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.
Array
Criticism of Mormonism/Online documents/Letter to a CES Director/Debunking FairMormon: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
|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." | |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." | ||
|sublink1=Response to claim: "This doesn’t stop FAIR from acknowledging and admitting to the impossibility of Noah’s Ark and the global flood" | |sublink1=Response to claim: "This doesn’t stop FAIR from acknowledging and admitting to the impossibility of Noah’s Ark and the global flood" | ||
|sublink2=Response to claim: "Does the lack of an explicit statement that they took their prized bees onboard their submarines to the Promised Land necessarily mean they didn't?" | |||
}} | }} | ||
Revision as of 04:44, 16 March 2015
A FairMormon Analysis of "Debunking FairMormon - Letter to a CES Director"
A FAIR Analysis of: Letter to a CES Director A work by author: Jeremy Runnells
|
Does FairMormon agree with a large percentage of the claims made in the Letter to the CES Director?
Jeremy Runnells has claimed that FairMormon has agreed with him on a large percentage of various claims he has made, even going so far as to claim agreement on items that FairMormon did not respond to. With regard to historical facts, Mr. Runnells's citations are sometimes incorrect and his interpretations, even of correctly cited historical facts, are unwarranted. In short, FairMormon disagrees entirely with the conclusions reached by Jeremy Runnells.
Overview
Approximately eight or nine months after we produced our original response to the Letter to a CES Director, the author produced an apologetic called Debunking FAIR's Debunking, later changed to Debunking FairMormon. Much of the material is simply an incorporation of our original summary responses to the individual issues, and the author's reassertion of his original claims. Our original summary responses to most of these issues have now been incorporated into the text of the full wiki articles that are now transcluded into the CES Letter response. There are, however, some new claims that originated in direct response to FairMormon. In this page we will highlight only new individual items which were not covered in the original CES Letter response. For convenience, these responses to Debunking FairMormon are also included in the list of responses to the original, and various updates, of the CES Letter.
Detailed responses by section are found in linked subarticles below
Response to section "Book of Mormon Concerns & Questions"
Summary: The author asks why italicized text and errors from the King James Bible are present in the Book of Mormon. He also briefly discusses anachronisms, archaeology, and a theory that the Book of Mormon place names actually originated in the area around New York. The "View of the Hebrews" theory of Book of Mormon authorship is discussed.Response to section "Book of Mormon Translation Concerns & Questions"
Summary: The author of the letter asks, "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?"Response to section "First Vision Concerns & Questions"
Summary: The author states, "Like the rock in the hat story, I did not know there were multiple First Vision accounts. I did not know its contradictions or that the Church members didn’t know about a First Vision until 22 years after it supposedly happened. I was unaware of these omissions in the mission field as I was never taught or trained in the Missionary Training Center to teach investigators these facts."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."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."Response to section "Witnesses Concerns & Questions"
Summary: The author claims that, "If David Whitmer is a credible witness, why are we only using his testimony of the Book of Mormon while ignoring his other testimony claiming that God Himself spoke to Whitmer “by his own voice from the heavens” in June 1838 commanding Whitmer to apostatize from the Lord’s one and only true Church? FAIR must admit that Whitmer was less than credible on this occasion. Why couldn’t he have been less than credible when he testified of the Book of Mormon?"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."
Notes