with a bunch of ad hominems (I said one thing). I agree. We should be oversensitive to people saying oh, so slightly unflattering things about one’s behavior on the blog (no matter how much they deserve it).
That said, motte and bailey argumentation be damned.
John W @ (12:09) truth: You said one thing. I don’t really even know if it bothered anyone, and you haven’t been moderated out, and probably won’t be because the moderation in this forum is very light (another thing I like).
Over sensitive? Maybe. I spoke up because it seems like conversations here, particularly in the comments, are getting more one-sided. If I want one-sided conversations, those are easy to come by elsewhere. What I have seen here in this forum over the last several years is harder to come by. There are a lot of people here who say things I don’t like. I also say things other people don’t like. But if we chase off all the people who use flawed logic, or say stupid things, or get a lot of dislikes on their comments, then I won’t have any reason to come here anymore. (Which would probably delight the hypothetical person that seems to automatically click dislike on everything I say).
John W, Clark Goble is one of the more thoughtful and measured commenters on LDS blogs and has been for many years. He’s always willing to engage in substantive conversation with anyone and never stoops to childish rants when he can’t persuade people. Calling him a Grade A weasel certainly accomplishes your goal of making someone look ridiculous but it isn’t CG.
fwiw I love Clark’s posts and find him usually very thoughtful and balanced. I don’t think anyone should evaluate someone on the up or down votes on this blog. Some of my best comments have gotten poor reviews. There are more Exmo’s than Mo’s online that read any sort of blog that covers apologetics or progressive topics. Based on comment votes, I think we have a pretty balanced audience here but not always.
Saw this news this morning. Reminded me of the last few comments on this thread:
“Just learned that @ClarkGoble
from @timesandseasons
passed away this week. To those in the Bloggernacle, Clark was a fixture, a good-natured conversant of good faith. He was a friend and father. Rest in peace, Clark.”
I am a former LDS member. Unfortunately, I found it to be racist and ani antifeminist. For that reason my interaction with LDS was negative. And to think they never accepted African Americans now and the past.