• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

FAIR

2022 FAIR Conference Tickets are on sale now!

  • Find Answers
  • Blog
  • Media & Apps
  • Conference
  • Bookstore
  • Archive
  • About
  • Get Involved
  • Search

CES Letter

From Anglican Minister to Relief Society Sister – Interview with Jennifer Roach

December 28, 2019 by NickGalieti

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/p/www.ldsmissioncast.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/LMC-Jennifer-Roach-Interview.mp3

Podcast: Download (53.4MB)

Subscribe: RSS

Jennifer Roach podcast PromoEarly on in life, Jennifer Roach was raised in a broadly Evangelical Christian setting. Being taught the Bible early on, Jennifer has had a love for sacred scripture. Her inquisitive nature and her spiritual passion took her to Divinity School, where she earned a Masters Degree in Divinity. Through her studies, she became interested in the Anglican faith where she became an ordained Anglican Minister.

Through interactions with a Latter-day Saint reporter that was covering a story to which Jennifer was involved earlier in life, Jennifer would ask questions about the faith she was taught was evil and should be avoided. Her inquisitive nature brought her to ask several questions over email, and to begin a study of the Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon.

One day as she was driving to work, she stopped and saw some Sister Missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, walking the side of the road. She felt impressed to stop and connect with them. She took a selfie with the Sisters and sent it to her reporter friend, Garth Stapley, to show that she was actually going to talk with the missionaries.

This is the selfie she took with the Sister Missionaries – to prove to her friend Garth that she was actually going to talk to the missionaries. Sister Murdock and Sister Porter.

Later that week, Jennifer would receive another visit from some Elder’s at her home…in a different mission area.

Over the next 9 months Jennifer would go through some amazing experiences, address a number of questions both at Church and with the Missionaries, before being baptized a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Listen to this episode of the Latter-day Saint MissionCast to hear the full story.

Jennifer would encounter a number of online sources about the Church, some positive, some negative, including the CES Letter. She would use sources, like FairMormon and the Gospel Topics essays to help her navigate the many questions she had. Her research brought her to a faithful position, and one that has helped her endure the challenges that have come to her life as a result of her decision.

This episode is the first time that Jennifer has told this story to the general public in a podcast. If you want to follow her blog and connect with Jennifer, visit her blog myconvertlife.com

This episode was produced and first released on the Latter-day Saint MissionCast. The Latter-day Saint MissionCast is not a production of FairMormon.

Filed Under: Missionary Work', Nick Galieti, Podcast, Questions, Testimonies Tagged With: CES Letter, missionary work

The CES Letter 50 to 65 Witnesses Continued

June 25, 2016 by Brian Hales

In Video Five in the FairMormon series: “The CES Letter, A Closer Look” Brian Hales examines claims posted by Jeremy Runnells in his “Letter to a CES Director”.

+

The CES Letter 50 to 65 Witnesses Continued

This video continues to examine The CES Letter’s treatment of the Book of Mormon witnesses on pages 50 to 65. Obviously hypnosis could not explain their experiences, but what about religious frenzy and hysteria? Also, alleged parallels to other testimonies regarding James J. Strang, and The Book and the Roll are scrutinized. In the end, the attempts of naturalists’ and The CES Letter to explain away the declarations of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses seem inadequate.

Brian C. Hales is the author of The CES Letter: A Closer Look, as well as seven books dealing with Mormon polygamy—most notably the three-volume, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Book of Mormon Tagged With: Brian Hales, CES Letter, Joseph Smith, Three Witnesses

The CES Letter 43 to 44 Kinderhook Plates

June 12, 2016 by Brian Hales

In Video Three in the FairMormon series: “The CES Letter, A Closer Look” Brian Hales examines claims posted by Jeremy Runnells in his “Letter to a CES Director”. Installments in the series run every Monday and can also be found on the FairMormon youtube channel.

kinder

Pages 43 and 44 of The CES Letter contain a discussion of the Kinderhook plates, which were an 1843 attempt to deceive Joseph Smith. Charges that he translated the bogus plates as he had translated the Book of Mormon have circulated for decades. However, in 2012, Don Bradley, with the help of Mark Ashurst-McGee, uncovered plain evidence showing that the “translation” of the Kinderhook plates occurred by comparing one symbol on the plates with one symbol in Joseph’s Egyptian Alphabet lexicon. As evidence of Joseph Smith being a fraud, this accusation should be dismissed by even the most hardened unbelievers. Nevertheless, it continues to occupy two pages in The CES Letter.

brian-hales-67Brian C. Hales is the author of The CES Letter: A Closer Look, as well as seven books dealing with Mormon polygamy—most notably the three-volume, Joseph Smith’s Polygamy: History and Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2013). His Modern Polygamy and Mormon Fundamentalism: The Generations after the Manifesto received the “Best Book of 2007 Award” from the John Whitmer Historical Association. He has presented at numerous meetings and symposia and published articles in the Journal of Mormon History, Mormon Historical Studies, Dialogue, as well as contributing chapters to The Persistence of Polygamy series. Much of his research materials are available at  www.MormonPolygamyDocuments.org.

 

Filed Under: Joseph Smith Tagged With: Brian Hales, CES Letter, kinderhook plates

Articles of Faith 5: Kevin Christensen on Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay

June 2, 2014 by NickGalieti

https://media.blubrry.com/mormonfaircast/p/www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/AOF-Episode5-KevinChristensen.mp3

Podcast: Download (56.3MB)

Subscribe: RSS

kevin-christensenKevin Christensen has been a technical writer since 1984, He has a Bachelors in English from San Jose State University.  He has published articles in Dialogue, Sunstone, the FARMS Review of Books, the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Insights, the Meridian Magazine, including his article in the Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture entitled 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 comes to us today by phone to discuss that article. (The article is not yet public-visit The Interpreter website to find the text when available.)

Some questions from the interview:

Some of your prior articles for the Interpreter have been dealing with Temple Mysticism and temple theology with an emphasis on the works of Margret Barker, a Methodist who seems to be making her way into the minds of some LDS scholars. This article that you have coming out in the Interpreter has very little if anything to do with such a topic; what brought about the shift in topic?

The title of the article is perhaps a bit verbose so I guess it serves as both the abstract and the title, it is Eye of the Beholder, Law of the Harvest: Observations on the Inevitable Consequences of the Different Investigative Approaches of Jeremy Runnells and Jeff Lindsay. Without knowing the two individuals Jeremy Runnels and Jeff Lindsay the article might be of a diminished value. Why don’t you give a summary of who these two men are and why they are the subjects or case studies of your article?

In a recent devotional at BYU Idaho, Elder D. Todd Christoferson invited the audience to have patience when doing investigation of the history of the church, and its teachings. In some ways it seems as if the subtext of that statement is that if you stop half way you will inevitably find yourself in a faith crisis. The only way to a faithful conclusion is to be diligent in learning by study and by faith. You insert a theory on just such a thing with your article, what is that hypothesis?

You put on a sort of spiritual doctor or maybe even a spiritual mathematician kind of hat as you write this article. I won’t call it an autopsy or audit of Jeremy Runnells spiritual journey, but rather an analysis or a diagnosis of how one comes to negative conclusions about the LDS faith. There is even an equation that you employ to describe this process, can you explain those two, let’s call them, equations?

I want to read a paragraph from your article as an introduction to my next question: “The familiar fable of Henny Penny (also known as Chicken Little) makes a related point. In the fable, a chicken interprets the fall of an acorn as evidence that “The sky is falling!” Another interpretation of exactly the same event would be that “The sky is not falling, but just an acorn. No big deal. No crisis. Acorns fall from oak trees all the time. It’s natural and to be expected.” Another character in the more cautionary versions of the fable, Foxy Loxy, sees not a crisis, or a non-event, but an opportunity to exploit fear and ignorance for his own gain. Same data. Different interpretation. The information does not speak for itself, but must be interpreted within an informational context and a conceptual framework.” This echo’s your title, the Eye of the Beholder. How we see things greatly informs our decisions. This is perhaps not that new a concept for some, but what is happening in the subtext of that statement is putting the onus on one’s spirituality and the way they take their spiritual path is their own fault. In other words Chicken Little’s interpretation of the sky falling is not the acorns fault. Nor is it the tree’s fault. These things just happen naturally. How them does this play into viewing the Jeremy Runnels of the world? For that matter, the Jeff Lindsay’s as well?

You pose the question or the situation, “what are we to do with the issue of perfection, meaning perfection of translation, etc.” That was an opening critique of the CES Letter, and that ends up being a pivotal start in determining Runnells mindset. How so?

When it comes to some of the arguments against latter-day Saint teachings, there is often a complaint about a given topic, such as prophets, but rarely offers an alternative definition. It is not so much that these individuals think that they are right, but that others are wrong.

You continue to go down the row, not necessarily point by point, but you do give some feedback on the faults of the Runnels argument. We don’t need to go into details about each one, but perhaps you could give a listing of some of the other topics that you address in Runnells argument.

You have a phrase in this article that is mentioned with respect to concerns that are raised about scientific issues, here is the quote, “I learned long ago to pay as much attention to the networks of assumptions involved as to the observations which are then fitted into that network.” Expand on that for a minute if you could.

I want to give an encapsulated example of the many issues you address and how you address them. So, I wanted to take on an issue that I am becoming more and more confused by, and that is the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham as a Smoking Gun argument. Let’s consider for a moment that I know nothing of this issue, take me from the beginning of this segment of the article and walk me through how you approach it. You start off by giving Runnell’s claims, “Of all of the issues, the Book of Abraham is the issue that has both fascinated and disturbed me the most. It is the issue that I’ve spent the most time researching on because it offers a real insight into Joseph’s modus operandi as well as Joseph’s claim of being a translator. It is the smoking gun that has completely obliterated my testimony of Joseph Smith and his claims.” That is a heavy indictment indeed. But why is this statement in and of itself quite telling as to what has gone into his research?

There is so much that this over 30 page article goes into, but the end goal of the article is to raise the question, “Why is it that when Jeff Lindsay studied these issues does his faith expand, and Runnells faith shatter? How can two individuals study the same issues and come to complete opposite conclusions?

If you could give one or two pieces of advice for the individual who is approaching various gospel subjects and is facing the junction of heading towards the Runnells conclusion or the Lindsay conclusions? Why is your approach the best approach?

Filed Under: Anti-Mormon critics, Apologetics, Articles of Faith, Book of Abraham, Hosts, Nick Galieti, Podcast Tagged With: anti-Mormonism, Book of Abraham, CES Letter, Jeremy Runnells

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe to Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


RSS-Icon RSS Feed (all posts)

Subscribe to Podcast

Podcast icon
Subscribe to podcast in iTunes
Subscribe to podcast elsewhere
Listen with FAIR app
Android app on Google Play

Pages

  • Blog Guidelines

FAIR Latest

  • The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 68
  • Come, Follow Me Week 32 – Psalms 1–2; 8; 19–33; 40; 46
  • FAIR Conference Podcast #81 – Craig Foster, “What Under the Banner of Heaven Gets Wrong”
  • Reflections on Abuse, Reporting, and the Church
  • Come, Follow Me Week 31 – Job 1–3; 12–14; 19; 21–24; 38–40; 42

Blog Categories

Recent Comments

  • Stw on The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 68
  • Adam on Reflections on Abuse, Reporting, and the Church
  • Kody on Reflections on Abuse, Reporting, and the Church
  • Lori on Reflections on Abuse, Reporting, and the Church
  • Kirk on Reflections on Abuse, Reporting, and the Church

Archives

Footer

FairMormon Logo

FAIR is a non-profit organization dedicated to providing well-documented answers to criticisms of the doctrine, practice, and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Our Friends

  • BYU Religious Studies Center
  • BYU Studies
  • Book of Mormon Central
  • TheFamilyProclamation.org
  • Interpreter Foundation
  • Wilford Woodruff Papers Project

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • iTunes
  • YouTube

Donate to FAIR

We are a volunteer organization. We invite you to give back.

Donate Now

Donate to us by shopping at Amazon at no extra cost to you. Learn how →

Site Footer

Copyright © 1997-2022 by The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

No portion of this site may be reproduced without the express written consent of The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, Inc.

Any opinions expressed, implied, or included in or with the goods and services offered by FAIR are solely those of FAIR and not those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR) Logo

FAIR is controlled and operated by the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research (FAIR)