Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director

< Criticism of Mormonism‎ | Online documents

Revision as of 02:00, 15 October 2021 by SpencerMarsh (talk | contribs) (→‎Other responses to the "Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony")

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

Response to "Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony (CES Letter: My Search for Answers to my Mormon Doubts) and "Debunking FAIR's Debunking"(Debunking FairMormon)

Summary: Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony (CES Letter: My Search for Answers to My Mormon Doubts as of 2017) is an online document which is critical of Latter-day Saint truth claims. The document is comprised of a list of issues that the author states caused him to lose his testimony, and it is hosted on a number of websites which are critical of the Church. The online document Debunking FAIR's Debunking or Debunking FairMormon is an apologetic attempt by the CES Letter author to respond to an earlier summary version of FAIR's CES Letter response. The author incorporates much of the text of FAIR's original summary responses and then attempts to, in his own words, "debunk" them. Here we have incorporated all arguments from three updates to the CES Letter and responded to them. We have also included responses to Debunking FairMormon. Articles have been edited to correct factual errors spotted by the author and clarify responses.

Readers should bear in mind while interacting with any of the material from the author of the CES Letter that he frequently attempts to portray FAIR and other apologists as delusional and deceitful--frequently citing changes we have made to our responses in his rebuttals to FAIR and often appealing to ridicule. He often tries to discredit apologists by simply showing how we disagree on matters such as Book of Mormon Geography or other trivial things. Readers should be careful to look for this and be aware of how FAIR responds to criticism.

It is true that we have edited our articles that were posted in initial response in 2013 and also created new articles and responses to arguments from the CES Letter over time. This is the refining we expect to receive as we make the defense of the Church better through more study, improved scholarship, and through suggestions from our readers. We may also make mistakes in formulating our response (which we have corrected since the rebuttals to our pages were posted by the author) but we have not sought to deliberately deceive anyone in editing them.

Readers should also be aware that just because FAIR hasn't responded to an argument or a response does not satisfy a question completely, that does not then mean apologetics can't be created or improved in answering that question/criticism. We are a group of volunteer members who seek to defend the faith in our spare time and write however much we can with that time and when we see it as necessary. We expect, as mentioned, to improve our efforts over time with improved scholarship and from suggestions by our readers.

With respect to the disagreement that the author cites among apologists, there are often many ways to faithfully reconcile something. FAIR's goal is to provide every angle. Additionally, the nature of scholarship is to make arguments based upon current scientific findings. Scholarship refines itself overtime as science improves and with it, apologetics. Additionally, the existence of disagreement does not invalidate the strength of an argument. Are we to believe that critics don't have any good points if they disagree on something? Readers should consult the actual scholarship done by faithful scholars and decide for themselves where they stand instead of accepting obfuscatory arguments such as these made by the author.

The CES Letter is a compilation of the most common attacks on the Church. Each of these issues that the author discusses have been repeatedly discussed in both official Church literature and in scholarly articles, notes, and monographs. A monograph could be taken to explain these issues in a satisfactory way and indeed, entire books have been written on many of these subjects. We advise readers to use FAIR as a starting point rather than an ending. The wiki is designed as your first stop for getting immediate first aid, so to speak. It may be advisable that, instead of reading this long response, that readers take time to order books that cover the same issues and read and digest at a pace that is more suitable to their work/family/school schedules, level of knowledge, and so forth.

If this is your first time visiting FAIR we invite you to see our introduction page found here. We strongly encourage the reader to also visit our introductory page to apologetics before reading our response. Debate uses the language of logical fallacy often. If you are not familiar with logical fallacy or at least need a definition for one or more of the logical fallacies listed in our response, we strongly encourage you to visit our logical fallacy page (preferably before reading our response). It will help you to evaluate claims better and make good suggestions as to how we can improve our responses. If you do not understand something in our response, you spot an error, an answer could be augmented or improved, a response could be provided to a claim that we have missed, or if you have any other question(s) and/or comment(s) regarding this document, we invite you to submit your question(s)/make your comment(s) to FAIR volunteers at this link.

The following links respond to individual claims contained in the following documents:

  • Jeremy Runnells, Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony (April 2013)
  • Jeremy Runnells, Debunking FAIR's Debunking (a.k.a. Debunking FairMormon) (July 2014)
  • Jeremy Runnells, Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony (October 2014)
  • Jeremy Runnells, Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony (March 2015)


Chart CES Letter summary061018.png

Response to claims made in "Letter to a CES Director" and "Debunking FAIR's Debunking" by Jeremy Runnells


Jump to details:

Other responses to the "Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony"

A Faithful Reply to the CES Letter from a Former CES Employee, by Jim Bennett (2018)
Letter to a CES Director: A Closer Look
  • Highly Recommended: Latter-day Saint Sarah Allen has produced a series of posts on the different sections of the CES Letter. These posts synthesize material gathered from faithful sources across books and the Internet about the topics broached by the CES Letter. FAIR is editing these posts and publishing them weekly on our website. Links to each of these posts are being gathered on this portion of our wiki.
Sarah Allen’s Response to the CES Letter


Contents
Articles about the CES Letter
Overview
Brief responses and additional resources, CES Letter sections
Detailed responses, CES Letter sections

Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director
Chart CES Letter BoM concerns-1.png

Included below:

Response to claim: "What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

What are 1769 King James Version edition errors doing in the Book of Mormon? An ancient text? Errors which are unique to the 1769 edition that Joseph Smith owned?
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "That the witnesses never reported Joseph looking at a 1769 KJV Bible during the translation process actually enhances the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a fraud"
Response to claim: "At worst, Joseph waited until the witnesses weren't around to consult and copy from the 1769 KJV Bible"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There are no errors that are unique to the 1769 edition. Some of the "errors" Runnells proposes aren't errors at all. Some are good examples of the diachronic nature of language. Others are merely English translators using the conventions of English to communicate a particular message. There are no errors that threaten the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. There are at least a dozen reasons to reject the notion that Joseph plagiarized from the King James Bible. We've provided an exhaustive response to this criticism in the link below.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "That the witnesses never reported Joseph looking at a 1769 KJV Bible during the translation process actually enhances the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a fraud"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

That the witnesses never reported Joseph looking at a 1769 KJV Bible during the translation process actually enhances the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. Ignoring the possibility that God himself revealed the errors, at best Joseph was reciting from memory passages from the 1769 KJV Bible, rather than “dictating,” as FairMormon phrases it.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The claim is nonsense. There is no evidence including any witness statement indicating that Joseph had an eidetic memory such as would be required for Runnells theory to work. There are, however, observers to the process that state that he sat in the open, head in hat, dictating for hours in the presence of his scribe and other witnesses. If we're dealing in probabilities, and that is what we're dealing with here (we can't make definitive statements lest we make an argument from silence), the fact that witnesses to the translation never reported a Bible during the translation of the Book of Mormon only works in favor of the proposition that Joseph did not have a Bible.


Response to claim: "At worst, Joseph waited until the witnesses weren't around to consult and copy from the 1769 KJV Bible"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

At worst, Joseph waited until the witnesses weren’t around to consult and copy from the 1769 KJV Bible

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author is speculating without any supporting data in an attempt to save his position.The facts: Wouldn't one of Joseph Smith's scribes notice the handwriting of Joseph Smith on the Book of Mormon translation manuscript including all the copying he supposedly did from the King James Bible. Also, Runnells relies on his false claim above that there are translation errors unique to the 1769 KJV to establish the latter part of his claim. Our article linked above thoroughly dismantles that assertion.


Response to claim: "What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon?

Author's sources:
  1. The author copied his information from the anti-Mormon site "Mormon Handbook"

See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "Contrary to FairMormon’s assertion above that God himself revealed the 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, FairMormon is conceding here that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author insinuates that the presence of the KJV's italicized words in the Book of Mormon indicates that Joseph Smith plagiarized the King James Bible.The facts: If the italicized words in the King James Bible are meant to clarify the original text and make the translation more readable, why wouldn't God and Joseph Smith just keep those same italicized words so that the Book of Mormon can also be comprehensible and readable? The author wants to spin this as nefarious when it isn't nefarious at all.


Response to claim: "Contrary to FairMormon’s assertion above that God himself revealed the 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, FairMormon is conceding here that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Contrary to FairMormon’s assertion above that God himself revealed the 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, FairMormon is conceding here that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: FairMormon does not make an assertion that God revealed 1769 KJV errors to Joseph, nor does FairMormon "concede" that Joseph copied KJV text over to the Book of Mormon.The facts: What FairMormon does do is acknowledge that there is scholarship that supports either position. Some LDS scholars believe that Joseph copied Biblical passages over to the Book of Mormon, despite the lack of evidence that Joseph ever consulted any books during the translation process. Other scholars take the position that when Joseph reached a Biblical passage in the translation, that God, in most cases, simply gave him the ability to quote the verse as it existed in the currently available Bible. Scholars who take this position might simply affirm that this is how God exalts humanness to achieve his ends. Joseph's model of revelation seems to affirm this (D&C 1:24).


Response to claim: "2 Nephi 19:1...Joseph qualified the sea as the Red Sea"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

2 Nephi 19:1...Joseph qualified the sea as the Red Sea

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author only assumes that Joseph Smith is the one that inserted "Red" before sea in 2 Nephi 19:1. There are a number of proposals given by scholars that explain the addition of "Red" in this verse. Some argue (and, in the author's view, persuasively) that Joseph is not responsible for the change. Some proposals incorporate insights that can persuasively argue for an ancient author making the change.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the bible"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The Book of Mormon includes mistranslated biblical passages that were later changed in Joseph Smith’s translation of the bible.
....
Joseph Smith corrected the Bible. In doing so, he also corrected the same identical Sermon on the Mount passage in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is “the most correct book” and was translated a mere decade before the JST.

Author's sources: MormonThink.com page "JST Bible Translation".

See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "If Joseph was trying to make the Bible more correct, he would not change something that was correct according to Isaiah"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The latest edition of the CES Letter (2017) includes one example of this type of change between the Book of Mormon, Bible, and JST. Scott Gordon showed the deception that underlies Runnells' and his sources's argument. We are unaware of other changes that actually fit Runnells' claim.


Response to claim: "If Joseph was trying to make the Bible more correct, he would not change something that was correct according to Isaiah"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

If the Bible verses were good enough for the "most correct book," there is no reason to change them in the JST of the Bible (other than to obfuscate the plagiarism). If Joseph was trying to make the Bible more correct, he would not change something that was correct according to Isaiah.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The author does not understand what "plagiarism" is. The Book of Mormon clearly acknowledges that it is quoting Isaiah. Plagiarists, on the other hand, attempt to pass off the work of someone else as their own without acknowledging the source. According to Webster: "the act of using another person's words or ideas without giving credit to that person."The facts: We are likely not dealing with Joseph trying to "correct" Isaiah. The JST is a multi-purpose document that sometimes included restoration of text. Other purposes of the JST have been acknowledged by both leaders of the Church and scholars of the JST.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

To our knowledge, the DNA data has never been disputed by the Church or anyone else. Following the links below and reading associated articles clearly demonstrates that DNA evidence posits no problem for the Book of Mormon.[1]


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Why did the Church change the following section of the introduction page in the 2006 edition Book of Mormon shortly after the DNA results were released?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

DNA analysis has concluded that Native American Indians do not originate from the Middle East or from Israelites but rather from Asia. Why did the Church change the following section of the introduction page in the 2006 edition Book of Mormon shortly after the DNA results were released?
“…the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians”
“…the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians. ...
(From "Conclusion") Lamanites aren’t really the principal ancestors of the Native American Indians.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "It was a teaching accepted and taught by these “prophets, seers, and revelators,” including Joseph Smith himself, for most of the Church’s entire existence until the Church quietly and unofficially made the change in the Book of Mormon in 2006"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The implication by the author is that the Church retreated from the definition of "Lamanite" by altering the introduction to the Book of Mormon that was added in the 1920's. This is incorrect. If Lehi's people intermarried with anyone from the existing New World population, then by definition they are certainly among the ancestors of every native American currently living, and thus qualify under the Church's definition of "Lamanite." The only way critics can make the DNA data to be a weapon against the Book of Mormon is to force a hemispheric interpretation of an empty North and South American continent at the time of arrival of the Lehites. This is why critics must, at all costs, negate the Limited Geography Theory of the Book of Mormon.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "It was a teaching accepted and taught by these “prophets, seers, and revelators,” including Joseph Smith himself, for most of the Church’s entire existence until the Church quietly and unofficially made the change in the Book of Mormon in 2006"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

I like how FairMormon calls a 170+ year Mormon teaching believed and taught by “prophets, seers, and revelators” an “assumption.” It was not an “assumption.” It was a teaching accepted and taught by these “prophets, seers, and revelators,” including Joseph Smith himself, for most of the Church’s entire existence until the Church quietly and unofficially made the change in the Book of Mormon in 2006, after the DNA evidence started pouring in. The Prophet Joseph Smith disagrees with FairMormon’s “integration” and “Limited Geography” theories.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The idea that the land of the Book of Mormon comprised the entire North and South American continents was a natural assumption to make based upon the "narrow neck" of land described in the Book of Mormon being assumed to be the Isthmus of Panama. Joseph Smith believed in a hemispheric geography, along with most early Church leaders, though some held more nuanced views that weren't hemispheric. To our knowledge, no prophet has claimed that they received revelation indicating to them the location of different Book of Mormon lands. All have been relying on their best interpretation of the text. Many Latter-day Saints today believe in a hemispheric geography for the Book of Mormon. However, the "Limited Geography" theory has been around a lot longer than 2006. It was, in fact, first proposed in the 1920s, and was based upon a more careful reading of distances traveled in the Book of Mormon. It appeared in the official Church magazine, the Ensign, in 1984 in a two-part series. It appeared in the filmstrip Ancient America Speaks, which was used by missionaries during the late 1970's and early 1980's. It was not formulated in response to questions regarding DNA, since it predates the DNA argument by at least 70 years. (And, as an aside, just how does the Church "quietly" and "unofficially" change the introduction to the Book of Mormon? The change was published in the Church-owned Deseret News on 8 November 2007.[2])


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Horses...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Horses...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "FairMormon considers a tapir to satisfy this requirement, I’m sorry but that just won’t work. Tapirs do not pull chariots. Especially chariots without wheels"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The author now shifts discussion to questions of anachronism. Readers are strongly encouraged to read the article right below this about evaluating anachronisms before proceeding if they haven't read it before. Ancient horses are believed to have vanished before the time of the Lehite's arrival, and modern horses were brought to the New World by the Spaniards. Yet there are a few pieces of circumstantial evidence of horses which are currently not accepted as valid by the scientific community. The idea that all defenders of the Church (e.g. "apologists") believe that New World horses are actually "tapirs" is a popular strawman put forth by the ex-Mormon community, and only represents a single suggestion offered by LDS anthropologist John L. Sorenson. Any others who mention tapirs as a possibility (such as Mike Ash), are simply citing Sorenson's work. The idea that Daniel C. Peterson promotes tapirs as horses is a popular meme within the ex-Mormon online community, however, at present we can find only a single quote attributable to Dr. Peterson, which also cites John L. Sorenson. Peterson, in fact, favors the idea that actual horses existed at the time, noting that

"it remains possible that the term horse in the Book of Mormon-which, by the way, does not occur very often, and even then in rather puzzling contexts-refers simply to deer or tapirs or similar quadrupeds thought by the Nephites to be analogous to the horse....But there is archaeological reason to believe that horses may, in fact, have existed in the Americas during Book of Mormon times. The question remains very much open."[3]

Peterson's footnote to this statement adds

"Valuable discussions of the evidence can be found at John L. Sorenson, "Animals in the Book of Mormon: An Annotated Bibliography."

In fact, every mention of a "loan-shift" of the name "horse" to "deer" or "tapir" cites John L. Sorenson's original work.

Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "FairMormon considers a tapir to satisfy this requirement, I’m sorry but that just won’t work. Tapirs do not pull chariots. Especially chariots without wheels"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FairMormon considers a tapir to satisfy this requirement, I’m sorry but that just won’t work. Tapirs do not pull chariots. Especially chariots without wheels.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

FairMormon does not, and never has, taken an official position that the horses referred to in the Book of Mormon are tapirs, and does not consider the presence of tapirs to "satisfy this requirement." FairMormon has never suggested that tapirs "pull chariots" or pull "chariots without wheels." This claim is a creation of the author's mind, and there is no data that he will be able to locate to support it. The idea that tapirs or deer might have been called "horses" is only one possibility that was presented by LDS anthropologist John Sorenson (who is not associated with FairMormon), and it is described by FairMormon as one possibility among many, but it does not represent FairMormon's position. The most common position taken (as is demonstrated by the references listed in the previous section) is that horses actually were present during these times and that there is some evidence that this is the case. The author does this with other positions on anachronisms from FairMormon in his "debunking"— by appealing to ridicule and creating strawmen.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

FairMormon has never suggested that tapirs "pull chariots" or pull "chariots without wheels." Ex-Mormons take Sorenson's "tapir" suggestion of plausibility and promote it to the primary apologetic response. This is the CES Letter author's strawman:
  • He asserts that FairMormon's position is that horses in the Book of Mormon are actually tapirs (this is a false assertion).
  • He asserts that FairMormon's position is that horses in the Book of Mormon pulled chariots (this is a false assertion).
  • He asserts that FairMormon's position is the chariots in the Book of Mormon without wheels were pulled by draft animals (this is a false assertion).
  • He then "debunks" his own assertion.

He follows this same line of fallacious reasoning when equating one suggestion given by FAIR and other apologists for a particular anachronisms with the suggestion that apologists give for a particular anachronism.

This is a massive "failure to debunk" on the part of the author.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "cattle...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

cattle...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The current consensus is that ancient Americans did not keep herds of large animals for use as food. There is, however, some evidence to the contrary.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "sheep...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

sheep...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The falsehood: The author asserts that sheep did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.The facts: Bighorn sheep are native to North America. There has also been a report of sheep wool unearthed in southern Mexico.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "swine...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

swine...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The falsehood: The claim that there were no swine in pre-Columbian America.The facts: Wikipedia says that there were: "A peccary (also javelina or skunk pig) is a medium-sized hoofed mammal of the family Tayassuidae (New World pigs) in the suborder Suina along with the Old World pigs, Suidae. They are found in the southwestern area of North America and throughout Central and South America....Although they are common in South America today, peccaries did not reach that continent until about three million years ago during the Great American Interchange, when the Isthmus of Panama formed, connecting North America and South America. At that time, many North American animals—including peccaries, llamas and tapirs—entered South America, while some South American species, such as the ground sloths, and opossums, migrated north."[4]


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "goats...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

goats...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The claim that there were not goats in pre-Columbian America.The facts: It is true that modern goats were brought to the New World by the Spaniards in the same manner as modern horses. However, according to Wikipedia, "The mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), also known as the Rocky Mountain goat, is a large-hoofed mammal found only in North America." [5]


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "elephants...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

elephants...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: There is no acknowledgement by the author of substantial circumstantial evidence that New World natives were familiar with the elephant.The facts: Elephants only need to have existed during early Jaredite times since they are never mentioned by the Nephites.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "chariots...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

chariots...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Wheeled chariots pulled by draft animals did not exist during this period. However, enlightening potential loan-shifts exist for the chariot as we approach interpreting the text more carefully.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "wheat...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

wheat...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Wheat as we know it today is not known to have been present during Book of Mormon times. However, amaranth was. According to Wikipedia, "Some amaranth species are cultivated as leaf vegetables, cereals, and ornamental plants". Real wheat would be incredibly hard to find as A) The tests that might be able to find it are expensive to implement B) the soil in Mesoamerica is too damp and acidic to preserve this type of a plant and C) less than 2% of Mesoamerica has been excavated.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "silk...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

silk...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The author assumes that "silk" must only refer to the material produced by the mulberry silkworm, which did not exist in pre-Columbian America.The facts: Materials classified as "silk" did exist in the New World during this period.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "steel...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

steel...did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The author assumes that "steel" refers to modern steel, which did not exist in pre-Columbian America.The facts: Steel has been found in the Old World in the appropriate time period.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times.Author's source: Wikipedia article "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The author assumes that because iron was not mined and smelted in pre-Columbian America, that it therefore did not exist.The facts: Yes, iron did exist in pre-Columbian America, and there is evidence to support the use of iron obtained from meteorites.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "None of the metallurgy identified in FairMormon’s charts, such as...brass...existed in the pre-Columbian Americas"

The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:

None of the metallurgy identified in FairMormon’s charts, such as...brass...existed in the pre-Columbian Americas.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The author may have made some incorrect assumptions about brass in the Book of Mormon.The facts: Brass is an alloy. The Book of Mormon brass is never "found" but "made".


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon or the Nephites/Lamanites who numbered in the millions.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The falsehood: This is simply a popular claim made by ex-Mormons, which ignores any evidence.The facts: The reality is that there is plenty of supporting evidence.
∗       ∗       ∗
Note that word “directly.” Archaeology very often doesn’t “directly” support claims. You often are having to draw inferences from the data. You know, the rocks in the foundations of buildings don’t speak for themselves usually, and there are relatively few inscriptions. I mean, even Jerusalem itself: we’ve known from tradition where is was located, but it was only relatively recently that an inscription was found actually identifying that city as Jerusalem. So, there are limits to archaeology. But again I mention John Sorenson, the writing of John Clark, Brant Gardner, Mark Wright. If the author of the letter has dealt with them there’s no sign of it. I don’t see any evidence that he’s engaged them.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference
∗       ∗       ∗

Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The overwhelming consensus from these unbiased experts in pre-Columbian America archaeology/anthropology and Egyptology is that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Book of Abraham is historical, factual, or congruent to the current and existing data and evidence."

The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:

In August 2013, a 17-year-old by the name of Zachary decided to email sixty college professors whose expertise was in one of the following fields: Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica Archaeology, Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica Anthropology, and Egyptology. Zachary sought their professional opinion on the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.


Out of the sixty college professors that Zachary emailed, 25 responded. Out of the 25 who responded, 14 gave permission to Zachary to publish their names and comments. The responses that Zachary received from these experts are fascinating. The overwhelming consensus from these unbiased experts in pre-Columbian America archaeology/anthropology and Egyptology is that neither the Book of Mormon nor the Book of Abraham is historical, factual, or congruent to the current and existing data and evidence.

The responses from these professors and experts can be read here.

Author's sources: <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1_l1xQdDguBM0tpT29MemVtd2s/edit>

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author attempts to show that the "overwhelming consensus" from scholars is that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are not "historical, factual, or congruent to the current and existing data". The fact of the matter is that few non-LDS scholars are interested in doing the type of work that LDS scholars are doing. Even fewer have followed/become informed on Latter-day Saint scholarship. Who wants to study Latter-day Saint scripture when one isn't a Latter-day Saint? Would they feel comfortable in being compelled to join a religion based upon the evidence that Latter-day Saint scholars and apologists are bringing to light? Would anyone feel comfortable to do so? Even so, there are several non-LDS scholars who respect the work of Latter-day Saints. John Welch worked with several in "Chiasmus in Antiquity". His work on "Legal Cases in the Book of Mormon" was given good reviews from non-LDS scholars. Non-LDS archaeologist and Mesoamerican scholar Michael Coe has called the work of John Sorenson on Transoceanic Voyages to the Americas "irrefutable".[6] Latter-day Saint scholars have frequently cited the work of non-LDS professionals to support the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. See here for article responses to this. Readers should seek out scholarship from Latter-day Saint authors and judge the matter for themselves. They should read the careful work of Brant Gardner in Traditions of the Fathers: The Book of Mormon as History and Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon (6 vols.), they should read the great work of John Gee, John L. Sorenson, and others. Sweeping, generalized, and propagandistic claims like this should not persuade anyone into thinking that this is all settled—especially when the vast majority of these scholars have had virtually no interaction with the relevant scholarship done by Latter-day Saints up to this point of time.

Response to claim:"In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations...'The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…."

The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:

In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations...'The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists…. '

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author distorts the meaning of Dee Green's comments.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations...'While some people chose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge.'"

The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:

In addition to the statements made by those professors, here are some more statements made by both LDS and non-LDS archaeologist and anthropologist individuals and organizations...'While some people chose to make claims for the Book of Mormon through archaeological evidences, to me they are made prematurely, and without sufficient knowledge.'

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author distorts the meaning of Raymond Matheny's comments. Matheny clarified that he was responding to a question posed to him as if he were a non-Mormon archaeologist. Matheny states, "The question dealt with how does a non-Mormon archaeologist evaluate the Book of Mormon in terms of its cultural content and claims. My answer to the question was an ad hoc response where I tried to put myself in a non-Mormon’s professional shoes and talked about the nature of the problems that the Book of Mormon poses for the archaeologist." In other words, Matheny was playing "devils advocate." Matheny explains this in a letter:
I received a copy of Heart and Mind and a copy of a letter sent to you by Luke P. Wilson, Executive Director of Gospel Truths Ministries. From these items I feel some obligation to give you a little more information about what took place at the Sunstone symposium in 1984. . . .

I had no idea that I was being used by Gospel Truths Ministries to discredit the LDS Church in their publication. . . . In 1984 I was asked by Sunstone to give a talk, which I refused. They persisted by calling and asked if I would be willing to sit on a panel and comment on papers that would be given on archaeology at the upcoming symposium. To this request I consented. However, when I arrived for the symposium, much to my surprise I was listed as a speaker. I objected and said that I had not prepared a paper. The Sunstone people then handed me a card with a question on it and asked if I would comment on the question. The question dealt with how does a non-Mormon archaeologist evaluate the Book of Mormon in terms of its cultural content and claims. My answer to the question was an ad hoc response where I tried to put myself in a non-Mormon’s professional shoes and talked about the nature of the problems that the Book of Mormon poses for the archaeologist. . . .

Gospel Truths Ministries is using my ad hoc response without my permission, without my knowledge, and in a pernicious way against the church, and against me. The letter sent to you said that a complete transcript of my response was forwarded to you. I don’t know what GT Ministries means by a “complete” transcript. I forbade any publication of my response by Sunstone or any one else, and did not authorize any tape recordings at the time.[7]


Response to claim: "This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists are coming up with the Limited Geography Model"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

This is one of the reasons why unofficial apologists are coming up with the Limited Geography Model (it happened in Central or South America) and that the real Hill Cumorah is not in Palmyra, New York but is elsewhere and possibly somewhere down there instead. This is in direct contradiction to what Joseph Smith and other prophets have taught.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The falsehood: The Limited Geography Model has absolutely nothing to do with apologists, and was not created in reaction to anything that occurred in recent times. It was based upon a careful reading of the Book of Mormon text itself.The facts: The limited geography model of the Book of Mormon has been around since 1917. Matt Roper notes, "It is not known how much these studies influenced the interpretations of Latter-day Saints; their first versions of a fully limited Book of Mormon geography began to appear in the years from 1920 to 1926. In an article for the Improvement Era, Janne Sjodahl outlined the key features of these interpretations without criticism or condemnation. In addition to his own modified hemispheric view, which placed the narrow neck of land at the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, Sjodahl reviewed the approaches of George Reynolds and Joel Ricks, which generally followed those of Orson Pratt."[8] Links may be found below to the many limited geography theories that have been around for decades. In his follow up claims to FairMormon, the author raises concerns about Joseph's revelations identifying things in the United States relating to the Nephites and its implications for limited or integrated geography theories. A good model to follow for meshing the evidence from the United States with Mesoamerican data may be found here.
∗       ∗       ∗
This [claim that the Limited Geography is a recent invention of apologists] is simply not true. The Limited Geography Model has been created because the Book of Mormon demands it. You can put together all the travel distances and travel times in the Book of Mormon and it’s very clear that they’re not going far in any direction. We’re not talking about Patagonia to the Aleutian Islands. It’s simply not possible. And so, the text forces this. This sort of thing has been in the works for a long time, before there was any talk about DNA, before the discovery of the DNA double-helix model. DNA was not an issue when this was being created. This is not controversial. This can easily be shown that the limited Mesoamerican model has been in the works for decades. It just wasn’t published until the 1980s, but it existed and was distributed in a kind of summarized underground form for a long time before it was actually published.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference
∗       ∗       ∗

Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Funding) founder"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Latter-day Saint Thomas Stuart Ferguson was BYU’s archaeology division (New World Archaeological Funding) founder. NWAF was financed by the Church. NWAF and Ferguson were tasked by BYU and the Church in the 1950’s and 1960’s to find archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. This is what Ferguson wrote after 17 years of trying to dig up evidence for the Book of Mormon:“…you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere – because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archaeology. I should say – what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.” – Letter dated February 2, 1976

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Ferguson was not in charge of the archaeology program at BYU.The facts: Ferguson wasn't even an archaeologist - he was a lawyer for whom archaeology was a hobby.

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to authority—The author claims that someone is an authority on a topic, and that because this authority made a statement regarding that topic, that he or she is probably correct.

Ferguson was not even an "authority" on this matter, and he had unrealistic expectations. The author, however, expects us to both accept Ferguson as an authority on this subject, and to accept his conclusions as valid.
∗       ∗       ∗
And the idea is, well, Ferguson failed and Ferguson lost his testimony, and this should discredit the Book of Mormon in the minds of alert, sentient Latter-day Saints. But that statement is wrong on multiple levels. Thomas Stuart Ferguson, for whatever virtues he had, was a lawyer and an amateur hobbyist. He was not the head of the archaeology program at BYU. And the NWAF, I’ve actually written an article on this, based on interviews with the founders and with early leaders and so on, and it’s been published. I mean, there’s no excuse for this. NWAF had non-Mormons on its board. It was mostly non-Mormons. It was specifically forbidden to seek to do explicit Book of Mormon research. It was tasked with working in an area where Latter-day Saints expected it would find evidence, but it was not its task to do that. This is just completely wrong, and Ferguson’s apostasy, whatever it was, his family disputes it. I don’t know exactly what the truth of his mindset was at the end of his life. It may be sad, but it has no significance. And, at the same time, M. Wells Jakeman was an archaeologist, the first trained archaeologist as far as I know in the Church, who specialized in Mesoamerican studies. Why doesn’t anybody write about his biography? He was fascinated…believed to his dying day that the Book of Mormon fit into Mesoamerica brilliantly well.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference
∗       ∗       ∗

Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Many Book of Mormon names and places are strikingly similar to many local names and places of the region Joseph Smith lived


We read in the Book of Mormon of the Land of Desolation named for a warrior named Teancum who helped General Moroni fight in the Land of Desolation. In Smith’s era, an Indian Chief named Tecumseh fought and died near the narrow neck of land helping the British in the War of 1812. Today, the city Tecumseh (near the narrow neck of land) is named after him.

Author's sources:
  1. mazeministry.com (an anti-Mormon web site)

See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "FairMormon’s strawman that these towns/cities were discovered only through maps may not be...how Holley found some of the towns"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The author uncritically accepted data from the Vernal Holley map, which is easily disproven. The names aren't so striking when you realize just how many of them didn't exist at the time that Joseph Smith was translating the Book of Mormon, or how many don't show up on contemporary maps. Elsewhere, (and even after his "debunking" of our response including his follow up claims and his link the Rick Grunder parallels) the author admits that he doesn't believe that this claim has sufficient evidence to support it, yet he has retained it in his latest revision of the letter.[9]

Logical Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter—The author located some pattern in the data that he or she believes was the cause of something else, despite the lack of any supporting connection, and asserted that this was, in fact, the actual cause.

The author uses the work of Vernal Holley, who searched a large area using modern maps to find a few names which are similar. The author then uses those names as proof that there is a relationship to the Book of Mormon. The author recognized the weakness of this argument and actually considered removing the section from the CES Letter or moving it to an appendix but was stopped by other ex-Mormons who claimed that it was effective for shaking people.

Vernal Holley.png


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "There was a book published in 1791 by John Walker entitled, A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names"

The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking (July 2014) make(s) the following claim:

Before I get to those, however, I’d like to discuss additional evidence of similarities between the “345 Book of Mormon names” and a contemporaneous book available in Joseph’s time and backyard. Aside from FairMormon not sharing that many, if not most, of the “345 Book of Mormon names” are also biblical names, many of the names unique to the Book of Mormon are…well, not so unique.

There was a book published in 1791 by John Walker entitled, A Key to the Classical Pronunciation of Greek, Latin, and Scripture Proper Names. In this book are a number of future Book of Mormon names, which appeared within alphabetized lists. This book was a common household reference in young Joseph Smith’s time and place. According to Larry Porter, “Walker’s Dictionary” was suggested for the curriculum in the Colesville, New York schools by the local commissioners in the fall of 1826.

This link does a side by side comparison between Book of Mormon names and Walker's Key Dictionary.

Author's sources:
  1. Rick Grunder "Mormon Parallels: A Bibliographic Source" <http://www.rickgrunder.com/parallels/mp453.pdf>

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Most of the names in the list come from the Old and New Testaments. Some are listed as Greek and Latin names but onomastic research has shown that they have plausible etymologies with the languages proposed by the Book of Mormon. This argument is textbook parallelomania. The arguments against names should not be just about the presence of the names. With the advancements in onomastic research, the argument should now be about both the presence of the names and how they are used.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

∗       ∗       ∗
[The author of the Letter to a CES Director] uses Vernal Holley, who relied on the Solomon Spalding theory of the Book of Mormon, which has been exploded, detonated so many times, that its exasperating to see it keep coming back. I’ve mentioned, I think, here before that Hamblin and I have wanted to do a film that we call tentatively, “Bill and Dan’s Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.” The idea is that these just keep coming back. I mean, you shoot them between the eyes and they don’t stop because there’s no brain in there, right? And, I see the Spalding manuscript theory just keep coming and coming, but the methodological problems with Vernal Holley’s maps are multitudinous..."

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference

Response to claim: "FairMormon’s strawman that these towns/cities were discovered only through maps may not be...how Holley found some of the towns"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Vernal Holley is dead. We can’t contact him to find out exactly where he got his sources. FairMormon’s strawman that these towns/cities were discovered only through maps may not be FairMormon as to (sic) how Holley found some of the towns. He may have used letters, newspapers, post office records, obituaries, local city/county library records, etc. in which records and books are not accessible online. We do not know.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The author's claim is false based upon Vernal Holley's own claims: We do know that Holley used modern maps, because Holley himself told us. Holley may be dead, but the book he wrote in which he proposed his theory is available online. Vernal Holley, in his book Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look,[10] states explicitly that he does use "modern names" and "modern maps" to make his comparison. This is particularly evident in his comparisons of the names "Angola" and "Tecumseh," both of which Holley states he has taken from modern maps or locations, and neither of which existed under those names at the time that the Book of Mormon was published.

Logical Fallacy: Burden of Proof—The author assumes that the burden of proof is not his or her responsibility, but rather the responsibility of someone else who must disprove the claim.

This is a feeble attempt to "debunk" the FairMormon response to Holley by throwing in a list of possibilities with no supporting evidence.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The largest city and capital of Comoros (formerly 'Camora')? Moroni"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The largest city and capital of Comoros (formerly 'Camora')? Moroni.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

It is true that the capital city of the Comoros is Moroni on Grande Camore. There is no evidence, however, that the Comoros were called "Camora" at any point in time.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "the uniform spelling for Hill Cumorah in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is spelled as 'Camorah'"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

the uniform spelling for Hill Cumorah in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon is spelled as 'Camorah'.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author wants us to believe that the uniform spelling of Cumorah in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon as "Camorah" indicates that Joseph Smith and/or Oliver Cowdery were plagiarizing from maps close to them with the Comoros Islands on them.The facts: Oliver Cowdery acknowledged this as a spelling error. Changing the spelling to "Cumorah" actually made the name consistent with other Book of Mormon names. Evidence from the Original Manuscript and Printer's manuscript indicates that Oliver did not spell Cumorah as "Camorah" in his dictation of the Book of Mormon, thus arguing strongly against the plagiarism Runnells wants to insinuate that Joseph Smith and/or Oliver Cowdery were engaged in.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "'Camora' and settlement 'Moroni' were common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

'Camora' and settlement 'Moroni' were common names in pirate and treasure hunting stories involving Captain William Kidd (a pirate and treasure hunter) which many 19th century New Englanders – especially treasure hunters – were familiar with.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

They were not common names at all. Grande Camore (not the entire set of the Comoros Islands) is mentioned, but only once in sources that relate stories about Captain Kidd. Moroni is never mentioned.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "'View of the Hebrews' compared to the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

'View of the Hebrews' compared to the Book of Mormon

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author wants us to believe that View of the Hebrews was a source of information for Joseph Smith in creating the Book of Mormon. Lots of data argues against this.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "They borrowed from early 19th century Methodist evangelical camp meetings and the Second Great Awakening in Joseph's 'burnt over district' backyard."

The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking (Debunking FairMormon) (20 July 2014 Revision) make(s) the following claim:

"The evidence does not support that Joseph & Co. copied everything from one single source. The evidence supports that Joseph & Co. borrowed a few things here and a few things there...They borrowed from early 19th century Methodist camp meetings and the Second Great Awakening in Joseph's 'burnt over district' backyard."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

1) The evidence does not support this assertion made by critics from time to time that Joseph was present at these meetings 2) The similarities between these camp meetings and details in the Book of Mormon are superficial 3) There are ancient parallels that may provide positive evidence against this claim


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "They borrowed from anti-Masonic sentiments of Joseph's time."

The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking (Debunking FairMormon) (20 July 2014 Revision) make(s) the following claim:

"The evidence does not support that Joseph & Co. copied everything from one single source. The evidence supports that Joseph & Co. borrowed a few things here and a few things there...They borrowed from anti-Masonic sentiments of Joseph's time."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The author is referring to how it is claimed that the phrase "secret combinations" was supposedly used exclusively to refer to Freemasons in Joseph's day and how there are a few elements that critics believe suggest a relationship to the Book of Mormon. This is not true. The phrase was used to refer to other organizations before, during, and after the publication of the Book of Mormon. There are many reasons to believe that these elements did not come from anti-Masonic sentiments. Along with the articles listed below, we recommend the reader see this page from Book of Mormon Central and the cited scholarship which shows all the evidence against this claim.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Joseph’s father having the same dream in 1811 as Lehi’s dream"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Joseph’s father having the same dream in 1811 as Lehi’s dream

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The dreams are indeed similar, but there are solid reasons to believe, contrary to the insinuations of the author, that Lehi's dream is not literarily dependent on Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Elder B.H. Roberts came to the following conclusion: 'Did Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon?'"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Elder B.H. Roberts came to the following conclusion: 'Did Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon?'

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The critic fails to note what B.H. Roberts' actual conclusion was, as quoted in Studies of the Book of Mormon p. 58.The facts: B.H. Roberts said the following about his examination of critical approaches to the Book of Mormon, later published under the name Studies of the Book of Mormon:

Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.[11]


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The staggering parallels and similarities" of The Late War "to the Book of Mormon are astounding"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The staggering parallels and similarities to the Book of Mormon are astounding. This outstanding web page outlines very clearly and simply just how devastating the Late War is to the Book of Mormon and its claims....
  • Devices of “curious workmanship” in relation to boats and weapons.
  • A “stripling” soldier “with his “weapon of war in his hand.”
  • “A certain chief captain…was given in trust a band of more than two thousand chosen men, to go forth to battle” and who “all gave their services freely for the good of their country.”
  • Fortifications: “the people began to fortify themselves and entrench the high Places round about the city.”
  • Objects made “partly of brass and partly of iron, and were cunningly contrived with curious works, like unto a clock; and as it were a large ball.”
  • “Their polished steels of fine workmanship.”
  • “Nevertheless, it was so that the freeman came to the defence of the city, built strong holds and forts and raised up fortifications in abundance.”
  • Three Indian Prophets.
  • “Rod of iron.”
  • War between the wicked and righteous.
  • Maintaining the standard of liberty with righteousness.
  • Righteous Indians vs. savage Indians.
  • False Indian prophets.
  • Conversion of Indians.
  • Bands of robbers/pirates marauding the righteous protagonists.
  • Brass plates.
  • “And it came to pass, that a great multitude flocked to the banners of the great Sanhedrim” compared to Alma 62:5: “And it came to pass that thousands did flock unto his standard, and did take up their swords in defense of their freedom…”
  • Worthiness of Christopher Columbus.
  • Ships crossing the ocean.
  • A battle at a fort where righteous white protagonists are attacked by an army made up of dark-skinned natives driven by a white military leader. White protagonists are prepared for battle and slaughter their opponents to such an extent that they fill the trenches surrounding the fort with dead bodies. The surviving elements flee into the wilderness/forest.
  • Cataclysmic earthquake followed by great darkness.
  • Elephants/mammoths in America.
  • Literary Hebraisms/Chiasmus.
  • Boats and barges built from trees after the fashion of the ark.
  • A bunch of “it came to pass”

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The "staggering" parallels aren't so "astounding" once you take a closer look at them. The critic scours a book in order to extract similar phrases, then declares that this proves that this book was a source for the Book of Mormon.

Logical Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter—The author located some pattern in the data that he or she believes was the cause of something else, despite the lack of any supporting connection, and asserted that this was, in fact, the actual cause.

In this case, the critic scours a book in order to extract similar phrases, then declares that this proves that this book was a source for the Book of Mormon.

YouTube Video Response: "Letter to a CES Director: A Closer Look - CES Letter 15 to 17 Late War" by Brian Hales.

Longer response(s) to criticism:

Brian Hales: CES Letter 15 to 17 Late War


Response to claim: "Another fascinating book published in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon, is shocking"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (March 2015 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Another fascinating book published in 1809, The First Book of Napoleon, is shocking....The following are a side-by-side comparison of the beginning of The First Book of Napoleon with the beginning of the Book of Mormon:

The First Book of Napoleon:

Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Napoleon…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…their inheritances their gold and silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of their hearts…small in stature…Jerusalem…because of the perverse wickedness of the people.

Book of Mormon:

Condemn not the (writing)…an account…the First Book of Nephi…upon the face of the earth…it came to pass…the land…his inheritance and his gold and his silver and…the commandments of the Lord…the foolish imaginations of his heart…large in stature…Jerusalem…because of the wickedness of the people.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: It is only "shocking" if you look at the heavily edited paragraphs presented by the critic.The facts: One has to examine over 25 pages in The First Book of Napoleon in order to assemble these phrases, including pulling phrases from the Table of Contents and the first three chapters. This is hardly the "beginning" of the First Book of Napoleon.

Logical Fallacy: Texas Sharpshooter—The author located some pattern in the data that he or she believes was the cause of something else, despite the lack of any supporting connection, and asserted that this was, in fact, the actual cause.

In this case, the critic scours a book in order to extract similar phrases, then declares that this proves that this book was a source for the Book of Mormon.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The theory put forth by critics is that Joseph altered the Book of Mormon to match his changing view of the Godhead. It is simply illogical to conclude that Joseph Smith changed only the four passages in 1 Nephi to conform to his supposed changing theological beliefs, but somehow forgot to change all the others. In his follow up, the author attempts to lump the Lectures on Faith (whose authorship is now questioned and whose theology is certainly not trinitarian) and the JST into the supposed works in which Joseph held a trinitarian view of the Godhead. This is contradicted by the historical record. Latter-day Saints frequently talk about how we believe in the unity of the Godhead in purpose and not substance. This interpretation holds under scrutiny in all scriptural works.


Longer response(s) to criticism:


Notes

  1. ↑ See also Ugo A. Peregro and Jayne E. Ekins, "Is Decrypting the Genetic Legacy of America’s Indigenous Populations Key to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon?" Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 38 (2020): 355-390.
  2. ↑ Carrie A. Moore, "Debate renewed with change in Book of Mormon introduction," Deseret News (8 November 2007).
  3. ↑ Daniel C. Peterson, "Yet More Abuse of B. H. Roberts (Review of The Disappointment of B. H. Roberts: Five Questions That Forced a Mormon General Authority to Abandon the Book of Mormon)," FARMS Review of Books 9/1 (1997): 69–86. off-site
  4. ↑ Wikipedia article "Peccary" (accessed 8 January 2015). off-site
  5. ↑ Wikipedia article "Mountain goat" (accessed 8 January 2015) off-site
  6. ↑ “‘Ask the Scholar’,” John L. Sorenson edition (part 3 of 3),” Maxwell Institute Blog, February 21, 2014, at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/ask-the-scholar-sorenson-3/ (accessed 28 December 2018)
  7. ↑ William J. Hamblin, "Basic Methodological Problems with the AntiMormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 2/1 (1993), pp.190-191.
  8. ↑ Matt Roper, "Limited Geography and the Book of Mormon: Historical Antecedents and Early Interpretations," The FARMS Review 16/2 (2004).
  9. ↑ Jeremy Runnells posting as "kolobot": "CrowdThought: CES Letter Book of Mormon Geography/Vernal Holley Maps...keep or remove?" (posted 2015 on exmormon subrreddit).
  10. ↑ Available online at http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/2001vern.htm
  11. ↑ B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923. (See Studies of the Book of Mormon (1992), p. 58. On page 33, note 65, the editor of this work states that the date on this letter should be 1922 rather than 1923.)


Introduction
A FAIR Analysis of:
Letter to a CES Director
A work by author: Jeremy Runnells
 Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions
Articles about the CES Letter
Overview
Brief responses and additional resources, CES Letter sections
Detailed responses, CES Letter sections

Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director
Chart CES Letter BoM translation.png
Image from video "Seer Stones and the Translation of the Book of Mormon," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Copyright (c) 2015 Intellectual Reserve

Response to claim: "Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Unlike the story I’ve been taught in Sunday Schools, Priesthood, General Conferences, Seminary, EFY, Ensigns, Church history tour, Missionary Training Center, and BYU…Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "Sources that I clearly demonstrate were either unofficial, extremely obscure, or not clearly educating the member and investigator about the rock in the hat translation"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

Joseph used both the Nephite interpreters and his own seer stone. After 1833, both items were referred to by the name "Urim and Thummim."


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Sources that I clearly demonstrate were either unofficial, extremely obscure, or not clearly educating the member and investigator about the rock in the hat translation"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FairMormon removed from their webpage...most of the sources they claimed backed up their position that the Church is transparent and honest in how the Book of Mormon is translated. Sources that I clearly demonstrate were either unofficial, extremely obscure, or not clearly educating the member and investigator about the rock in the hat translation.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The falsehood: The Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Seminary Teacher Manual, Gospel Topics on LDS.org and the Ensign are hardly "extremely obscure" or "unofficial." Is a book written by an apostle, Neal A. Maxwell, that talks of the stone and the hat "obscure" or "unofficial"? Missionaries currently teach investigators that Joseph translated using the Urim and Thummim - a term which historical records apply to both the Nephite interpreters and Joseph's own seer stone.The facts: Regardless of which instrument he used, the bottom line is that investigators are taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon using the "gift and power of God" with the aid of a stone.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: The rock in the hat is confirmed "in an obscure 1992 talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The rock in the hat is confirmed "in an obscure 1992 talk given by Elder Russell M. Nelson."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: How is one talk on LDS.org more "obscure" than any other?The facts: The talk has always been available on LDS.org.
President Russell M. Nelson and Sister Nelson at the Priesthood Restoration site during its dedication in 2015. The display shows a representation of the plates and the hat that were used during the translation of the Book of Mormon.

Sources to consider:

Response to claim: "he used the same 'Ouija Board' that he used in his days treasure hunting where he would put in a rock – or a peep stone – in his hat"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

In other words, he used the same “Ouija Board” that he used in his days treasure hunting where he would put in a rock – or a peep stone – in his hat and put his face in the hat to tell his customers the location of buried treasure

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author wishes the reader to associate the seer stone, which he calls the "peep stone" with a "magic" Ouija Board.The facts: Neither Ouija Boards nor something similar are never mentioned in Mormon history, so this is simply an attempt to negatively influence the reader into believing that Joseph Smith was a conartist who created the Book of Mormon to satisfy lust for wealth.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Why is the Church not being honest and transparent to its members about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The above nine images are copyrighted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [images of Joseph looking at the plates in the open] Book of Mormon translation as it actually happened: [images of Joseph looking into a hat] Why is the Church not being honest and transparent to its members about how Joseph Smith really translated the Book of Mormon? How am I supposed to be okay with this deception?
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "The issue here is the Church's continued displaying - still in 2014 - the incorrect, inaccurate, and deceptive art in its Conference Center, Church History Museum, Temple Square, Missionary publications, and official publications"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author simply assumes dishonesty on the part of the Church, and moves forward from that assumption. Again, this is simply an effort to negatively influence the reader.

Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question—The author asks a question that has a presumption already built into it in such a way that an answer cannot be provided without validating that presumption.

The author starts with the assertion that the Church is not being honest and allows no other possibility to explain the data.
∗       ∗       ∗
Here’s an illustration: A traditional view of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon. Now, there are several things wrong with it, and he points to this sort of thing and says this is Church deception. Joseph didn’t have the plates with him quite often, and here is is following along with the text on the plates. Well, you know that’s not true, because the witnesses didn’t see the plates all the time, right? This can’t possibly be true. When the witnesses saw the plates it was a big deal for them, because, Joseph wasn’t just sitting there translating with the plates in front of him all the time as people wandered around and so on. But [the author of the Letter to a CES Director] says, “look, the Church is being deceptive” because it doesn’t show Joseph with his face in the hat using the seer stones. Well, my response to this partly would be “What in the world are you thinking of?” Trying to derive doctrine from illustrations? Or expecting that illustrations are going to give you the accurate picture? Here’s another one: There Joseph has the curtain between him and the scribe....This one is equally wrong. It’s not a sign of evil or deliberate conspiratorial intent. It’s just an indication that the illustrators often just don’t get it right.

—Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections on That Letter to a CES Director," 2014 FairMormon Conference.
∗       ∗       ∗

Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The issue here is the Church's continued displaying - still in 2014 - the incorrect, inaccurate, and deceptive art in its Conference Center, Church History Museum, Temple Square, Missionary publications, and official publications"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The issue here is the Church's continued displaying - still in 2014 - the incorrect, inaccurate, and deceptive art in its Conference Center, Church History Museum, Temple Square, Missionary publications, and official publications.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Back when the author of the CES Letter was a believing Latter-day Saint, did he ever see a piece of Church artwork that depicted the Nephite interpreters (a.k.a. the "Urim and Thummim) in use during the translation process? Certainly not, unless he happened upon one single depiction in a 1970s edition of the Book of Mormon Reader. Otherwise, every piece of art depicting the translation process that he saw while a believing member was just as inaccurate as he claims they are now - yet Church manuals and lessons clearly indicate that the Urim and Thummim was used. So the author had no problem with clearly inaccurate artwork prior to his deconversion, but he has a problem with it now. This indicates that the issue of accuracy in Church art is simply a reflection of one's current perspective of the Church: if you are a believer, the artwork doesn't matter. On the other hand, if you are an unbeliever, it suddenly takes on importance in the arsenal of items that can be used against the Church in an effort to portray it as dishonest.


The inaccuracy of this artwork doesn't seem to bother active Church members - they know that the Urim and Thummim were used, yet they know that they aren't seeing it in the artwork. The truth is that depicting the translation instrument, whether it be the Nephite interpreters or the seer stone, would appear equally awkward, and the artists simply choose not to portray it. The "traditional" portrayal would show Joseph looking into a pair of "spectacles," while an alternate portrayal would show Joseph looking at a stone in the bottom of his hat. One is hardly more culturally "uncomfortable" than the other.

The seer stone display at the Church History Museum (2017).
Image from video "Seer Stones and the Translation of the Book of Mormon," The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Copyright (c) 2015 Intellectual Reserve

Longer response(s) to criticism:

{{Navigation:CES Letter}]

Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director
Chart CES Letter first vision.png

Included below:


YouTube Video Response: "Letter to a CES Director: CES Letter 22 to 23 First Vision" by Brian Hales.

Response to claim: "There are at least 4 different First Vision accounts by Joseph Smith"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

There are at least 4 different First Vision accounts by Joseph Smith.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The Church has published information about these accounts since at least 1970.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The dates / his ages are all over the place"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director make(s) the following claim:

The dates / his ages are all over the place (April 2013)
The dates / his ages: The 1832 account states Joseph was 15 years old when he had the vision in 1821 while the other accounts state he was 14 years old in 1820 when he had the vision. (October 2014)

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The dates and ages were never "all over the place," which is why the author eventually corrected this statement in his later revisions.The facts: Only the first account shows an age discrepancy of age 15 rather than age 14, and the entry regarding the age wasn't even in Joseph Smith's own handwriting.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The dates / his ages: The 1832 account states Joseph was 15 years old when he had the vision in 1821 while the other accounts state he was 14 years old in 1820 when he had the vision"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The dates / his ages: The 1832 account states Joseph was 15 years old when he had the vision in 1821 while the other accounts state he was 14 years old in 1820 when he had the vision.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

It was Joseph's scribe Frederick G. Williams, rather than Joseph himself, that inserted the phrase about Joseph being in the "16th year" of his age in the 1832 account.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The reason or motive for seeking divine help – bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists, wanting to know which church to join – are all over the place"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The reason or motive for seeking divine help – bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists, wanting to know which church to join – are all over the place. (April 2013)
The reason or motive for seeking divine help – Bible reading and conviction of sins, a revival, a desire to know if God exists, wanting to know which church to join – are not reported the same in each account. (October 2014)

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author exaggerates perceived differences in the accounts.The facts: In reality the accounts contain primarily the same core details, with some additional details in specific ones. The only major difference is that the 1832 account mentions one personage ("the Lord") instead of two, although the Father is also later mentioned, indicating that Joseph perceived that Jesus Christ and the Father were separate beings even in the 1832 account.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Who appears to him – a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son – are all over the place."

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Who appears to him – a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son – are all over the place.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "he still manages to directly contradict himself by reporting “visitation of Angels” as compared to an actual visitation from Deity"
Response to claim: "Joseph intended the exact wording to be 'pillar of light' – not 'pillar of fire'"
Response to claim: "FairMormon is arguing here that Joseph Smith did not in fact see God the Father and his son Jesus Christ, which is an apostate view"
Response to claim: "the Church altered Joseph's words to instead read "I received my First Vision...” in the History of the Church"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author exaggerates perceived differences in the accounts, when in reality the accounts contain primarily the same core details, with some additional details in specific ones. The only major difference is that the 1832 account mentions one personage ("the Lord") instead of two.The facts: For example, none of the accounts mention that only an angel appeared, although one mentions the presences of "many angels" in addition to the two personages. Joseph referred to his First Vision as the "First Visitation of angels" and Moroni's visit as "another visitation of angels."


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Why doesn't FairMormon also include the following accounts in their list showing just how “consistent” all of the First Vision accounts are?"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Why doesn't FairMormon also include the following accounts in their list showing just how “consistent” all of the First Vision accounts are?

Author's sources:
  • 1834 First Vision Account from Oliver Cowdery on Wikipedia
  • Brigham Young (1855), Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, p. 171
  • Wilford Woodruff (1855), Journal of Discourses Vol. 2, p. 196-197
  • Heber C. Kimball (1857), Journal of Discourses Vol. 6, p. 29-30
  • Orson Hyde (1854), Journal of Discourses Vol. 6, p. 335
  • John Taylor (1863), Journal of Discourses Vol. 10, p. 127
  • John Taylor (1879) Journal of Discourses Vol. 20, p. 167
  • George A. Smith (1863), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 334
  • George A. Smith (1869), Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 78

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author distorts the original meaning of the statements and ignores exculpatory historical details to score propaganda points. He also attempts to paint FairMormon as dishonest, implying that they lead readers away from examining the evidence for themselves. Claiming dishonesty on the part of all FairMormon contributors is one of the author's favorite red herrings.The facts: These third-hand accounts by people other than Joseph Smith aren't even nearly as damning as the author may want to assume. Additionally, FairMormon has had these accounts posted on it's website for a long time, since the criticisms associated with these statements date back to at least the 1970s and claims made by Gerald and Sandra Tanner.


Regarding Heber C. Kimball (since we don't have a formal response to this accusation in particular) it is important to remember a few historical details. On 13 August 1857 Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Daniel H. Wells, John Taylor, Willard Richards, and Wilford Woodruff placed several publications in the southeast cornerstone of the Salt Lake Temple that contained First Vision accounts. They were:

  • The Pearl of Great Price
  • Lorenzo Snow, The Voice of Joseph
  • Orson Pratt, (various tracts)
  • Franklin D. Richards, Compendium
  • John Jaques, Catechism for Children
  • Millennial Star, vol. 14 supplement
  • Millennial Star, vol. 3


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "he still manages to directly contradict himself by reporting “visitation of Angels” as compared to an actual visitation from Deity"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

In this summary account, written by Joseph 15 years after the fact, he still manages to directly contradict himself by reporting “visitation of Angels” as compared to an actual visitation from Deity.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: There is no contradiction. Joseph's journal entry was summarizing an event that he had described in detail in his journal only five days earlier, which clearly stated that there were two personages and "many angels."The facts: Just five days prior to calling the First Vision the "first visitation of Angels," Joseph described a vision which included two personages (Deity, being the Father and the Son, inferred by the introduction "this is my beloved Son") and "many angels." He named this entire encounter the "first visitation of Angels."


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Joseph intended the exact wording to be 'pillar of light' – not 'pillar of fire'"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

By using the “Delete” button of his time along with inserting “light” to immediately replace “fire,” Joseph intended the exact wording to be “pillar of light” – not “pillar of fire.”

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The "mormoninfographic" uses the fact that the word "fire" does not appear in the final draft to demonstrate a perceived inconsistency with Joseph's 1835 account, which used the term "pillar of fire." This is nonsense, since it is obvious from the 1832 strikeout that Joseph was trying to decide which of the two terms "fire" or "light" best described what he saw.The facts: It is obvious that Joseph was willing to describe the pillar as either "fire" or "light." The "mormoninfographic" obscures that fact.

Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading—The author creates a one-sided argument by including favorable data and excluding unfavorable data through improper means. In this case, the author "moved the goalpost" by changing his argument when his original claim was shown to be false.

The "mormoninfographic" claimed that the word "fire" was not part of the 1832 account. We demonstrated that it was. Whether or not it was crossed out is irrelevant - it is there, it is readable, and it is indicative of what Joseph was thinking as he wrote. However, this isn't what the CES Letter author is responding to: He instead appears to be claiming that we are disputing what Joseph intended to write. The reality is that Joseph wrote both words in his history as he was attempting to decide which one provided a more accurate description. Because the CES Letter author failed to debunk our original claim, he instead decided to respond to one that we never made.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "FairMormon is arguing here that Joseph Smith did not in fact see God the Father and his son Jesus Christ, which is an apostate view"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

FairMormon is arguing here that Joseph Smith did not in fact see God the Father and his son Jesus Christ, which is an apostate view given that the recently published LDS.org essay titled “First Vision Accounts” states otherwise:

Joseph Smith recorded that God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him…

So, which is it? Did Joseph see God the Father and Jesus Christ or did he merely see two angelic personages?

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The falsehood: The author states that FairMormon claims something that is absolutely false.The facts: We will restate FairMormon's position:

1) The statement by the CES Letter author that "FairMormon is arguing here that Joseph Smith did not in fact see God the Father and his son Jesus Christ" is absolutely and totally false.

2) Joseph Smith never used the words "Jesus Christ" and "God the Father" in any of his accounts of the First Vision. In the 1832 account, he said that he saw "the Lord." These are facts.

3) Joseph always described the Father and the Son as "personages." The statement of one personage to Joseph that "this is my Beloved Son" while gesturing to the other clearly indicates that these personages are God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, even if Joseph did not explicitly name them as such in his First Vision account.

4) Many prophets after Joseph Smith have clearly identified the two personages as the Father and the Son. John Taylor in particular was very vocal about this.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

FairMormon's position is, always has been, and always will be that Joseph Smith saw two divine personages: God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ. The author apparently misunderstood the original claim. The question with regard to the "mormoninfographic" is "Did the actual words "God the Father" and "Jesus Christ" appear in Joseph's 1838 account of the First Vision?" while the CES Letter author responds to a question that was never asked: "Did God the Father and Jesus Christ appear in Joseph's 1838 account of the First Vision?" He then creates a strawman to misrepresent FairMormon's position regarding the appearance of the Father and Son during the First Vision, and then "debunks" his own strawman.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "the Church altered Joseph's words to instead read "I received my First Vision...” in the History of the Church"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

his 1835 account was falsified into the History of the Church (Vol. 2, Ch. 23, p.312). Despite correctly being published in the Church newspaper (Deseret News, Vol.2, No. 15, Saturday, May 29, 1852) as specifically including Joseph's words, "I received the first visitation of Angels,” the Church altered Joseph's words to instead read "I received my First Vision...” in the History of the Church.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Joseph's 9 November 1835 journal entry recorded that he saw two personages accompanied by many angels. His summary description just five days later on 14 November 1835 referred to the entire event as the "first visitation of Angels." How exactly is that inconsistent? Joseph simply assigned his own name to the event.The facts: When B.H. Roberts wrote History of the Church, he chose to assign a different name to Joseph's theophany. Roberts wanted something different than the "first visitation of Angels," and he instead chose to call the event the "First Vision." Roberts did not choose to call it the "first visitation" or the "visitation of two personages and a lot of angels": He simply chose to call the event the first of Joseph's visions, because that's exactly what it was. This wasn't an attempt to hide the nature of who had appeared to Joseph during the vision.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The historical record shows that there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The historical record shows that there was no revival in Palmyra in 1820. There was one in 1817 and there was another in 1824. There are records from his brother, William Smith, and his mother Lucy Mack Smith, both stating that the family joined Presbyterianism after Alvin’s death in November 1823 despite Joseph Smith claiming in the official 1838 account that they joined in 1820; 3 years before Alvin Smith’s death.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "FairMormon and apologists have to do everything they can to stretch the 1817-1818 Revival as long as possible - all the way into 1820"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Joseph mentions an "excitement" on the subject of religion, which most interpret to mean "revival."The facts: Joseph's 1832 account shows that he began to become concerned about religion at age 12, which coincides with a known 1818 revival.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "FairMormon and apologists have to do everything they can to stretch the 1817-1818 Revival as long as possible - all the way into 1820"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The fact that FairMormon and apologists have to do everything they can to stretch the 1817-1818 Revival as long as possible - all the way into 1820 - as Joseph claimed, is a testament in itself that there was no revival environment in 1820 as Joseph described and claimed in his history.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: FairMormon has never attempted to "stretch" the 1817-1818 revival into 1820: This is simply a bit of hyperbole on the part of the author.The facts: As we have noted, Joseph himself states that his interest in religion began at age 12 (1818), and there is evidence that Methodist camp meetings were being held in Palmyra in 1820. There is sufficient evidence of an "excitement" in the area on the subject of religion in 1820.

Logical Fallacy: Black-or-White—The author presents two alternative states as the only two possibilities, when more possibilities exist.

The author accepts only two possibilities: 1) there was a "revival" or 2) there wasn't a "revival." He doesn't consider the possibility of anything in between that would correlate with an excitement on the subject of religion in the Palmyra area in 1820.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "the family joined Presbyterianism after Alvin’s death in November 1823 despite Joseph Smith claiming in the official 1838 account that they joined in 1820"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

There are records from his brother, William Smith, and his mother Lucy Mack Smith, both stating that the family joined Presbyterianism after Alvin’s death in November 1823 despite Joseph Smith claiming in the official 1838 account that they joined in 1820; 3 years before Alvin Smith’s death.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "Again, Joseph's mother, Lucy, and Joseph's brother, William, both stated that the family joined Presbyterianism after Alvin's death in November 1823"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: No records exist showing when the Smith's joined the Presbyterian church.The facts: Lucy Mack Smith states that she was baptized in 1803, but did not associate herself with any congregation at that time.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Again, Joseph's mother, Lucy, and Joseph's brother, William, both stated that the family joined Presbyterianism after Alvin's death in November 1823"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Again, Joseph's mother, Lucy, and Joseph's brother, William, both stated that the family joined Presbyterianism after Alvin's death in November 1823.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Again, no records exist showing when the Smith's joined the Presbyterian church.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Why did Joseph hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, as shown previously with the Book of Mormon, if he clearly saw that the Father and Son were separate embodied beings in the official First Vision?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Why did Joseph hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, as shown previously with the Book of Mormon, if he clearly saw that the Father and Son were separate embodied beings in the official First Vision? [and] The following verses are among many verses still in the Book of Mormon that hold a Trinitarian view of the Godhead...

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The author starts with the assumption that Joseph held a Trinitarian view.The facts: There are plenty of verses in the Book of Mormon that support the concept that the Father and the Son are separate entities, just like the Bible does.

Logical Fallacy: Begging the Question—The author presents a circular argument in which the starting assumption requires the conclusion to be true.

The author starts with the assumption that Joseph held a Trinitarian view, then claims that a reading of the Book of Mormon leads to this conclusion.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "There is absolutely no record of a First Vision prior to 1832"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

There is absolutely no record of a First Vision prior to 1832.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FairMormon":
["Joseph Smith's theophany, or First Vision account, was not unprecedented or unique. There were numerous accounts by individuals claiming to have had visions or encounters with God in the years prior to and contemporary with Joseph Smith's account."|"Joseph Smith's theophany, or First Vision account, was not unprecedented or unique. There were numerous accounts by individuals claiming to have had visions or encounters with God in the years prior to and contemporary with Joseph Smith's account."]

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The statement that there is "absolutely" no evidence of it is incorrect.The facts: There is circumstantial evidence from 1830 that the vision was known.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "...the following is what LDS historian and member of the Joseph Smith Papers project, Ronald O. Barney, has to say about Fawn Brodie and her book, No Man Knows My History...Richard Bushman extensively used No Man Knows My History as a source in his Rough Stone Rolling biography of Joseph Smith."

The author(s) of Debunking FAIR's Debunking, July 2014 make(s) the following claim:

Despite FairMormon’s attempt to discredit David O. McKay’s niece, the following is what LDS historian and member of the Joseph Smith Papers project, Ronald O. Barney, has to say about Fawn Brodie and her book, No Man Knows My History:

“…her book, is by all accounts, well-written.”

“Fawn Brodie’s claims about Joseph Smith eventually brought censure to her from the Church and she was ‘un-Churched’.”

“There were some attempts to respond to what [Brodie] had to say but they were absent the kind of historical scrutiny that she had applied to the whole milieu of Joseph during his lifetime.”

Respected LDS Scholar and Historian Richard Bushman extensively used No Man Knows My History as a source in his Rough Stone Rolling biography of Joseph Smith.

Author's sources:
  1. Richard Lyman Bushman, "Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling" (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005).
  2. Joseph Smith Papers Book Review; "No Man Knows My History" by Fawn Brodie via YouTube - published by Mormon Infographics <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk_LnZQGFZY&feature=youtu.be>

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

It is fascinating that the author would try and claim this since Ronald O. Barney remains a faithful Latter-day Saint today and Fawn Brodie's book didn't damage his faith despite being the book's goal to provide alternative and authoritative secular explanations for Joseph's claims. Richard Bushman mentions Brodie and her book explicitly 7 times on the following pages in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: xxii — speaking of biographies written on Joseph--not agreeing with it, 58 — pointing out that there is no evidence for fabricating the gold plates, 85 — contrasting Brodie's skeptical and dismissive view of the Book of Mormon with faithful views and sympathetic non-Latter-day Saint views of it, 91 — summarizing (but not agreeing to) skeptical theories of the Book of Mormon and how Brodie dismissed the Spaulding Theory and instead relied on the View of the Hebrews theory of authorship, 159 — summarizing Brodie's view of where Joseph got theology of priesthood (he then responds by showing how Joseph moved in opposite directions theologically for his day with regards to priesthood), 179 — responding to and refuting Brodie's claims surrounding Eli and Marinda Johnson, and 441 — agreeing with Brodie about Joseph's non-libertine sensibility: "As Fawn Brodie wrote: 'There was too much of a Puritan' in Joseph for him to be a 'careless libertine.'" In every instance he is either describing her work, agreeing to a positive claim about Joseph, or responding to a negative assertion of Brodie's. After a careful review of the footnotes, Brodie is cited a total of 10 times in Bushman's book. 10 times out of 2,058 citations with 2-5 sources listed per citation. The author's claim is fundamentally deceptive and wrong. Brodie's book was well-written, but it wasn't well-argued. It relied mostly on hostile sources to make her case. Newer scholarship has largely replaced her portrait of Joseph.[1]


Response to claim: "For something that excited the “public mind against me”… where are the records?"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

For something that excited the “public mind against me” and created “a bitter persecution” which were “all united to persecute me…reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me…,” where are the records? Newspaper clippings? Witness accounts? Something? Anything? Not even “anti-Mormon” literature record any claims of a First Vision until the 1840s.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Consider the author's scenario: A local 14-year-old farm boy living on the frontier claims to have seen God in a vision.The local newspapers, and everyone that he comes into contact with afterward, immediately feel it is important enough to document, because, of course, everyone is likely to have believed him. We think not. The author naively assumes that the local newspaper would be aware of or even interested in relating the story of a 14-year-old boy who claimed to see God and Jesus Christ, or that the ministers that he told of his experience, who rebuked him, would have recorded it somewhere.The facts: Nevertheless, there is good deal circumstantial evidence to indicate that Joseph had the experience that he claimed to have had.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Joseph Smith's theophany, or First Vision account, was not unprecedented or unique."

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Smith's theophany, or First Vision account, was not unprecedented or unique. There were numerous accounts by individuals claiming to have had visions or encounters with God in the years prior to and contemporary with Joseph Smith's account.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

There were a number of people who claimed to have similar experiences. However, Joseph's has some unique details.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "this actually confirms the point I’m making in that the first vision was unknown to the Saints and the world before 1832"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

After scouring through everything, the best FairMormon can do is this? This actually confirms the point I’m making in that the First Vision was unknown to the Saints and the world before 1832. In fact, most of the Saints were unaware of a First Vision until it was published in 1842.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The author cannot conclude that the absence of documentation means that the First Vision was "unknown to the Saints and the world" before 1832. Circumstantial evidence indicates otherwise.The facts: Elements consistent with the First Vision story appear in publications as early as 1827, and Church publications as early as 1830.

Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading—The author creates a one-sided argument by including favorable data and excluding unfavorable data through improper means. In this case, the author "moved the goalpost" by changing his argument when his original claim was shown to be false.

When it was demonstrated that Church writings did contain elements related to the First Vision prior to 1832, the author changed his claim:
  • In the original CES Letter, the author "made the point" that there was "absolutely no record of the First Vision prior to 1832". (This assertion is false)
  • In "Debunking FairMormon," the author changes his argument to "making the point" that "the first vision was unknown to the Saints and the world before 1832" to accommodate the fact that there were relevant writings prior to 1832.

Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "In the 1832 account, Joseph said that before praying he knew that there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

In the 1832 account, Joseph said that before praying he knew that there was no true or living faith or denomination upon the earth as built by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. His primary purpose in going to prayer was to seek forgiveness of his sins. . . .In the official 1838 account, Joseph said his “object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join”…”(for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)”. This is in direct contradiction to his 1832 First Vision account.
See also the followup(s) to this claim from "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (20 July 2014 revision):
Response to claim: "Joseph Fielding Smith, upon discovering the 1832 account, ripped out the pages out of the letter book"

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: How would Joseph, at age 14, have determined that there was no true "denomination upon the earth" by examining the few churches that he had access to in Palmyra? He may have determined that none of the ones that he was familiar with were true, but how would he know that there wasn't one on the entire earth unless he asked God during his vision?

Logical Fallacy: Composition/Division—The author assumed that one part of something had to be applied to everything.

Joseph stated that at age 14 that he had determined that there was no true church upon the earth prior to the First Vision. Joseph had access to, at best, four or five churches within the Palmyra area, and therefore based his assumption upon what he knew. During his vision, he asked Jesus Christ if there was a true church upon the earth. This is entirely logical.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Joseph Fielding Smith, upon discovering the 1832 account, ripped out the pages out of the letter book"

The author(s) of "Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director) (20 July 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Fielding Smith, upon discovering the 1832 account, ripped out the pages out of the letter book. He then took the ripped documents and hid them in his personal safe where they were hidden out of circulation for three decades until the mid-1960s. Upon learning that Church enemies, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, were aware of these documents, Joseph Fielding Smith removed the documents out of his personal safe and had them taped back into Joseph’s letter book that he removed decades earlier.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

It is not known who removed the pages from the book or why. It does seem likely that an authority in the Church Historian’s office would have done such a thing. But for nefarious purposes? That’s disputed. Why would JFS refuse the Tanners’ petition but give the copy of the 1832 account to Paul Cheesman when doing his thesis in 1965? Knowing JFS’ personal history may offer some light on the situation.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Brian Hales: CES Letter 22 to 23 First Vision

LDS Truth Claims: Criticism from 1st Vision and Priesthood Restoration


Notes

  1. ↑ Richard Lyman Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1987); Joseph Smith Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005); Jan Shipps, "The Prophet Puzzle: Suggestions Leading Toward a More Comprehensive Interpretation of Joseph Smith," Journal of Mormon History 1 (1974): 3–20; Ronald O. Barney, Joseph Smith: History, Methods, and Memory (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2020).


Articles about the CES Letter
Overview
Brief responses and additional resources, CES Letter sections
Detailed responses, CES Letter sections

Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director
Chart CES Letter book of abraham.png

Included below:


Response to claim: "scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

scholars have found the original papyrus Joseph translated

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Scholars have found fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Among the fragments is the original for Book of Abraham Facsimile 1. The original papyri containing Facsimile 2 and Facsimile 3 is not among them. One cannot conclude that what we have today is the portion of the papyrus that Joseph translated.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "scholars...have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

scholars...have dated it in first century AD, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham could have written it.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The papyri fragments recovered date to after the Abrahamic period. The biggest thing to differentiate is a text and a manuscript. An original text may be ancient or have elements that date to an earlier date and a manuscript may be a copy of a copy of a copy that go to a later date.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Egyptologists have found the source material for the Book of Abraham to be nothing more than a common pagan Egyptian funerary text for a deceased man named “Hor” in 1st century AD. In other words, it was a common Breathing Permit that the Egyptians buried with their dead.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The author words his statement in such a way as to make it sound as if this is a recent event, and that this discovery was forced to light by non-Mormon Egyptologists. This is not the case.The facts: The Church announced in 1968 that the papryi fragments contained a funerary text in the official magazine, the Improvement Era.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "It has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

[The Joseph Smith papyri] has absolutely nothing to do with Abraham or anything Joseph claimed in his translation for the Book of Abraham.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

The existing fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri are not related to the Book of Abraham with the exception of the original for Facsimile 1, a fact that the Church noted in 1968 in the official church magazine, the Improvement Era. There is evidence that helps us associate the to Abraham and traditions about him.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: Facsimile 1 "The Abraham scene is wrong"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The Abraham scene is wrong.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

Facsimile 1 is one of the most studied and best attested of the facsimiles in antiquity.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The following image is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

[The Charles Larson restoration] is what Facsimile 1 is really supposed to look like, based on Egyptology and the same scene discovered elsewhere in Egypt.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is false

The Charles Larson restoration has a number of inaccuracies.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "The following images show similar funerary scenes which have been discovered elsewhere in Egypt"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The following images shows the same funeral scene which has been discovered elsewhere in Egypt. (April 2013)

The following images show similar funerary scenes which have been discovered elsewhere in Egypt. (October 2014)

Notice that the jackal-headed Egyptian god of death and afterlife Anubis is consistent in every funerary scene.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Facsimile 1 does not portray the preparation of a mummy by Anubis - the figure on the "lion couch" is alive and is wearing clothes.The facts: This type of scene is interpreted as the resurrection of Osiris. It therefore is not the "same funeral scene" that is illustrated elsewhere.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The following ["mormoninfographic"] is a side-by-side comparison of what Joseph Smith translated in Facsimile #2 versus what it actually says according to Egyptologists and modern Egyptology.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim is based upon correct information - The author is providing knowledge concerning some particular fact, subject, or event

We don't know everything about facsimile 2 and how it was supposed to be translated. For now, we see that Joseph appears to have gotten a few things right.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Joseph Smith said that this is 'God sitting on his throne'. It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

One of the most disturbing facts I discovered in my research of Facsimile 2 is figure #7. Joseph Smith said that this is “God sitting on his throne…” It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex. Min is sitting on a throne with an erect penis (which can be seen in the figure). In other words, Joseph Smith is saying that this figure with an erect penis is Heavenly Father sitting on his throne.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: This is a point of mockery used by critics because they know that it offends 21st century sensibilities regarding the manner in which we ought to portray God.The facts: This wasn't a big issue as far as the Egyptians were concerned.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: Facsimile 3, "Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Egyptologists state that Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri and facsimiles are gibberish and have absolutely nothing to do with what the papyri and facsimiles actually are and what they actually say....Facsimile #3:


Joseph misidentifies the Egyptian god Osiris as Abraham.
Misidentifies the Egyptian god Isis as the Pharaoh.
Misidentifies the Egyptian god Maat as the Prince of the Pharaoh.
Misidentifies the Egyptian god Anubis as a slave.
Misidentifies the dead Hor as a waiter.


Joseph misidentifies – twice – a female as a male.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: The fact that Joseph deliberately identified two female figures as male should provide a clue to the fact that he was applying a parallel interpretation to the figure, and that it won't match what Egyptologists would produce.The facts: It is significant, however, that Joseph correctly notes two concepts that are present in other ancient texts: Abraham being seated next to Pharoah, and that Abraham taught the Egyptians astronomy. Another cool evidence for the Facsimile can be read about here.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12."

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

5. 86% of Book of Abraham chapters 2, 4, and 5 are King James Version Genesis chapters 1, 2, 11, and 12. Sixty-six out of seventy-seven verses are quotations or close paraphrases of King James Version wording. – An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins , p.19


The Book of Abraham is supposed to be an ancient text written thousands of years ago “by his own hand upon papyrus.” What are 17th century King James Version text doing in there? What does this say about the book being anciently written by Abraham?

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There are significant differences in both text and narrative between the Genesis and Book of Abraham accounts of Abraham's life. Both narratives contain earmarks of antiquity. We have already responded to the author's question about "by his own hand on papyrus". KJV text can be included as part of the Book of Abraham as a functionally sufficient translation. That is, it can accomplish the purpose that God and Joseph Smith have for it adequately.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Abraham?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Why are there anachronisms in the Book of Abraham? Chaldeans? Egyptus? Pharaoh? Abraham refers to the facsimiles in 1:12 and 1:14. These facsimiles did not exist in Abraham’s time as they are 1st century CE pagan Egyptian funerary documents.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

There are ways to understand alleged anachronisms in the Book of Abraham if we are open to it not representing, in every single respect, at this very moment, a first-person narrative written by the historic Abraham himself.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "the sun gets its light from Kolob...The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun gets its light from Kolob. (April 2013)

Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun receives its “light from the revolutions of Kolob.” (October 2014)

We now know that the process of nuclear fusion is what makes the stars and suns shine. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal, and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion; not because it gets its light from any other star as claimed by the Book of Abraham.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Book of Abraham does not state that the sun "gets it light" or "receives its light" from Kolob or from "from any other star." It states that the sun will "borrow its light from Kolob". It is not talking about actual light in the form of photons. It is certainly not disputing the notion that photons are emitted from the Sun.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

  • The author avoids the implications of the term "borrow," which has nothing to do with visible light in the form of photons.
  • The author incorrectly reinterprets the argument to the Sun "getting" or "receiving" light from Kolob.
  • The author refutes his own simplified assertion.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled 'The Philosophy of the Future State'"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Smith owned a copy of the book [Thomas Dick's book Philosophy of a Future State.] and Oliver Cowdery quoted some lengthy excerpts from the book in the December 1836 Messenger and Advocate."

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Joseph owned the book, but there is no evidence that it was used in the dictation of the Book of Abraham. Critics of the Church try to infer a connection without any evidence. There is, in fact, evidence of contrasting views.

Logical Fallacy: False Cause—The author assumes that a real or perceived relationship between two events means that one caused the other.

  • The author notes that Joseph Smith owned a copy of Thomas Dick's book Philosophy of a Future State.
  • The author concludes that Joseph must have used the book in the creation of the Book of Abraham.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (April 2013 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland was directly asked about the papyri not matching the Book of Abraham in a March 2012 BBC interview:

Sweeney: Mr. Smith got this papyri and he translated them and subsequently as the Egyptologists cracked the code something completely different…

Holland: (Interrupts) All I’m saying…all I’m saying is that what got translated got translated into the word of God. The vehicle for that, I do not understand and don’t claim to know and know Egyptian.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The spin: Critics of the Church constantly promote the idea that General Authorities are dishonest, yet they complain when one says "I don't claim to know".The facts: Elder Holland was asked this question and honestly answered that he didn't understand the exact method by which the Book of Abraham was produced.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Response to claim: "Is 'I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God' really the best answer that a 'prophet, seer, and revelator' can come up with to such a profound problem?"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

Is “I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God” really the best answer that a “prophet, seer, and revelator” can come up with to such a profound problem that is driving many members out of the Church?

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: Elder Holland did not say anything equivalent to "I don’t know and I don’t understand but it’s the word of God."The facts: Elder Holland said that "what got translated got translated into the word of God," meaning that he knows that Joseph received the text of the Book of Abraham through revelation. Elder Holland then stated that he did not know or understand "the vehicle for that," meaning that he does not know the exact method by which the revelation of the Book of Abraham was accomplished. Elder Holland believes that the Book of Abraham was revealed to Joseph - he does not claim to know the mechanism by which this was done.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman—The author sets up a weakened or caricatured version of the opponent's argument. The author then proceeds to demolish the weak version of the argument, and claim victory.

  • Elder Holland stated "what got translated got translated into the word of God" and that he did not claim to know or understand "the vehicle" by which it was translated.
  • The author restates and simplifies Elder Holland's position as "I don't know and I don't understand but it's the word of God."

Response to claim: "The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham"

The author(s) of Letter to a CES Director (October 2014 revision) make(s) the following claim:

The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The mistake: The Church did not "concede" in its essay that "Joseph's translation of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what's in the Book of Abraham."The facts: The Church noted that "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham." The Church actually acknowledged this in 1968 in the official Church magazine, the Improvement Era, over 47 years ago. Since then it has received mention in the Ensign, it has been studied vigorously by scholars including Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Brian Hauglid, and others and published about in BYU studies, FARMS, and other organizations. Nibley's work has been available in Deseret Book. It's really not new.


Longer response(s) to criticism:

Citation abuse in Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay: B.H. Roberts comment on the Book of Abraham

Citation abuse in the "Letter to a CES Director":

"Elder B.H. Roberts, LDS Scholar and General Authority, Comprehensive History of the Church 2:138"

FairMormon Response


“That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.”

—Jonathan Swift

Question: Why did the author of the Letter to a CES Director take a quote from B.H. Roberts in which Roberts was paraphrasing someone with whom he disagreed, and then make it appear as if it were Roberts' own opinion?

The citation: B.H. Roberts: "If Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be proven discredited..."

Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay: "Jeremy Runnells and the Book of Abraham" presents a quote from B.H. Roberts in order to demonstrate that Roberts believed that if the translation of the papyri of the Book of Abraham was not validated by non-Mormon Egyptologists, that it would invalidate Joseph Smith's claim to have been a prophet. The author presents the quote as follows:

“If Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be proven discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon, and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught.” – Elder B.H. Roberts, LDS Scholar and General Authority, Comprehensive History of the Church 2:138

B.H. Roberts quote presented in Jeremy Runnells' Response and Rebuttal to Brian M. Hauglid's Rational Faiths Essay: "Jeremy Runnells and the Book of Abraham"

Note: The author of the Letter to a CES Director inaccurately transcribed the Roberts quote: The first occurrence of the word "proven" should not be there. The author appears to have simply copied it from another secondary source rather than examining the primary source.

The reality: B.H. Roberts: "The 'collapse of Mormonism' was confidently looked for in some quarters; for if Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited...Nothing of this kind happened"

The quote from Roberts is actually a paraphrase of a criticism of the Book of Abraham offered in 1912 by the Rev. F. S. Spalding. This is not Roberts' opinion: it is Roberts phrasing of Spalding's opinion. Note in particular that Roberts was stating that Spalding's prediction that this would spell the "collapse of Mormonism" was unfulfilled:

[T]he "collapse of Mormonism" was confidently looked for in some quarters; for if Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon; and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught. "It is the belief," wrote Bishop Spalding, "that the honest searchers for truth among the Latter-day Saints will welcome the opinions of authoritative scholars, and, if necessary, courageously readjust their system of belief, however radical a revolution of thought may be required, that the following judgments of the world's greatest Egyptologists have been ascertained." (Joseph Smith, Jun., as a Translator, p. 19). Nothing of this kind happened however, "Mormonism" was not moved a peg by the critique.

The full story

Here is Roberts' full quote, with the portion extracted by the author of the Letter to a CES Director highlighted in blue:

In 1912 a widespread interest was awakened in the Book of Abraham by the publication of a brochure, by Rt. Rev. F. S. Spalding, D. D. Episcopal Bishop of Utah, under the title Joseph Smith, Jun., as a Translator. The bishop submitted the facsimiles of some of the parchment pages from which the Book of Abraham had been translated, (copies of which accompany this chapter) to a number of the foremost of present day Egyptian scholars. These were Dr. A. H. Sayce, Oxford, England; Dr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, London University; James H. Breasted, Ph. D., Haskel Oriental Museum, University of Chicago; Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assistant Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, Department of Egyptian Art; Dr. John Peters, University of Penn., in charge of Expedition to Babylonia, 1888-1895; Rev. Prof, C. A. B. Mercer, Ph. D., Western Theological Seminary, Custodian Hibbard Collections, Egyptian Reproductions; two German scholars—Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin; and Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissin, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich—eight in all. Speaking of the result obtained from the submission of these facsimiles to these foremost Egyptologists, Bishop Spalding says: "It will be seen that there is practically complete agreement as to the real meaning of the hieroglyphics, and that this meaning is altogether different from that of Joseph Smith's translation." (Joseph Smith, Jun., as a Translator, p. 19). He also says that "The opinions were obtained from the scholars themselves, and in no case did one man know the opinion of another" (Ibid).

The seeming triumph of the bishop's test of the "Mormon" Prophet's ability to translate ancient languages correctly by inspiration from God, was much commented upon throughout the United States, and especially by the religious press; and the "collapse of Mormonism" was confidently looked for in some quarters; for if Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited, and proven false, then doubt would be thrown also upon the genuineness of his translation of the Book of Mormon; and thus all his pretensions as a translator would be exposed and come to naught. "It is the belief," wrote Bishop Spalding, "that the honest searchers for truth among the Latter-day Saints will welcome the opinions of authoritative scholars, and, if necessary, courageously readjust their system of belief, however radical a revolution of thought may be required, that the following judgments of the world's greatest Egyptologists have been ascertained." (Joseph Smith, Jun., as a Translator, p. 19). Nothing of this kind happened however, "Mormonism" was not moved a peg by the critique. So far as known there were not a score of Latter-day Saints whose faith was affected by the Spalding brochure. There were no Egyptian scholars in the church of the Latter-day Saints who could make an effective answer to the conclusions of the eight scholars who in various ways pronounced against the correctness of Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchments that so strangely fell into his hands; but a number of articles were written by elders of the church pointing out the bias of the scholars and some evident defects in the treatment of the subject; and also reviews of Bishop Spalding's arguments.[1]

Why does the author of the Letter to a CES Director consider B.H. Roberts a "scholar" in this case?

B.H. Roberts was the most notable LDS apologist of the early 20th-century

The author of the Letter to a CES Director, who considers all Latter-day Saint scholars merely "apologists" and not worthy of attention, calls B.H. Roberts a "scholar" in this case. Roberts was indeed a scholar, but he was also the most notable Latter-day Saint apologist of the early 20th-century.

Here's what the author of the Letter to a CES Director thinks of the distinction between "scholar" and "apologist" as he attacks Brian Hales' scholarship:

Hales is not a scholar. He's an anesthesiologist who hired Don Bradley to do his research for him. He then wrote 3 books using his employee's homework. Author? Sure. Apologist? Yes. Amateur? Yes. Scholar? No. He's an apologist disguising himself as a scholar. The real scholars in the field of polygamy have issues with many of Hales' conclusions and interpretations. Anyone with big bucks and writing skills can do what Brian did. All you have to do is hire guys like Don Bradley to do all the work for you and then you throw the stuff in a nice hardcover book with your name on it.[2]

Could it be because the author of the Letter to a CES Director in this case calls B.H. Roberts a "scholar" because thinks that Roberts said something that he agrees with...that is, after he modified Roberts' quote to remove the portions he disagreed with? Remember, B.H. Roberts, LDS Scholar and General Authority, said "The 'collapse of Mormonism' was confidently looked for in some quarters; for if Joseph Smith's translation of the Egyptian parchment could be discredited...Nothing of this kind happened."


LDS Truth Claims: The Book of Abraham


Notes

  1. ↑ B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, 6 vols. (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 1976), 2:138.
  2. ↑ Jeremy Runnells, author of the "Letter to a CES Director". Posted on "Who's the Real Amateur?" Ploni Almoni: Mr. So-and-So's Mormon Blog, July 16, 2014, https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2014/07/whos-real-amateur.html.


Response to section "Polygamy/Polyandry Concerns & Questions"

Summary: Regarding Joseph's practice of polygamy, the author states that "Joseph Smith’s pattern of behavior or modus operandi for a period of at least 10 years of his adult life was to keep secrets, be deceptive, and be dishonest – both privately and publicly."


Jump to details:


Response to section "Prophets Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author expresses concern about changes in doctrine. For example, "As a believing member, I had no idea that Joseph Smith gave the priesthood to black men. I’m supposed to go to the drawing board now and believe in a god who is not only a schizophrenic racist but who is inconsistent as well? Again, yesterday’s doctrine is today’s false doctrine. Yesterday’s 10 prophets are today’s heretics."


Jump to details:


Response to section "Kinderhook Plates and Translator/Seer Claims Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author claims that, "Joseph Smith made a scientific claim that he could translate ancient documents. This is a testable claim. Joseph failed the test with the Book of Abraham. He failed the test with the Kinderhook Plates."


Jump to details:


Response to section "Testimony/Spiritual Witness Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author asks the question, "Why is this Spirit so unreliable and inconsistent? How can I trust such an inconsistent and contradictory Source for knowing that Mormonism is worth betting my life, time, money, heart, mind, and obedience to?" This section touches on themes of epistemology.


Jump to details:


Response to section "Priesthood Restoration Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author states, "Like the First Vision story, none of the members of the Church or Joseph Smith’s family had ever heard prior to 1834 about a priesthood restoration from John the Baptist or Peter, James, and John. Although the priesthood is now taught to have been restored in 1829, Joseph and Oliver made no such claim until 1834. Why did it take five years for Joseph or Oliver to tell members of the Church about the priesthood?"


Jump to details:


Response to section "Witnesses Concerns & Questions"

Summary: Regarding the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, the author states, "At the end of the day? It all doesn’t matter. The Book of Mormon Witnesses and their testimonies of the gold plates are irrelevant. It does not matter whether eleven 19th century treasure diggers with magical worldviews saw some gold plates or not. It doesn’t matter because of this one simple fact: Joseph did not use the gold plates for translating the Book of Mormon."


Jump to details:


Response to section "Temples & Freemasonry Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author of the letter asks, "Does the eternal salvation, eternal happiness, and eternal sealings of families really depend on medieval originated Masonic rituals in multi-million dollar castles? Is God really going to separate good couples and their children who love one other and who want to be together in the next life because they object to uncomfortable and strange Masonic temple rituals and a polygamous heaven?" We respond to these questions in this article.


Jump to details:


Response to section "Science Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author concludes that "The problem Mormonism encounters is that so many of its claims are well within the realm of scientific study, and as such, can be proven or disproven. To cling to faith in these areas, where the overwhelming evidence is against it, is willful ignorance, not spiritual dedication."

Science is embraced by Mormonism and understanding the past is something we believe helpful to being more perfectly instructed in all things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Our theology is not threatened by science (D&C 88: 78-79).


Jump to details:


Response to section "Scriptures Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author states that "To believe in the scriptures, I have to believe in a god who endorsed murder, genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, selling daughters into sex slavery, polygamy, child abuse, stoning disobedient children, pillage, plunder, sexism, racism, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice, killing people who work on the Sabbath, death penalty for those who mix cotton with polyester, and so on."


Jump to details:


Response to section "Other Concerns & Questions"

Summary: The author notes that, "Under [Quentin L.] Cook’s counsel, FAIR and unofficial LDS apologetic websites are anti-Mormon sources that should be avoided. Not only do they introduce to Mormons 'internet materials that magnify, exaggerate, and in some cases invent shortcomings of early Church leaders' but they provide many ridiculous answers with logical fallacies and omissions while leaving members confused and hanging with a bizarre version of Mormonism."


Jump to details:


Response to section "Conclusion"

Summary: The author concludes, "FAIR and these unofficial apologists have done more to destroy my testimony than any anti-Mormon source ever could. I found their version of Mormonism to be alien and foreign to the Chapel Mormonism that I grew up in attending Church, seminary, reading scriptures, General Conferences, EFY, mission, and BYU. Their answers are not only contradictory to the scriptures and teachings I learned through correlated Mormonism…they’re truly bizarre."


Jump to details:


"Debunking FAIR’s Debunking" (also known as "Debunking FairMormon" - from the author of the Letter to a CES Director)

Summary: The author of the Letter to a CES Director spent approximately eight months and over 500 pages responding to FairMormon's analysis of the CES Letter. He calls this document "Debunking FairMormon". The document incorporates our original summary responses and the author responds line-by-line to reassert his original claims.

Citation abuse associated with various revision of the Letter to a CES Director and associated documents by the same author.

Summary: Examples of citation abuse in the Letter to a CES Director which demonstrate quote mining and quote duplications in order to make the hostile quotes appear to be more numerous.

The author's "open letter" to Elder Quentin L. Cook

Summary: Six months prior to writing the "Letter to a CES Director," the author posted an "Open Letter" to Elder Quentin L. Cook in an online ex-Mormon forum. This "open letter" represents a good summary of the issues that he would later cover in the "CES letter."

Attempts to "spread the word" about the CES Letter and media response.

Summary: Efforts to "spread the word" using the CES Letter involve vandalism and email spam.

Ad hominem case study: An attempt to discredit Brian Hales as a scholar

Summary: The author of A Letter to a CES Director attempts to discredit Brian Hales as a scholar without addressing his work.

Ad hominem case study: An attempt to portray FairMormon as delusional, dishonest and deceptive

Summary: The author of A Letter to a CES Director attempts to dismiss members of FairMormon as "delusional, dishonest and deceptive."

Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, "Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay"

Kevin Christensen,  Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship, (2014)
In his Letter to a CES Director, Jeremy Runnells explains how a year of obsessive investigation brought about the loss of his testimony. In an LDS FAQ, LDS blogger Jeff Lindsay deals with all of the same questions, and has done so at least twenty years and has not only an intact testimony, but boundless enthusiasm. What makes the difference? In the parable of the Sower, Jesus explained that the same seeds (words) can generate completely different harvests, ranging from nothing to a hundred-fold increase, all depending on the different soil and nurture. This essay looks at how different expectations and inquiries for translation, prophets, key scriptural passages on representative issues can lead to very different outcomes for investigators.

Click here to view the complete article

The FAIR Blog responds to these questions

Jeff Lindsay,"Coping with the “Big List” of Attacks on the LDS Faith", FAIR Blog, (May 20, 2014)


One of the challenges in defending one’s faith is coping with critics who use the “Big List” technique in their attack. This involves throwing out numerous arguments to create the impression of an overwhelming barrage that decimates the faith in question (see the related post, “If Only 10% of These Charges Are True…“). The Big List is loaded with barbed questions that weren’t written in search of a real answer. If there is a good defense to the arguments raised at first, never mind, there are many more to be launched in different directions.


As with many topics in fields like history, science, and religion, the issues raised in Big List attacks are often complex and may require exploring abundant details to answer questions properly. Even for those who are prepared to answer questions on a wide variety of topics, the time it takes to lay a foundation and properly answer a question can be taken by the instantly impatient critics as an admission of weakness and confirmation that they are right, and then it’s time to move on to the next attack and the next. If reasonable answers are promptly provided for some attacks, or if the alleged weakness on further examination actually proves to be evidence in favor of the faithful position, the response can be ignored as new attacks from the Big List are hurled out.

Click here to view the complete article

Daniel C. Peterson, "Some Reflections On That Letter To a CES Director"

Daniel C. Peterson,  Proceedings of the 2014 FairMormon Conference, (8 August 2014)
Some of you don’t know what the “Letter to a CES Director” is. It’s a letter that’s been circulating online for about a year now…a year and a half, I think, as far as I know, that has gotten quite a bit of circulation. It’s a kind of compendium of standard critical arguments against the truth claims of the Church. ....I don’t object to the attempt in the “Letter to a CES Director” to subject the claims of Mormonism to reasoned examination. I just don’t think the effort went nearly far or deep enough.

Click here to view the complete article


This set of articles comprises approximately 580 questions or sources assigned to the response to Letter to a CES Director. A full list of these articles may be found here: Category:Letter to a CES Director. New questions and sources are periodically added to this list.

Notes



A FAIR Analysis of:
"Letter to a CES Director: Why I Lost My Testimony" and "Debunking FairMormon"
A work by author: Jeremy Runnells
∗       ∗       ∗
Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Online_documents/Letter_to_a_CES_Director&oldid=214864"