Author of Mormon CES letter excommunicates the LDS chuch (translation, America, church)

[cupper3]

I have never heard of the CES letter, or Jeremy Runnells previously, but this ran across my news feed today. I've pursued his letter to Mormon officials, and found it fascinating. He asks some pretty legitimate questions, none of which were apparently answered by the LDS church, but instead, he was sanctioned for asking them.

The letter can be downloaded here, in PDF form, if you are interested. It's 84 pages long, so obviously I have not studied in detail yet, but what I have read certainly are issues that the LDS church should and needs to respond to.


The letter can be downloaded here.

Runnells announcing his resignation. Full video here.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by cupper3

I have never heard of the CES letter, or Jeremy Runnells previously, but this ran across my news feed today. I've pursued his letter to Mormon officials, and found it fascinating. He asks some pretty legitimate questions, none of which were apparently answered by the LDS church, but instead, he was sanctioned for asking them.

The letter can be downloaded here, in PDF form, if you are interested. It's 84 pages long, so obviously I have not studied in detail yet, but what I have read certainly are issues that the LDS church should and needs to respond to.


The letter can be downloaded here.

Runnells announcing his resignation. Full video here.

Actually, the "CES letter" itself may not have been addressed by the church, but as to the specific issues it raises in its 84 pages, they've been addressed for literally years. You could pull three or four random questions from the letter, and odds are, I could answer them all without even doing any research. Also, the Church has never "sanctioned" anyone for simply asking questions. There's more involved here than an honest inquiry, particularly when, as I said, the questions the letter asks are hardly front page news. Lastly, he was either excommunicated or he resigned; it really couldn't be both (i.e. you're either fired from your job or you quit).

[L8Gr8Apost8]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Actually, the "CES letter" itself may not have been addressed by the church, but as to the specific issues it raises in its 84 pages, they've been addressed for literally years. You could pull three or four random questions from the letter, and odds are, I could answer them all without even doing any research. Also, the Church has never "sanctioned" anyone for simply asking questions. There's more involved here than an honest inquiry, particularly when, as I said, the questions the letter asks are hardly today's news. Lastly, he was either excommunicated or he resigned; it really couldn't be both (i.e. you're either fired from your job or you quit).

Have you read it? I have heard it talked about but have no idea what it is about.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8

Have you read it? I have heard it talked about but have no idea what it is about.

All 80+ pages? No. But I've read enough of it to have wondered why he was even asking the questions when they've all been answered time and time again over a period of a number of years. Obviously, if he knew enough to be asking them, I suspect he already knew the answers. What I'm trying to say, is that the questions themselves were not exactly original.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

Actually, the "CES letter" itself may not have been addressed by the church, but as to the specific issues it raises in its 84 pages, they've been addressed for literally years. You could pull three or four random questions from the letter, and odds are, I could answer them all without even doing any research. Also, the Church has never "sanctioned" anyone for simply asking questions. There's more involved here than an honest inquiry, particularly when, as I said, the questions the letter asks are hardly front page news. Lastly, he was either excommunicated or he resigned; it really couldn't be both (i.e. you're either fired from your job or you quit).

Let me get back to the letter and pick out some of what you suggest. He said he excommunicated the church, his words, when he resigned. I understand that his wording is different, and reading between the lines, I suspect it was a matter of who was going to pull the trigger first.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Let me get back to the letter and pick out some of what you suggest.

Okay, but one at a time, please. Don't just bombard me with multiple questions all at once. It's a lot easier to make an accusation than it is to defend your position.

He said he excommunicated the church, his words, when he resigned. I understand that his wording is different, and reading between the lines, I suspect it was a matter of who was going to pull the trigger first.

Yeah, I'd say you're probably right about that.

[cupper3]

Katzpur, I guess the easiest is starting at or near the beginning.

Let's take an obvious one, his question 5:

5. Anachonisms: Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC - 421 AD?

It is on page 8 of his letter.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Katzpur, I guess the easiest is starting at or near the beginning.

Let's take an obvious one, his question 5:

5. Anachonisms: Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC - 421 AD?

It is on page 8 of his letter.

Okay, I'm watching a movie on TV with my husband right now, but I'll get back to you on this first thing tomorrow morning.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Katzpur, I guess the easiest is starting at or near the beginning.

Let's take an obvious one, his question 5:

5. Anachonisms: Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC - 421 AD?

It is on page 8 of his letter.

I looked up the one about horses. Much is made about prehistoric wild horses, but it is conceded that they (apparently) became extinct by the time the human population arrived. The horse was re -introduced by the Spanish.

Essentially the explanation relies on the 'absence of evidence' argument. Just because there is no valid evidence that pre - Columbians didn't ride horses, that isn't proof that the didn't. There was a reference to petroglyphs, but no pictures, so I can't comment.

'Chariots' is another one that took my notice. The main quotes are references to Nephites or lamanites (can't recall just now) travelling in chariots. The line here is mistranslation. Chariots could have been slightly misread by J Smith from 'carts' (never mind that there is no more evidence for pre -columbian carts than for chariots (1) and/or it might have meant a litter carried by men (as in some mayan art) these 'chariots' did not have to be pulled by horses.

I also looked up the 'compass' which is not magnetic but a oe off sphere with 2 spindles that give directions. The argument is that it was made by God as a one -off and was not introduced into Nephite culture. J Smith used 'compass' as the nearest equivalent of 'Liaonah' or whatever the word was.

(1) the point is also made that only a king might be allowed to ride, which would effectively make the 'cart' a 'chariot' anyway.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Katzpur, I guess the easiest is starting at or near the beginning.

Let's take an obvious one, his question 5:

5. Anachronisms: Horses, cattle, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheels, chariots, wheat, silk, steel, and iron did not exist in pre-Columbian America during Book of Mormon times. Why are these things mentioned in the Book of Mormon as being made available in the Americas between 2200 BC - 421 AD?

It is on page 8 of his letter.

If I were to address all thirteen items listed as anachronisms, it would take me literally hours. As a matter of fact, a discussion (i.e. my response to each of them plus everybody else's comments) on even two or three of the items would turn this thread into one about Book of Mormon archeology and nothing else. For that reason, it makes more sense to me to respond to the problem of anachronisms in general. I'll begin by stating that twenty years ago, this list would have been twice as long. It would have included such items as domestic barley, cement, wheels, and textiles described by the Spanish as silk and linen (even though they were not technically either of those). It is almost a certainty that twenty years from now, the list will have grown even shorter.

No one knows precisely where the events in The Book of Mormon were even supposed to take place, aside from "the Western Hemisphere." That's obviously problematic. Most LDS scholars believe that most of the events described in the book transpired somewhere in Central America. Consequently, that is where we would expect to find physical evidence corroborating the mention of certain items in the book. Still, that's a lot of area, and when compared to the history of archeological work elsewhere in the world, Central American archeology is still in its infancy.

Finally, there is the problem of what to call things, i.e. how they are named. As I mentioned above, the Spanish described certain fabrics as "silk" and "linen" although they shortly came to realize that they really weren't actual silk or linen at all. They were, however, close enough in appearance and texture that -- lacking any other words to use for them -- they called them silk and linen.

Among the anachronisms listed, the horse is the one I've seen mentioned most often. Sure, people can say it's a cop-out to suggest that the animal translated as "horse" in The Book of Mormon really wasn't a horse at all, but some other animal. But when you look at the words the indigenous people of South America used themselves, you have to at least consider this as a possibility. The Maya, for example, referred to the tapir as a "tzimin che," which would be literally translated as "forest beast" or "forest horse." They used the word "tzimin" alone to refer to the horses the Spanish brought with them to this continent. In both Mayan and Aztec texts, Spanish horses are referred to by a word that is generally translated as "deer." Those who rode these animals were described as "deer-riders." Interestingly, The Book of Mormon never refers to horses as being ridden or used in battle, which would make sense if they were, indeed, deer. The meaning of words does change over time, and even accepted terminology is frequently inaccurate. For example, there were never herds of "buffalo" roaming the Great Plains of America. There were, however, thousands of "bison." Practically everybody I know uses the words interchangeably.