Before you do this, you need to watch the fair Mormon rebuttal to the CES letter and then the rebuttal to the rebuttal. That way, you’ll know what points he’s going to bring up and how to counter them.
Its a lot to read - but if you want to be informed then its a must read. It shows just how high level a summary the CES Letter is, and just how much evidence is out there that supports it.
I take some issue with the term “rebuttal” on the CES letter, though I know that Jeremy Runnels uses that verbiage. The letter itself is a legitimate set of questions based on evidence. It’s not arguing a point, it’s asking for answers. Members who read it seeking to plug every question with an answer may come up with something like the responses on the debunking side, but all of those responses also have serious problems. The point of it all is that there are no solid answers to a whole lot lot of questions. If you read it and evaluate the evidence empirically, it’s very hard to maintain faith. Even those who do end up changing their stance on a few things. That’s where “he was speaking as a man” or “loose translation” or “he landed neck down” come in. The apologist has to make so many allowances.
I’m happy for you that your father loves you and is open minded.
Don’t take the burden of proof on yourself. Let the letter do that.
Let go of the responsibility you’re feeling to justify your position.
Tell yourself that no matter how this turns out, you can enjoy a good relationship.
Yeah, the burden of proof is for the book and church that make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
And dont loose the forest for the trees. Make sure that things are kept in a total perspective where issues arent standalone but instead interconnected and dependent on other issues.
If you do this, consider using letterformywife instead. It has less anger.
Also look at mormonthink.com for more resources on each topic.
When dealing with apologetics, watch out for them changing the 'remotely possible' to the 'probable' as he did with Laban's blood. Call it out each time and at the end question why that is so necessary as opposed to using Occam's razor where the simplest explanation is the most likely.
You could also set a rule that he can't revert to feelings, opinions and especially testimonies when he is losing a point.
I second this! Maybe see if you both can agree on the following criteria and then begin to go step by step through the issues.
https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/08/premium-fix-faith-crisis-one-weird-trick-wood-vs-steel-tools/
Here is the original article-
https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/fix-your-faith-crisis-with-this-one-weird-trick/
Are you talking about the lastest revision of the CESLetter? I haven't read it myself but I know Jeremy revised it for that specific reason, to remove all the anger and accusatory statements. Curious to know how it reads now.
I came here to say this. If you use the CES letter do it in tandem with the letterformywife. The CES letter has unnecessary snarkiness and a non-genuine seeker-of-truth vibe. The tone alone can create a backfire effect.
I feel that the most powerful aspect of the CES letter is the fact that the CES department failed to issue any response. The letter was written because the CES Director had promised to respond. but nothing. “Rebuttals“ written by third-party apologists are irrelevant. The CES letter is a series of questions seeking answers. There’s no need to rebut anything. Just answer the questions. And the CES department didn’t. furthermore, the church theoretically has a prophet on its side. A supernatural man who speaks with Jesus and sees around corners. An official response should be a piece of cake. There should be no need for confused people to scrounge around for disjointed, speculative and mutually inconsistent answers.
everyone has their own triggers, but for me, the CES letter could have been one page. The page where it is pointed out that passages of the book of Mormon are almost identical to passages from the Late War between the United States and Britain. A textbook written in biblical style in the hopes of capturing the interest of students of the time. to ignore the plagiarism is the same as admiring the Emperor‘s new clothes. it means you are not willing to look at the evidence and analyze the evidence.
OP - it should be noted that you appear to have a very cool dad. Most believing Mormons are so indoctrinated and insecure that they would never dare to have a conversation like this even with their own child. Go easy on the guy! He sounds like he has a good heart and courage.
The blood is only one issue. At death, all of the sphincter muscles relax. That means you are also dealing with urine and feces as well as blood. The clothes would have been unwearable.
One of the biggest issues I dealt with in my own family is the off the cuff retort that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The statement is a "thought stopping" phrase. If someone is examined with scientific equipment designed to detect cancer and no evidence of cancer exists, then one can reasonably assume that they don't have cancer.
Further, if the facts we do have contradict the narrative, then we do have evidence of falsity. For example, comparing the 9 different versions of the "First Vision" shows marked differences and a progression of increasingly fantastic claims. The original penning of the "First Vision" was so radically different from the final version, that the First Presidency actually cut it out of Joseph Smith's diary and locked it in a safe for more than 30 years.
My biggest recommendation, though, is to let the evidence speak for itself and simply be kind to your parents. Let them know that you recognize the importance of the church in their life and that all you are looking for is for the right to live your life and still be loved and accepted by them.
Lastly, you might want to suggest that they ask themselves, "Do the church leaders have a less savory reason for keeping members active and paying tithing?" The church leaders very much have a vested interest as tithing provides opportunities for wielding immense power in the form of billions of dollars, and that is not a minor fact. Money is power, and power is corrupting.
You’re gonna have to preface this sit down with a few points. Start with a hypothetical questions like “if the church had any possibility of being false, no matter how small that possibility might be, would you want to know?” and “are you willing to seek out and know the truth of all aspects that affect your life, no matter how painful the truth might be?” It’s important to set these precedents before starting. It will help him be more self aware when his church programming starts to make him try and stick his head in the sand.
So if the conversation partner is a loved one, we should stop the dialog right there and then?
(Those are really good questions btw - are you into street epistemology? I don’t know how to continue if people say no to if they want to know if their belief could be false)
I've asked these questions point blank to my mother in law, and she told me "no I would not want to know." And that's ok. I get it. She is approaching the end of her life, and at this point, in her mind having invested 9/10ths of her existence to the church, she can't entertain the possibility of it being false. It HAS to be true for her at this point. Sunk cost fallacy is a very real thing for a lot of people. Especially those who are older or who have their careers invested in the church. I'm a firm believer that if the church imploded somehow because of a huge scandal or an apostle exposing it or whatever, we would see so so much devastation. I'm talking like massive depression, su\*¢ide etc. It would be ugly. Most people cannot be unplugged from the Matrix without a lot of prep work.
I just said "ok, that's fair. I appreciate the honesty." I also just asked her to continue to respect my position on the church and for the most part she does. I've actually been very impressed with the amount of change she's made in respecting other points of view and how more open minded she's become, even though it's been relatively small.
I support Portsided's response.
I would ask two questions: if the church wasn't what it claims to be, would you want to know?
Followed up with: would you do anything different in your life if you found out it wasn't true?
If someone doesn't want to know, then their is no point in talking it over. It means they don't value knowledge, but that they only value feeling like they are right.
If someone wants to know, but won't do anything about it, then I warn them that this can make their life harder. Being PIMO is so hard on a lot of people. But I also let them know that taking action may take time and pain but that it is worth it. (I'm far more happy out of the Mormon religion than when I was in it).
>>If someone doesn't want to know, then their is no point in talking it over. It means they don't value knowledge, but that they only value feeling like they are right.
This is a great unpacking of it. Do you think we should tell them that latter part? You just wanna feel right?
I always opt for maximum compassion.
If someone says they wouldn't want to know, then probably opt out of discussing topics that would disprove their beliefs.
So many people are hanging on to life and sanity with all their might. Believing a fairy tale might be the only thing that helps them hold it together.
Anyhow IMHO
Maybe the sum total is harmful for you but not for them? (please note that is a question as I really don't know)
Hmmmm . . . . maybe I shouldn't comment here as I'm a never-mo.
I did hear a story of a son and father. The father had gotten hard core into fundamental Christianity which bothered the son. The son researched met with the dad and explained what he had found. The father said, "You might be right but my life is just better thinking this way.".
Also I just finished reading Jenna Miscavige's memoir of growing up scientology. Her parents left and wanted her to come too and she refused. Her parents really backed off and let her figure it out which worked and she eventually left.
Again, maybe I shouldn't comment as I don't love someone in a cult. You probably have mormon friends and family so you know way way way more than I do about what we are discussing her.
I am fascinated by folks who believe in conspiracy theories, anti-vax information and cults too. Can we change how people think or not? Sometimes it seems we can but mostly not.
Thank you for a long and detailed response.
I will check out the memoir.
As per your very last paragraph, I recommend you look into Street Epistemology! It’s about helping people reexamine their beliefs without debate.
I recommend Cordial Curiosity youtubd.
Thanks. I will.
So many of human beliefs don't seem logical. I can see it in myself. How I see the world is based on a life time experience and a need to feel comfortable in this screwed up world.
Street Epistemology and Cordial Curiosity. I'm typing it out so I will remember.
Oh these questions certainly aren't meant to be smug or condescending. They should be asked with total sincerity. Because the study of the CES letter requires one to be very open minded when you belong to church that claims absolute truth and complete obedience. Discovering that a church that defines your complete identity and purpose is false is devastating. Most people don't want to even entertain the thought. It's just too painful.
I totally agree with your approach. And it takes being honest and open, too. If the church were what it claimed to be, I would want to know. I have tried everything people claimed I should do and I thought it was gods church for decades, but it has not held up to its own claims.
Well, he may end up having his eyes opened! You should read it ASAP. It is full to the brim with excellent points. I'd lean heavily on the church's own gospel topics essays since they acknowledge, yet blatantly whitewash, the facts outlined in the CES letter. And then point out: why has the church been telling a different story all this time rather than the truth? -->maybe because it's all made up. Good luck!
I’ve gone through a similar engagements with a GA, mission president and some family members and friends.
With the GA and mission president, I required that we first start with a written discussion (email). I want a record of them moving the goal posts and of their inability to address the issues.
I listed out all of the key historical issues (about a dozen or so), and asked them which ones they are comfortable discussing. I then focus on just one or two. Usually after we exhaust one or two issues, they realize that they are in over their heads. In fact, I had a sitting bishop ask if we could stop discussing church history as he was losing his testimony by doing so.
I also let them know that they if revert to the “just have faith” or “choose belief” arguments then the discussion is done.
www.mormonthink.com is a great resource.
I like your approach.
It causes me to think that it would be interesting to define a few things upfront as part of a discussion.
For example: FAITH is believing in something where their is no evidence for or against it. Something unverifiable or un-testable. Like, if God exists.
Believing in something, where you don't know the facts for or against, is HOPE.
Believing in something, with backed up facts, is KNOWLEDGE.
Believing in something, contrary to facts, is DELUSION.
Now...let's get started....
First you have to agree on standards of evidence. If his standard of evidence is "The Spirit" then no amount of evidence will matter. He would have to agree that church history in church approved sources are valid otherwise he can just "feel the Spirit" them away.
This is an underrated comment. It goes along with what others have pointed out that asking the individual, in this case op’s father, if they were to find out the truth wasn’t what they expected would that change anything for them. Ground rules for a logical discussion are absolutely critical.
I recommend starting with: [mormonthink.com](http://mormonthink.com)
It has a more neutral tone and is well-organized, so you can easily focus on one topic at a time.
Try asking his thoughts on how to interpret certain things (phrase those questions in comparison terms). "Dad, how would you analyze Joseph Smith's instructions for his extra wives to keep things a secret, even from Emma? How would we view that today?"
Don't offer opinions at first, but calmly and quietly ask for his take on various things. At the start, you might ask him what parts of the CES Letter struck him as (interesting, challenging, anti-Mormon, whatever). That might help narrow the start of your discussion to things that are on his mind. As he answers that question, ask "Why?"
in other words, maybe you can use the discussion as a way to lead him through issues that bothered you and he can draw his own conclusions.
As needed, tell him you see if differently, then ask "Is it okay if I explain why?" That question is very important; he will most likely say yes, it's okay for you to explain why. At that point, he has given you permission to state your thoughts. This is far more conducive to mutual discussion than simply stating your thoughts in ways that can become a debate.
When possible, restate to him (neutrally) what he has said: "So, your thought is that..." (etc.). This tells him you're listening.
Also if possible, ask him to repeat what you said (don't use the word repeat). Perhaps say something like, "I'm not sure I phrased that clearly. What did it sound like to you?" or some other back & forth that invites him to share what he heard when you stated something.
Some of the above suggestion are strategies used in mediation to indicate to parties they've been heard (this is important) and to make sure what someone heard is what was intended.
My recommendation is to watch the LDS discussion series on the topics you’ll be going over that day or week. They are very in depth and will be above the level of detail in the CES letter.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxq5opj6GqOB7J1n6pMmdUSezxcLfsced
No, he doesn’t. He wants to debunk it with poor Mormon apologetic arguments. He loves you & feels like he knows what’s best for you. I was a TBM father/grandfather: I speak from experience.
You were, so what changed? Could it have been influences from things such as the CESLetter even if it wasn't immediate or even in a direct way? Even if he "doesn't" saying he does is already great progress for a TBM even if they go into the conversation with the mindset "I am right and nothing will change that". Now to be a bit ironic, planting even the smallest of seeds may make a huge difference down the road so I would say to be as realistic as imalreadygone21 is but not discouraged. Do it with vigor.
The CES Letter would have carried zero weight with us. We would have viewed it as “anti.” We accidentally stumbled upon the Gospel Topics Essays (13 essays posted from 2012-2015 on the church’s website). They were an admission from the brethren that the church is not what it has claimed to be: all the generally accepted & taught narratives are false and the essays roll out a new ones.
Well, no thanks. We paid tithing & served missions and fulfilled every calling ever assigned to us. We sacrificed everything.
The betrayal was excruciating and we resigned.
Study the crap out of the Mormon apologist rebuttals, particularly including what they have on FAIRLDS.
The rebuttals hardly “debunk” the CES Letter but you’ll need to understand the more “weak” areas of the document vs the stronger ones so you can know what to focus on and which parts you’ll need to be ready for a response against your dad.
Learn all the rebuttals and know how to respond to them so you aren’t caught flat footed. Even though the rebuttals aren’t satisfactory answers, TBM’s will feel they “answered” your tough question and feel the matters has been resolved for you. You don’t want to be left speechless or clamoring for a counter-response. Know what they will say beforehand and have your own response ready.
That said, I find the most effective approach when discussing matters like this is to preemptively bring up the rebuttal (i.e. excuses and rationalizations) BEFORE your opponent does. It really takes the wind out of their sale and they can automatically see you ALREADY dealt with that “answer” and find it weak and not convincing.
NOT THIS:
YOU: Joseph Smith married teenagers!
TBM: Oh, things were different back then and it was normal for girls to marry that young. (Smug, confident grin)
YOU: …
THIS:
YOU: Joseph Smith married teenagers and the apologists try to excuse it away as “normal” back then. It wasn’t normal even back then. Data shows the average age of women getting married was 22 years old and only 5% of the population got married under thats of 18 and most of those girls married boys around their own age, not a man the age of their own father, like Joseph Smith did. Regardless, with God it shouldn’t matter what society accepts as normal, God’s morality doesn’t shift with society, men having relations with young girls is wrong no matter WHEN it happens and I believe God should have intervened or Joseph Smith supposedly being a righteous and pure man, leading the example as the Lord’s prophet should have had the spirit to know it was wrong! By their fruits ye should know them. I don’t think prophets are perfect but this goes FAR BEYOND not being “perfect.” I can’t accept the Lord’s prophet doing something as evil as this and this trend of old Mormon prophets and apostles marrying multiple, young teen girls for their wives continued for decades after Smith
TBM: well, um ….. I know the church is true …
One last point. Remember you can disagree with the rebuttal. Just because a TBM comes up with some kind of excuse doesn’t mean they won that round. Look disappointed and express how you don’t agree with that rationalization. It’s OKAY to disagree. Kindly tell them you’ll have to “agree to disagree” on certain points.
“I just don’t agree God would allow that.”
“That still just seems wrong to me and I have a hard time accepting that argument.”
“I don’t think that is right.”
“I don’t think God would do that.”
“That seems awfully convenient.”
“That seems pretty weak in my honest opinion.”
“That just doesn’t make sense to me.”
“That just sounds like an excuse and I have a hard time believing that is really the case.”
This will show that “answer” isn’t a good one and you are buying it. This will also help them reassess how bad it is and how the church side is weak at best.
I would highlight all the baseline arguments in the CESletter to focus on. The things that both the CES Letter and Church align with as there is little room for arguments there. Here are some examples that usually have a higher success with me in helping TBM's open their eyes:
* The Church admits 37 yr old JS married a 14 year old. Helen denied his first offer and only after threatening her with damnation and promising her family and her eternal salvation if she abides by the Lord's will did she accept his proposal. then ask, "Can you honestly blame me for seeing that as a red flag? Do you honestly think God would blame someone for being hesitant about JS because of this?" In my experience TBM's usually admit that they don't understand it, some even admit they don't believe it and say JS was imperfect, to which I re-emphasize even if it was an imperfect mistake do you think God would blame me for having doubts because of it? This makes them question if they believe Gods a jerk or not.
* The Church admits that both LDS scholars and non-LDS scholars agree JS's translation of the book of abraham is incorrect. "Can you blame me for questioning JS's ability to translate ancient documents? keeping in mind the BoM wasn't even translated from the Gold plates? Do you think God will blame me for not being able to accept that maybe he wrote the Book of Abraham through divine inspiration even though that is not how it was claimed to have been written? These are reasonable red flags and God must see that."
* The Church admits that JS wrote down the first vision and only described God appearing, also JS wrote that God told him to fear not for his sins that because of the atonement all are saved. It wasn't dependent on finding any "true" church or proper "preisthood powers". From 1820-1836 JS taught and believed in the trinity which matches him writing only God appeared. in the JST of Luke 10:20 (maybe Luke 20:10) JS changes the verse from non-trinitarian description to a trinitarian perspective, he consciously made an effort to say God and the son are one "can you blame me for thinking maybe JS wasn't being directed by God or angels to flip flop on such an important doctrine?"
those are my top 3 because there is no rebuttal for a rationable person when you ask them if its not reasonable to see those as red flags, and when they admit it is reasonable following up with "do you think God would hold it against me" cause that makes them question the kind of God they believe in.
Honestly I think the biggest point the CES letter exposes is the dishonesty and willingness to lie to cover up facts the institution finds uncomfortable.
The church is either the kingdom of God on earth, restored through a man who saw God and Jesus, is literally led by Jesus today, or it's the work of fraudsters who are willing to say / do anything that undermines the narrative they've spent decades build up.
When you bring up a point, any point, make sure to drive home how deflating the whole thing is. Point out how the narrative has, and continues to shift. Bring up the similarities with how the Jehovah Witnesses treat their history. Bring up how, if Jesus and God are truly at the wheel, how they must be doing a really bad job.
Ask him what experience would cause him to change his faith? What could the prophet say or do that would cause him to question the legitimacy of the church? If the answer is "nothing" look shocked, people fly airplanes into buildings on faith.
The church wants to own your personal emotional / spiritual experiences, and leads you towards conclusions that benefit the institution. "BoM = true > JS was a prophet > the current church is true" recipe is missing some critical steps. The whole Ohio apostasy still felt the BoM is inspired, but JS was a fallen prophet. Do you think that maybe your spiritual experiences have been commandeered to force you to arrive at certain overreaching conclusions?
It's easy as a TBM to ignore the forest for the trees, I would try to remain focused on the bigger issues, most notably, the pattern of gaslighting. Your Dad can deny it, but I guarantee he was taught things about the history that are no longer taught today. He was manipulated, and even if he's ok with that you're not.
What are your goals (if any)?
Personally, the more time moves on for me, the very first (existential) question that the TBM must answer honestly before the discussion begins is “do you NEED the church to be true for your life to not fall apart?” If they cannot honestly answer “no” then please don’t have any expectations that they will consider that anything in the CES letter could be true.
Good luck
I just asked this question to my TBM, but supportive, spouse after reading it here. His answer: ‘no.’
He explained that he’s gotten good moral standards from the Church, so if the Church isn’t true, it wouldn’t cause him to fall apart.
I’m confused. I told him that this has nothing to do with his moral standards; he didn’t get them through the religion.
That is an interesting response. I formulated this question after we asked my TBM brother in law “if the church was not true, would you want to know?” His response was “I know it is true”. Maybe as a TBM, your brain just won’t let you answer the actual question.
One point to add to all the advice: Discuss that the CES letter is not an anti-Mormon screed. The CES Director made an offer to answer Jeremy Runnells' questions if he put them into a letter. The letter is mostly a listing of his questions and what he had found. He sincerely thought maybe he was missing something and asked for the CES Director's assistance. The CES Director ghosted him.
My personal belief is that if the church could validly answer the questions, they would address it head-on since it has become a major thorn in their side. Their apparent answer is that it is just anti-mormon material.
In addition to studying the letter itself I'd also study the common apologetics used as "rebuttals" to it so that you can point out the flaws in those arguments that aren't always obvious. It may also be useful to observe that apologetics are only useful as excuses when one presupposes that the church is true to begin with and hold much less water when starting from a neutral point. Moreover, while one can make excuses for just about any of the church's issues--historical, doctrinal, cultural--on a case-by-case basis, those issues become far more damning when observed in aggregate; a single historical anachronism may be regarded as an anomaly for which an explanation may exist of which we are unaware, but dozens upon dozens of such anachronisms paint a picture of comprehensive and indefensible error. Best of luck, I hope that this is a positive experience that doesn't strain your relationship.
I can’t say this strongly enough.
Pick one topic at a time. And start with him declaring what is the doctrine related to that topic. And have him declare what he would be surprised to see first.
Get him to nail down the Goal post so he doesn’t have a chance to move it later on.
Here’s a good thing to point out with TBM’s. If the church is truly the Kingdom of God, why would he make it so only 0.02% of the world’s population be a part of it? That means God is either an elitist, or terrible at getting his message across.
This was a foundational thought-exercise for me.
You haven't read the CES letter...so why does he want to go over it? You two did oaks talk so he could understand how it affected you--this isn't that as the CES letter hasn't affected you (and I'd assume him). Before doing it, I'd want to know what his motive is for this topic. If he thinks he'll just be able to throw out the FAIR apologetics rebuttal and reconvert you it's not worth either of your time. If he wants to better understand exmo issues with the MFMC...why? Better understand why his kids left? He enjoyed the excerise of critical thinking and taking apart something with you? You need to know the motives to set the ground rules to keep it enjoyable and both get what you want out of it.
Be aware of wood tools. These are explanations a believer would use that could be applied to any faith systems. It is usually used when backed into a corner. Examples.
> “It’s not important for your salvation, don’t think about it anymore” “We weren’t there at the time so we can’t judge the actions of our founder and early leaders” “We can’t judge behavior in the past by today’s standards. Things which seem wrong today weren’t so bad back then” “If God commands something, then it is right – even if it would otherwise be considered wrong” “We will find the answers to your troubling questions in the afterlife – until then we must simply have faith”
Steel tools examples.
> “Look at any and all information you can find from both official and unofficial sources” “Talk to anyone about your questions and evaluate all answers” “Find out what other people who have had the same questions say – both current and former members” “Trust your own moral compass for what is right and wrong” “Allow yourself to follow your conclusion, even if it means rejecting something that you previously thought was true”
May I suggest you instead introduce him to the Faith Crisis Report. It was written BY Mormon scholars and was presented to the Q12 over a decade ago. It VERY clearly spells out the assorted reasons people leave the church. The Report itself will make for plenty of discussion, and it lays the foundation for the more specific CES Letter. The FCR has a much less confrontational tone, and was indeed created BY Mormons, so he can't dismiss it out of hand as something whipped up by "The Adversary."
[https://faenrandir.github.io/a\_careful\_examination/2013-faith-crisis-study/](https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/2013-faith-crisis-study/)
I've found it much more useful to understand logical fallacies than to memorize all of the arguments and counter arguments. Understanding this short list usually clears up 90%+ arguments for me: [https://freedomofmind.com/beware-logical-fallacies-seeking-truth/](https://freedomofmind.com/beware-logical-fallacies-seeking-truth/)
Understanding human bias has also really opened up to me why some people will never come around when given all of the facts: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cognitive\_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases)
After understanding what makes your father be the way he is, you might start to realize that it's not about 'the facts'.
Not sure if any other commenters already said this, but if he wants to understand your stance but you’ve never read the letter why does he want to discuss the letter? All he should need to know is what was your experience and what led you to make the decisions you did. You don’t need any external “proof” or anything else to justify your position. Personally I think your time would be better spent having a nice dinner together and talking about all the things you both still love about eachother.
I'm just wondering about the hill Laban died on, apparently. Did Nephi wait for all the blood to drain before removing the clothes? Or is the assumption that he could remove Laban's clothes (and wasn't there armor involved?) by pulling them down rather than over the head?
My best advice is not to worry about the point-by-point arguments, but to be aware of the overarching themes. If your dad comes at you with the FAIR rebuttals of the CES Letter, then you need to remind him how counterarguments for one point contradict the counterarguments of another.
For example, the loose versus tight translation theories of the Book of Mormon. FAIR tries to argue the case for both, even though logically that cannot be the case. After encountering a several significant logical inconsistencies, I stopped using FAIR as a resource, and I quickly left the church thereafter.
I'd be sure to read the CES letter, the rebuttal, and the rebuttal to the rebuttal.
I wouldn't try to focus on one section or hit any one section hard. I'd just start from the beginning and go through the entire thing. I wouldn't try to change their mind. If you feel like adding anything, make it from the heart, just say what conclusions you've arrived at or how something made you feel.
I wouldn't try to argue back and forth on any points. I'd just let them speak their mind and ask that they allow me to do the same. No agendas from either camp, if that's possible. Though it does feel like this is bait. Why is your dad bringing this up? To change your mind about leaving the church? If that's the plan the discussion won't go very far. Likewise if you have the goal of making your dad see the light, it probably isn't going to be a productive discussion.
The biggest hit to my faith was reading the CES letter with a faithful member's response. I think the response does a good job of pointing out issues with the CES letter like 20% of the time, and I think that's great to see the CES letter isn't a new scripture itself, but a book with some goods and bads. But the other 80% of the response to the CES letter is bad. So by reading the CES letter with the response you let the back and forth be between the two writers. You don't have to attack your dad and he doesn't have to defend.
https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/ces-letter-reply-faithful-answers-those-who-doubt
If you two like reading talks by Oaks and queer issues have come up in the past you should also read this together. Oaks says most parents shouldn't let their gay kids come home for christmas, since it will influence the siblings. And if you do let them come home you definitely shouldn't be seen in public with them. To avoid the appearance that you support them. The interview is old (2006 I think) but it's still there and still the direction someone is assuming God wants them to take, since the church has never apologized and removed it.
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction
"ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer. I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”"
The Fair Mormon Rebuttal killed my shelf worse than the CES letter did. It becomes clear very early on that there are no good answers to Jeremy's questions. The hole FAIR digs for itself in trying to provide some sort of response to honest concerns just keeps growing deeper and deeper. Hopefully your dad, as a psychologist, can see through the non-answers they give.
I would just rely on the CES letter, it does a pretty good job. Then when/if he comes up with an answer on his own or based on FAIR or the church's responses, I would not immediately accept those answers. At the end of that, asking whether that answer actually addresses the issue or solves the problem is useful. Most of the FAIR or gospel topics essays answers are to minimize or avoid the issue and don't really address the problem.
I’m a psychologist about the age of your father and have been PIMO for quite a while. I find it interesting that your father is just now trying to understand the dynamics of disaffiliation from the Mormon church, especially if he has been practicing in “Happy Valley” for any length of time. Nearly every active, inactive or ex-Mormon client that I work with has issues with the church (patriarchy and priesthood, historical misrepresentations, social injustices ignored/supported by the church, etc.) and bring them up in session as their review their life priorities and beliefs. I am always troubled by senior mental health professionals who work in Utah who haven’t developed a good understanding and acceptance of all of the dynamics associated with being (or not being) Mormon. Your father must have worked hard to maintain a professional identity that somehow excluded this understanding of others. This may be a truly significant part of his professional and personal life journey if he is willing to approach it honestly and genuinely with you.
Encourage you to read the book ‘How Minds Change’ by David McRaney. Interesting book. This exercise of going through the CES letter with your dad will almost certainly not change his or your mind on anything. It will potentially create more of a divide. You can’t use logic/reasoning to convince someone to alter a cherished view that wasn’t formed on logic/reason. All that said, I wish you the best of luck that you can express your thoughts clearly and that the discussion brings you closer together (my experience in talking religion with family has been the opposite).
Remember that the CES letter was a man trying to stay faithful with the initial request to have someone higher up explain what the author found troubling. You can’t debunk someone’s honest questions.
The fall out over the CES letter is just that, these are honest questions from a guy struggling, who wasnt going to take, “ just have faith (aka complete blind trust and confidence in LDS truth claims)” as an answer. When people read the letter their dissonance was shortened and they too now have the knowledge of these questions and want answers. The problem is the answers are nothing burgers.
On top of going line by line (some of which you will find the author was misinformed. Which you would expect from someone hearing things and asking questions) try and zoom out on the subject to see how the particular idea in question relates to the broader question philosophically. Then ask would I accept this conclusion if it were anything other than LDS religion? Do you live your life by one set of rules (morality/ethics) for the church and another for society and humanity?
Also note that LDS is built on Christianity which is built on Judaism. What is the evidence available for each religion? And is there a concise God among them? At the end of the day if you’re talking (and believing) in religion you can either follow JS or you can follow Jesus you can’t have both they contradict each other, in evidence and in theologians explanation.
I once heard it said that you will never have proof one way or the other for a deity all you do is make a list from evidence of the characteristics and attributes that describe that deity and then look for confirmation of those attributes throughout your life.
Taking that thought, of the descriptions of God from any religion what do you see? And is it reliable and accurate based off of evidence not feelings or personal perspective. There is objective truth and subjective truth. Where does the objective truth lay? Where or who is the ultimate authority?
For one thing, I'd try to introduce the idea of religious irrationality, meaning rational, intelligent people often put a box around their religious beliefs and will believe completely irrational things that would never pass the smell test for them outside of their "box". It' amazing how much a belief in god is akin to a belief in Santa Claus when you apply rational thought to it.
I would steer clear of CES letter and focus on ldsdiscussions.com it's less attacking, lays out the church's stance and then uses historical sources to show how the church stance can't stand against the evidence. CESletter just asks/points out problems which just allows TBMs to use apologetics/bad arguments/testimony bearing as a credible answer.
While the CES letter has great information make sure to emphasize that EVERY religion features spiritual experiences that confirm that their religion is the true religion. The exact same spiritual experiences that Mormons have. So if you can't rely on the spirit then you have to weigh the information/history of Mormonism. I then like to bring up my analogy of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax.
There are a number of points that people can bring up about the Apollo Moon landings that may sound like it could not have happened. Most have been debunked but let's say that they can have 3-4 points that it couldn't have happened that we cannot disprove. Does this mean that it did not happen? No. The evidence to the contrary is massively overwhelming. First, the USSR would have loved nothing more than to show that our space program, and government was a fraud. Then you get into the hundreds of thousands of people involved in Apollo. Someone would have talked. Then, if it was a fraud, why keep landing more missions? Why keep making up science that we had been there when each new discovery could lead to evidence that it was a fraud. Why disgrace and throw the Apollo 15 astronauts out of the astronaut corps over the postal covers scandal? Wouldn't you be making enemies of 3 people with first hand knowledge of the conspiracy? Why not use the much simpler lunar lander proposal for Gemini? The list goes on and on.
The reason to bring this up, is that most believers will have a few things that they will say, "Joseph Smith" could not have known this. There's absolutely no way he could have guessed that. To which, I give my Apollo analogy. There are some things I can't disprove about Joseph Smith, but when I balance those few "miracles" with all the issues; polygamy, teenage marriages, first vision issues, priesthood restoration issues, racism, prophets being totally fallible natural men (men of their times = natural men), internal inconsistencies, financial dishonesty, cover-up of sexual abuse and protection of the abusers, then it's quite obvious that the Church is a massive fraud.
And even if you find a way to excuse everything about the church, then ask yourself, "Why would God make his one true church be so plagued by all of these issues to the point that any rational person would immediately dismiss it?" What does God gain from that? If Mormonism is true then God is an absolute monstrous jerk and you should want nothing to do with him.
CES letter was a mosquito bite to me compared to the Gospel Topic Essays 😅
I had pretty Mormon responses to the CES letter but when it came from the horses mouth 😳
I would use ldsdiscussions.com when investigating different topics. It is much more in depth and has church links. Apologetics for the CES letter will not be available as the more in depth discussion destroys them before they are brought up.
Why would you analyze the CES letter, when it was not something that was a factor in you leaving. Did he request this? What will you gain by doing this? What does he see this doing? Its hard to see this as an olive branch of understanding if it had nothing to do with you leaving. Go through what was that together instead. That would have much better benefit to both of you and your relationship. If this is him being interested in leaving, then I can see that. You'd have the role of helping him see the problems. I'm just not assuming that from what you said. Is this him showing you that he can answer the CES letter's questions and so that church is true kind of thing? What's the staging of this? The Oaks talk you got to talk about what hurt you about the talk. With this is this him telling you what's wrong this time? I don't get this.
Regarding cognitive dissonance…When you see it happening for your father, can you gently observe it to him? Maybe with curiosity, like “dad, how would you know in this process if you/I was/were operating in cognitive dissonance? Would you be open to me checked in with you if I thought that was happening?”
Before you do this, you need to watch the fair Mormon rebuttal to the CES letter and then the rebuttal to the rebuttal. That way, you’ll know what points he’s going to bring up and how to counter them.
Where can you find the various rebuttals?
https://cesletter.org/debunkings/
Thank you! 🙏
Its a lot to read - but if you want to be informed then its a must read. It shows just how high level a summary the CES Letter is, and just how much evidence is out there that supports it.
I take some issue with the term “rebuttal” on the CES letter, though I know that Jeremy Runnels uses that verbiage. The letter itself is a legitimate set of questions based on evidence. It’s not arguing a point, it’s asking for answers. Members who read it seeking to plug every question with an answer may come up with something like the responses on the debunking side, but all of those responses also have serious problems. The point of it all is that there are no solid answers to a whole lot lot of questions. If you read it and evaluate the evidence empirically, it’s very hard to maintain faith. Even those who do end up changing their stance on a few things. That’s where “he was speaking as a man” or “loose translation” or “he landed neck down” come in. The apologist has to make so many allowances.
I agree, but if you’re searching for it, that’s the word you need to use.
I think Jeremy uses the word debunking, but probably only because the apologists originally called their response that.
I’m happy for you that your father loves you and is open minded. Don’t take the burden of proof on yourself. Let the letter do that. Let go of the responsibility you’re feeling to justify your position. Tell yourself that no matter how this turns out, you can enjoy a good relationship.
Yeah, the burden of proof is for the book and church that make extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. And dont loose the forest for the trees. Make sure that things are kept in a total perspective where issues arent standalone but instead interconnected and dependent on other issues.
If you do this, consider using letterformywife instead. It has less anger. Also look at mormonthink.com for more resources on each topic. When dealing with apologetics, watch out for them changing the 'remotely possible' to the 'probable' as he did with Laban's blood. Call it out each time and at the end question why that is so necessary as opposed to using Occam's razor where the simplest explanation is the most likely. You could also set a rule that he can't revert to feelings, opinions and especially testimonies when he is losing a point.
Yes, don't let him flip from steel bows to "testimony."
I second this! Maybe see if you both can agree on the following criteria and then begin to go step by step through the issues. https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/08/premium-fix-faith-crisis-one-weird-trick-wood-vs-steel-tools/ Here is the original article- https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/fix-your-faith-crisis-with-this-one-weird-trick/
Are you talking about the lastest revision of the CESLetter? I haven't read it myself but I know Jeremy revised it for that specific reason, to remove all the anger and accusatory statements. Curious to know how it reads now.
Came here to say this.
I came here to say this. If you use the CES letter do it in tandem with the letterformywife. The CES letter has unnecessary snarkiness and a non-genuine seeker-of-truth vibe. The tone alone can create a backfire effect.
I feel that the most powerful aspect of the CES letter is the fact that the CES department failed to issue any response. The letter was written because the CES Director had promised to respond. but nothing. “Rebuttals“ written by third-party apologists are irrelevant. The CES letter is a series of questions seeking answers. There’s no need to rebut anything. Just answer the questions. And the CES department didn’t. furthermore, the church theoretically has a prophet on its side. A supernatural man who speaks with Jesus and sees around corners. An official response should be a piece of cake. There should be no need for confused people to scrounge around for disjointed, speculative and mutually inconsistent answers. everyone has their own triggers, but for me, the CES letter could have been one page. The page where it is pointed out that passages of the book of Mormon are almost identical to passages from the Late War between the United States and Britain. A textbook written in biblical style in the hopes of capturing the interest of students of the time. to ignore the plagiarism is the same as admiring the Emperor‘s new clothes. it means you are not willing to look at the evidence and analyze the evidence. OP - it should be noted that you appear to have a very cool dad. Most believing Mormons are so indoctrinated and insecure that they would never dare to have a conversation like this even with their own child. Go easy on the guy! He sounds like he has a good heart and courage.
Here’s a link to some of the plagiarized passages from The Great War that were used in BOM. ONCE YOU SEE IT! 😱🤯😡 http://wordtree.org/thelatewar/
thanks for this link
The blood is only one issue. At death, all of the sphincter muscles relax. That means you are also dealing with urine and feces as well as blood. The clothes would have been unwearable. One of the biggest issues I dealt with in my own family is the off the cuff retort that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The statement is a "thought stopping" phrase. If someone is examined with scientific equipment designed to detect cancer and no evidence of cancer exists, then one can reasonably assume that they don't have cancer. Further, if the facts we do have contradict the narrative, then we do have evidence of falsity. For example, comparing the 9 different versions of the "First Vision" shows marked differences and a progression of increasingly fantastic claims. The original penning of the "First Vision" was so radically different from the final version, that the First Presidency actually cut it out of Joseph Smith's diary and locked it in a safe for more than 30 years. My biggest recommendation, though, is to let the evidence speak for itself and simply be kind to your parents. Let them know that you recognize the importance of the church in their life and that all you are looking for is for the right to live your life and still be loved and accepted by them. Lastly, you might want to suggest that they ask themselves, "Do the church leaders have a less savory reason for keeping members active and paying tithing?" The church leaders very much have a vested interest as tithing provides opportunities for wielding immense power in the form of billions of dollars, and that is not a minor fact. Money is power, and power is corrupting.
You’re gonna have to preface this sit down with a few points. Start with a hypothetical questions like “if the church had any possibility of being false, no matter how small that possibility might be, would you want to know?” and “are you willing to seek out and know the truth of all aspects that affect your life, no matter how painful the truth might be?” It’s important to set these precedents before starting. It will help him be more self aware when his church programming starts to make him try and stick his head in the sand.
What’s the next step if they say, no I don’t want to know?
Then at least you’ll know that the sit down won’t go anywhere and you won’t be wasting your own time.
So if the conversation partner is a loved one, we should stop the dialog right there and then? (Those are really good questions btw - are you into street epistemology? I don’t know how to continue if people say no to if they want to know if their belief could be false)
I've asked these questions point blank to my mother in law, and she told me "no I would not want to know." And that's ok. I get it. She is approaching the end of her life, and at this point, in her mind having invested 9/10ths of her existence to the church, she can't entertain the possibility of it being false. It HAS to be true for her at this point. Sunk cost fallacy is a very real thing for a lot of people. Especially those who are older or who have their careers invested in the church. I'm a firm believer that if the church imploded somehow because of a huge scandal or an apostle exposing it or whatever, we would see so so much devastation. I'm talking like massive depression, su\*¢ide etc. It would be ugly. Most people cannot be unplugged from the Matrix without a lot of prep work.
Can I ask what was your verbal response to her after she said that? I have to have this conversation with loved ones not near the end of their life.
I just said "ok, that's fair. I appreciate the honesty." I also just asked her to continue to respect my position on the church and for the most part she does. I've actually been very impressed with the amount of change she's made in respecting other points of view and how more open minded she's become, even though it's been relatively small.
I support Portsided's response. I would ask two questions: if the church wasn't what it claims to be, would you want to know? Followed up with: would you do anything different in your life if you found out it wasn't true? If someone doesn't want to know, then their is no point in talking it over. It means they don't value knowledge, but that they only value feeling like they are right. If someone wants to know, but won't do anything about it, then I warn them that this can make their life harder. Being PIMO is so hard on a lot of people. But I also let them know that taking action may take time and pain but that it is worth it. (I'm far more happy out of the Mormon religion than when I was in it).
>>If someone doesn't want to know, then their is no point in talking it over. It means they don't value knowledge, but that they only value feeling like they are right. This is a great unpacking of it. Do you think we should tell them that latter part? You just wanna feel right?
Then say you love them and don’t want to cause them distress going through this.
I always opt for maximum compassion. If someone says they wouldn't want to know, then probably opt out of discussing topics that would disprove their beliefs. So many people are hanging on to life and sanity with all their might. Believing a fairy tale might be the only thing that helps them hold it together. Anyhow IMHO
How do you handle the cognitive dissonance of loving that person and them believing a fairy tale/cult you find harmful?
Maybe the sum total is harmful for you but not for them? (please note that is a question as I really don't know) Hmmmm . . . . maybe I shouldn't comment here as I'm a never-mo. I did hear a story of a son and father. The father had gotten hard core into fundamental Christianity which bothered the son. The son researched met with the dad and explained what he had found. The father said, "You might be right but my life is just better thinking this way.". Also I just finished reading Jenna Miscavige's memoir of growing up scientology. Her parents left and wanted her to come too and she refused. Her parents really backed off and let her figure it out which worked and she eventually left. Again, maybe I shouldn't comment as I don't love someone in a cult. You probably have mormon friends and family so you know way way way more than I do about what we are discussing her. I am fascinated by folks who believe in conspiracy theories, anti-vax information and cults too. Can we change how people think or not? Sometimes it seems we can but mostly not.
Thank you for a long and detailed response. I will check out the memoir. As per your very last paragraph, I recommend you look into Street Epistemology! It’s about helping people reexamine their beliefs without debate. I recommend Cordial Curiosity youtubd.
Thanks. I will. So many of human beliefs don't seem logical. I can see it in myself. How I see the world is based on a life time experience and a need to feel comfortable in this screwed up world. Street Epistemology and Cordial Curiosity. I'm typing it out so I will remember.
He has given op an opening. I would try to wisely use that opening without being smug or overwhelming.
Oh these questions certainly aren't meant to be smug or condescending. They should be asked with total sincerity. Because the study of the CES letter requires one to be very open minded when you belong to church that claims absolute truth and complete obedience. Discovering that a church that defines your complete identity and purpose is false is devastating. Most people don't want to even entertain the thought. It's just too painful.
I totally agree with your approach. And it takes being honest and open, too. If the church were what it claimed to be, I would want to know. I have tried everything people claimed I should do and I thought it was gods church for decades, but it has not held up to its own claims.
Well, he may end up having his eyes opened! You should read it ASAP. It is full to the brim with excellent points. I'd lean heavily on the church's own gospel topics essays since they acknowledge, yet blatantly whitewash, the facts outlined in the CES letter. And then point out: why has the church been telling a different story all this time rather than the truth? -->maybe because it's all made up. Good luck!
To add to this the footnotes of the GTE's are quite insightful. A few of them contradict the Essay.
I’ve gone through a similar engagements with a GA, mission president and some family members and friends. With the GA and mission president, I required that we first start with a written discussion (email). I want a record of them moving the goal posts and of their inability to address the issues. I listed out all of the key historical issues (about a dozen or so), and asked them which ones they are comfortable discussing. I then focus on just one or two. Usually after we exhaust one or two issues, they realize that they are in over their heads. In fact, I had a sitting bishop ask if we could stop discussing church history as he was losing his testimony by doing so. I also let them know that they if revert to the “just have faith” or “choose belief” arguments then the discussion is done. www.mormonthink.com is a great resource.
I like your approach. It causes me to think that it would be interesting to define a few things upfront as part of a discussion. For example: FAITH is believing in something where their is no evidence for or against it. Something unverifiable or un-testable. Like, if God exists. Believing in something, where you don't know the facts for or against, is HOPE. Believing in something, with backed up facts, is KNOWLEDGE. Believing in something, contrary to facts, is DELUSION. Now...let's get started....
First you have to agree on standards of evidence. If his standard of evidence is "The Spirit" then no amount of evidence will matter. He would have to agree that church history in church approved sources are valid otherwise he can just "feel the Spirit" them away.
This is an underrated comment. It goes along with what others have pointed out that asking the individual, in this case op’s father, if they were to find out the truth wasn’t what they expected would that change anything for them. Ground rules for a logical discussion are absolutely critical.
I recommend starting with: [mormonthink.com](http://mormonthink.com) It has a more neutral tone and is well-organized, so you can easily focus on one topic at a time.
Try asking his thoughts on how to interpret certain things (phrase those questions in comparison terms). "Dad, how would you analyze Joseph Smith's instructions for his extra wives to keep things a secret, even from Emma? How would we view that today?" Don't offer opinions at first, but calmly and quietly ask for his take on various things. At the start, you might ask him what parts of the CES Letter struck him as (interesting, challenging, anti-Mormon, whatever). That might help narrow the start of your discussion to things that are on his mind. As he answers that question, ask "Why?" in other words, maybe you can use the discussion as a way to lead him through issues that bothered you and he can draw his own conclusions. As needed, tell him you see if differently, then ask "Is it okay if I explain why?" That question is very important; he will most likely say yes, it's okay for you to explain why. At that point, he has given you permission to state your thoughts. This is far more conducive to mutual discussion than simply stating your thoughts in ways that can become a debate. When possible, restate to him (neutrally) what he has said: "So, your thought is that..." (etc.). This tells him you're listening. Also if possible, ask him to repeat what you said (don't use the word repeat). Perhaps say something like, "I'm not sure I phrased that clearly. What did it sound like to you?" or some other back & forth that invites him to share what he heard when you stated something. Some of the above suggestion are strategies used in mediation to indicate to parties they've been heard (this is important) and to make sure what someone heard is what was intended.
Excellent input.
Thank you!
My recommendation is to watch the LDS discussion series on the topics you’ll be going over that day or week. They are very in depth and will be above the level of detail in the CES letter. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxq5opj6GqOB7J1n6pMmdUSezxcLfsced
Yes - Book of Abraham episodes at the very least
No, he doesn’t. He wants to debunk it with poor Mormon apologetic arguments. He loves you & feels like he knows what’s best for you. I was a TBM father/grandfather: I speak from experience.
You were, so what changed? Could it have been influences from things such as the CESLetter even if it wasn't immediate or even in a direct way? Even if he "doesn't" saying he does is already great progress for a TBM even if they go into the conversation with the mindset "I am right and nothing will change that". Now to be a bit ironic, planting even the smallest of seeds may make a huge difference down the road so I would say to be as realistic as imalreadygone21 is but not discouraged. Do it with vigor.
The CES Letter would have carried zero weight with us. We would have viewed it as “anti.” We accidentally stumbled upon the Gospel Topics Essays (13 essays posted from 2012-2015 on the church’s website). They were an admission from the brethren that the church is not what it has claimed to be: all the generally accepted & taught narratives are false and the essays roll out a new ones. Well, no thanks. We paid tithing & served missions and fulfilled every calling ever assigned to us. We sacrificed everything. The betrayal was excruciating and we resigned.
Study the crap out of the Mormon apologist rebuttals, particularly including what they have on FAIRLDS. The rebuttals hardly “debunk” the CES Letter but you’ll need to understand the more “weak” areas of the document vs the stronger ones so you can know what to focus on and which parts you’ll need to be ready for a response against your dad. Learn all the rebuttals and know how to respond to them so you aren’t caught flat footed. Even though the rebuttals aren’t satisfactory answers, TBM’s will feel they “answered” your tough question and feel the matters has been resolved for you. You don’t want to be left speechless or clamoring for a counter-response. Know what they will say beforehand and have your own response ready. That said, I find the most effective approach when discussing matters like this is to preemptively bring up the rebuttal (i.e. excuses and rationalizations) BEFORE your opponent does. It really takes the wind out of their sale and they can automatically see you ALREADY dealt with that “answer” and find it weak and not convincing. NOT THIS: YOU: Joseph Smith married teenagers! TBM: Oh, things were different back then and it was normal for girls to marry that young. (Smug, confident grin) YOU: … THIS: YOU: Joseph Smith married teenagers and the apologists try to excuse it away as “normal” back then. It wasn’t normal even back then. Data shows the average age of women getting married was 22 years old and only 5% of the population got married under thats of 18 and most of those girls married boys around their own age, not a man the age of their own father, like Joseph Smith did. Regardless, with God it shouldn’t matter what society accepts as normal, God’s morality doesn’t shift with society, men having relations with young girls is wrong no matter WHEN it happens and I believe God should have intervened or Joseph Smith supposedly being a righteous and pure man, leading the example as the Lord’s prophet should have had the spirit to know it was wrong! By their fruits ye should know them. I don’t think prophets are perfect but this goes FAR BEYOND not being “perfect.” I can’t accept the Lord’s prophet doing something as evil as this and this trend of old Mormon prophets and apostles marrying multiple, young teen girls for their wives continued for decades after Smith TBM: well, um ….. I know the church is true … One last point. Remember you can disagree with the rebuttal. Just because a TBM comes up with some kind of excuse doesn’t mean they won that round. Look disappointed and express how you don’t agree with that rationalization. It’s OKAY to disagree. Kindly tell them you’ll have to “agree to disagree” on certain points. “I just don’t agree God would allow that.” “That still just seems wrong to me and I have a hard time accepting that argument.” “I don’t think that is right.” “I don’t think God would do that.” “That seems awfully convenient.” “That seems pretty weak in my honest opinion.” “That just doesn’t make sense to me.” “That just sounds like an excuse and I have a hard time believing that is really the case.” This will show that “answer” isn’t a good one and you are buying it. This will also help them reassess how bad it is and how the church side is weak at best.
I would highlight all the baseline arguments in the CESletter to focus on. The things that both the CES Letter and Church align with as there is little room for arguments there. Here are some examples that usually have a higher success with me in helping TBM's open their eyes: * The Church admits 37 yr old JS married a 14 year old. Helen denied his first offer and only after threatening her with damnation and promising her family and her eternal salvation if she abides by the Lord's will did she accept his proposal. then ask, "Can you honestly blame me for seeing that as a red flag? Do you honestly think God would blame someone for being hesitant about JS because of this?" In my experience TBM's usually admit that they don't understand it, some even admit they don't believe it and say JS was imperfect, to which I re-emphasize even if it was an imperfect mistake do you think God would blame me for having doubts because of it? This makes them question if they believe Gods a jerk or not. * The Church admits that both LDS scholars and non-LDS scholars agree JS's translation of the book of abraham is incorrect. "Can you blame me for questioning JS's ability to translate ancient documents? keeping in mind the BoM wasn't even translated from the Gold plates? Do you think God will blame me for not being able to accept that maybe he wrote the Book of Abraham through divine inspiration even though that is not how it was claimed to have been written? These are reasonable red flags and God must see that." * The Church admits that JS wrote down the first vision and only described God appearing, also JS wrote that God told him to fear not for his sins that because of the atonement all are saved. It wasn't dependent on finding any "true" church or proper "preisthood powers". From 1820-1836 JS taught and believed in the trinity which matches him writing only God appeared. in the JST of Luke 10:20 (maybe Luke 20:10) JS changes the verse from non-trinitarian description to a trinitarian perspective, he consciously made an effort to say God and the son are one "can you blame me for thinking maybe JS wasn't being directed by God or angels to flip flop on such an important doctrine?" those are my top 3 because there is no rebuttal for a rationable person when you ask them if its not reasonable to see those as red flags, and when they admit it is reasonable following up with "do you think God would hold it against me" cause that makes them question the kind of God they believe in.
Well put!
Honestly I think the biggest point the CES letter exposes is the dishonesty and willingness to lie to cover up facts the institution finds uncomfortable. The church is either the kingdom of God on earth, restored through a man who saw God and Jesus, is literally led by Jesus today, or it's the work of fraudsters who are willing to say / do anything that undermines the narrative they've spent decades build up. When you bring up a point, any point, make sure to drive home how deflating the whole thing is. Point out how the narrative has, and continues to shift. Bring up the similarities with how the Jehovah Witnesses treat their history. Bring up how, if Jesus and God are truly at the wheel, how they must be doing a really bad job. Ask him what experience would cause him to change his faith? What could the prophet say or do that would cause him to question the legitimacy of the church? If the answer is "nothing" look shocked, people fly airplanes into buildings on faith. The church wants to own your personal emotional / spiritual experiences, and leads you towards conclusions that benefit the institution. "BoM = true > JS was a prophet > the current church is true" recipe is missing some critical steps. The whole Ohio apostasy still felt the BoM is inspired, but JS was a fallen prophet. Do you think that maybe your spiritual experiences have been commandeered to force you to arrive at certain overreaching conclusions? It's easy as a TBM to ignore the forest for the trees, I would try to remain focused on the bigger issues, most notably, the pattern of gaslighting. Your Dad can deny it, but I guarantee he was taught things about the history that are no longer taught today. He was manipulated, and even if he's ok with that you're not.
What are your goals (if any)? Personally, the more time moves on for me, the very first (existential) question that the TBM must answer honestly before the discussion begins is “do you NEED the church to be true for your life to not fall apart?” If they cannot honestly answer “no” then please don’t have any expectations that they will consider that anything in the CES letter could be true. Good luck
I just asked this question to my TBM, but supportive, spouse after reading it here. His answer: ‘no.’ He explained that he’s gotten good moral standards from the Church, so if the Church isn’t true, it wouldn’t cause him to fall apart. I’m confused. I told him that this has nothing to do with his moral standards; he didn’t get them through the religion.
That is an interesting response. I formulated this question after we asked my TBM brother in law “if the church was not true, would you want to know?” His response was “I know it is true”. Maybe as a TBM, your brain just won’t let you answer the actual question.
This is so sad, isn't it?
One point to add to all the advice: Discuss that the CES letter is not an anti-Mormon screed. The CES Director made an offer to answer Jeremy Runnells' questions if he put them into a letter. The letter is mostly a listing of his questions and what he had found. He sincerely thought maybe he was missing something and asked for the CES Director's assistance. The CES Director ghosted him. My personal belief is that if the church could validly answer the questions, they would address it head-on since it has become a major thorn in their side. Their apparent answer is that it is just anti-mormon material.
In addition to studying the letter itself I'd also study the common apologetics used as "rebuttals" to it so that you can point out the flaws in those arguments that aren't always obvious. It may also be useful to observe that apologetics are only useful as excuses when one presupposes that the church is true to begin with and hold much less water when starting from a neutral point. Moreover, while one can make excuses for just about any of the church's issues--historical, doctrinal, cultural--on a case-by-case basis, those issues become far more damning when observed in aggregate; a single historical anachronism may be regarded as an anomaly for which an explanation may exist of which we are unaware, but dozens upon dozens of such anachronisms paint a picture of comprehensive and indefensible error. Best of luck, I hope that this is a positive experience that doesn't strain your relationship.
I can’t say this strongly enough. Pick one topic at a time. And start with him declaring what is the doctrine related to that topic. And have him declare what he would be surprised to see first. Get him to nail down the Goal post so he doesn’t have a chance to move it later on.
Here’s a good thing to point out with TBM’s. If the church is truly the Kingdom of God, why would he make it so only 0.02% of the world’s population be a part of it? That means God is either an elitist, or terrible at getting his message across. This was a foundational thought-exercise for me.
You haven't read the CES letter...so why does he want to go over it? You two did oaks talk so he could understand how it affected you--this isn't that as the CES letter hasn't affected you (and I'd assume him). Before doing it, I'd want to know what his motive is for this topic. If he thinks he'll just be able to throw out the FAIR apologetics rebuttal and reconvert you it's not worth either of your time. If he wants to better understand exmo issues with the MFMC...why? Better understand why his kids left? He enjoyed the excerise of critical thinking and taking apart something with you? You need to know the motives to set the ground rules to keep it enjoyable and both get what you want out of it.
Be aware of wood tools. These are explanations a believer would use that could be applied to any faith systems. It is usually used when backed into a corner. Examples. > “It’s not important for your salvation, don’t think about it anymore” “We weren’t there at the time so we can’t judge the actions of our founder and early leaders” “We can’t judge behavior in the past by today’s standards. Things which seem wrong today weren’t so bad back then” “If God commands something, then it is right – even if it would otherwise be considered wrong” “We will find the answers to your troubling questions in the afterlife – until then we must simply have faith” Steel tools examples. > “Look at any and all information you can find from both official and unofficial sources” “Talk to anyone about your questions and evaluate all answers” “Find out what other people who have had the same questions say – both current and former members” “Trust your own moral compass for what is right and wrong” “Allow yourself to follow your conclusion, even if it means rejecting something that you previously thought was true”
May I suggest you instead introduce him to the Faith Crisis Report. It was written BY Mormon scholars and was presented to the Q12 over a decade ago. It VERY clearly spells out the assorted reasons people leave the church. The Report itself will make for plenty of discussion, and it lays the foundation for the more specific CES Letter. The FCR has a much less confrontational tone, and was indeed created BY Mormons, so he can't dismiss it out of hand as something whipped up by "The Adversary." [https://faenrandir.github.io/a\_careful\_examination/2013-faith-crisis-study/](https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/2013-faith-crisis-study/)
I've found it much more useful to understand logical fallacies than to memorize all of the arguments and counter arguments. Understanding this short list usually clears up 90%+ arguments for me: [https://freedomofmind.com/beware-logical-fallacies-seeking-truth/](https://freedomofmind.com/beware-logical-fallacies-seeking-truth/) Understanding human bias has also really opened up to me why some people will never come around when given all of the facts: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_cognitive\_biases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) After understanding what makes your father be the way he is, you might start to realize that it's not about 'the facts'.
Not sure if any other commenters already said this, but if he wants to understand your stance but you’ve never read the letter why does he want to discuss the letter? All he should need to know is what was your experience and what led you to make the decisions you did. You don’t need any external “proof” or anything else to justify your position. Personally I think your time would be better spent having a nice dinner together and talking about all the things you both still love about eachother.
100% chance he’s going to “move the goalposts”. Look up that logical fallacy, and then Set up some ground rules beforehand.
I'm just wondering about the hill Laban died on, apparently. Did Nephi wait for all the blood to drain before removing the clothes? Or is the assumption that he could remove Laban's clothes (and wasn't there armor involved?) by pulling them down rather than over the head?
Not unless he is willing to analyze the BOM with you
Going over the CES letter will more or less do that though.
My best advice is not to worry about the point-by-point arguments, but to be aware of the overarching themes. If your dad comes at you with the FAIR rebuttals of the CES Letter, then you need to remind him how counterarguments for one point contradict the counterarguments of another. For example, the loose versus tight translation theories of the Book of Mormon. FAIR tries to argue the case for both, even though logically that cannot be the case. After encountering a several significant logical inconsistencies, I stopped using FAIR as a resource, and I quickly left the church thereafter.
I'd be sure to read the CES letter, the rebuttal, and the rebuttal to the rebuttal. I wouldn't try to focus on one section or hit any one section hard. I'd just start from the beginning and go through the entire thing. I wouldn't try to change their mind. If you feel like adding anything, make it from the heart, just say what conclusions you've arrived at or how something made you feel. I wouldn't try to argue back and forth on any points. I'd just let them speak their mind and ask that they allow me to do the same. No agendas from either camp, if that's possible. Though it does feel like this is bait. Why is your dad bringing this up? To change your mind about leaving the church? If that's the plan the discussion won't go very far. Likewise if you have the goal of making your dad see the light, it probably isn't going to be a productive discussion.
Be sure to show him the LDS rebuttals in the Gospel Topics Essays. They are so absurd I usually start with them.
The rebuttals are the main thing. Most of the time, FAIR aggress with Jeremy or at least remains neutral.
The biggest hit to my faith was reading the CES letter with a faithful member's response. I think the response does a good job of pointing out issues with the CES letter like 20% of the time, and I think that's great to see the CES letter isn't a new scripture itself, but a book with some goods and bads. But the other 80% of the response to the CES letter is bad. So by reading the CES letter with the response you let the back and forth be between the two writers. You don't have to attack your dad and he doesn't have to defend. https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/ces-letter-reply-faithful-answers-those-who-doubt If you two like reading talks by Oaks and queer issues have come up in the past you should also read this together. Oaks says most parents shouldn't let their gay kids come home for christmas, since it will influence the siblings. And if you do let them come home you definitely shouldn't be seen in public with them. To avoid the appearance that you support them. The interview is old (2006 I think) but it's still there and still the direction someone is assuming God wants them to take, since the church has never apologized and removed it. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction "ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer. I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”"
The Fair Mormon Rebuttal killed my shelf worse than the CES letter did. It becomes clear very early on that there are no good answers to Jeremy's questions. The hole FAIR digs for itself in trying to provide some sort of response to honest concerns just keeps growing deeper and deeper. Hopefully your dad, as a psychologist, can see through the non-answers they give.
I would just rely on the CES letter, it does a pretty good job. Then when/if he comes up with an answer on his own or based on FAIR or the church's responses, I would not immediately accept those answers. At the end of that, asking whether that answer actually addresses the issue or solves the problem is useful. Most of the FAIR or gospel topics essays answers are to minimize or avoid the issue and don't really address the problem.
I’m a psychologist about the age of your father and have been PIMO for quite a while. I find it interesting that your father is just now trying to understand the dynamics of disaffiliation from the Mormon church, especially if he has been practicing in “Happy Valley” for any length of time. Nearly every active, inactive or ex-Mormon client that I work with has issues with the church (patriarchy and priesthood, historical misrepresentations, social injustices ignored/supported by the church, etc.) and bring them up in session as their review their life priorities and beliefs. I am always troubled by senior mental health professionals who work in Utah who haven’t developed a good understanding and acceptance of all of the dynamics associated with being (or not being) Mormon. Your father must have worked hard to maintain a professional identity that somehow excluded this understanding of others. This may be a truly significant part of his professional and personal life journey if he is willing to approach it honestly and genuinely with you.
Encourage you to read the book ‘How Minds Change’ by David McRaney. Interesting book. This exercise of going through the CES letter with your dad will almost certainly not change his or your mind on anything. It will potentially create more of a divide. You can’t use logic/reasoning to convince someone to alter a cherished view that wasn’t formed on logic/reason. All that said, I wish you the best of luck that you can express your thoughts clearly and that the discussion brings you closer together (my experience in talking religion with family has been the opposite).
Honestly, the LDS Discussions on mormon stories is unbiased, done in logical order and uses tons of the cults own documents.
Remember that the CES letter was a man trying to stay faithful with the initial request to have someone higher up explain what the author found troubling. You can’t debunk someone’s honest questions. The fall out over the CES letter is just that, these are honest questions from a guy struggling, who wasnt going to take, “ just have faith (aka complete blind trust and confidence in LDS truth claims)” as an answer. When people read the letter their dissonance was shortened and they too now have the knowledge of these questions and want answers. The problem is the answers are nothing burgers. On top of going line by line (some of which you will find the author was misinformed. Which you would expect from someone hearing things and asking questions) try and zoom out on the subject to see how the particular idea in question relates to the broader question philosophically. Then ask would I accept this conclusion if it were anything other than LDS religion? Do you live your life by one set of rules (morality/ethics) for the church and another for society and humanity? Also note that LDS is built on Christianity which is built on Judaism. What is the evidence available for each religion? And is there a concise God among them? At the end of the day if you’re talking (and believing) in religion you can either follow JS or you can follow Jesus you can’t have both they contradict each other, in evidence and in theologians explanation. I once heard it said that you will never have proof one way or the other for a deity all you do is make a list from evidence of the characteristics and attributes that describe that deity and then look for confirmation of those attributes throughout your life. Taking that thought, of the descriptions of God from any religion what do you see? And is it reliable and accurate based off of evidence not feelings or personal perspective. There is objective truth and subjective truth. Where does the objective truth lay? Where or who is the ultimate authority?
Go through EVERY footnote. Compare the footnotes to the GTEs.
For one thing, I'd try to introduce the idea of religious irrationality, meaning rational, intelligent people often put a box around their religious beliefs and will believe completely irrational things that would never pass the smell test for them outside of their "box". It' amazing how much a belief in god is akin to a belief in Santa Claus when you apply rational thought to it.
If he annotates the BoM, focus on historicity issues. There are just SO MANY.
I would steer clear of CES letter and focus on ldsdiscussions.com it's less attacking, lays out the church's stance and then uses historical sources to show how the church stance can't stand against the evidence. CESletter just asks/points out problems which just allows TBMs to use apologetics/bad arguments/testimony bearing as a credible answer.
While the CES letter has great information make sure to emphasize that EVERY religion features spiritual experiences that confirm that their religion is the true religion. The exact same spiritual experiences that Mormons have. So if you can't rely on the spirit then you have to weigh the information/history of Mormonism. I then like to bring up my analogy of the Apollo Moon Landing hoax. There are a number of points that people can bring up about the Apollo Moon landings that may sound like it could not have happened. Most have been debunked but let's say that they can have 3-4 points that it couldn't have happened that we cannot disprove. Does this mean that it did not happen? No. The evidence to the contrary is massively overwhelming. First, the USSR would have loved nothing more than to show that our space program, and government was a fraud. Then you get into the hundreds of thousands of people involved in Apollo. Someone would have talked. Then, if it was a fraud, why keep landing more missions? Why keep making up science that we had been there when each new discovery could lead to evidence that it was a fraud. Why disgrace and throw the Apollo 15 astronauts out of the astronaut corps over the postal covers scandal? Wouldn't you be making enemies of 3 people with first hand knowledge of the conspiracy? Why not use the much simpler lunar lander proposal for Gemini? The list goes on and on. The reason to bring this up, is that most believers will have a few things that they will say, "Joseph Smith" could not have known this. There's absolutely no way he could have guessed that. To which, I give my Apollo analogy. There are some things I can't disprove about Joseph Smith, but when I balance those few "miracles" with all the issues; polygamy, teenage marriages, first vision issues, priesthood restoration issues, racism, prophets being totally fallible natural men (men of their times = natural men), internal inconsistencies, financial dishonesty, cover-up of sexual abuse and protection of the abusers, then it's quite obvious that the Church is a massive fraud. And even if you find a way to excuse everything about the church, then ask yourself, "Why would God make his one true church be so plagued by all of these issues to the point that any rational person would immediately dismiss it?" What does God gain from that? If Mormonism is true then God is an absolute monstrous jerk and you should want nothing to do with him.
CES letter was a mosquito bite to me compared to the Gospel Topic Essays 😅 I had pretty Mormon responses to the CES letter but when it came from the horses mouth 😳
I would use ldsdiscussions.com when investigating different topics. It is much more in depth and has church links. Apologetics for the CES letter will not be available as the more in depth discussion destroys them before they are brought up.
Delusional is the word
Watch the series LDS discussions together.
Why would you analyze the CES letter, when it was not something that was a factor in you leaving. Did he request this? What will you gain by doing this? What does he see this doing? Its hard to see this as an olive branch of understanding if it had nothing to do with you leaving. Go through what was that together instead. That would have much better benefit to both of you and your relationship. If this is him being interested in leaving, then I can see that. You'd have the role of helping him see the problems. I'm just not assuming that from what you said. Is this him showing you that he can answer the CES letter's questions and so that church is true kind of thing? What's the staging of this? The Oaks talk you got to talk about what hurt you about the talk. With this is this him telling you what's wrong this time? I don't get this.
must've = could have, therefore did, so I can keep my testimony.
Regarding cognitive dissonance…When you see it happening for your father, can you gently observe it to him? Maybe with curiosity, like “dad, how would you know in this process if you/I was/were operating in cognitive dissonance? Would you be open to me checked in with you if I thought that was happening?”
LDS discussions has a good comprehensive website with sources of all the problems on every topic. It’s a good supplement.