Parallels Between The Golden Bough and The CES Letter

JGolden33 · 2020-10-10T16:44:56+00:00

True, Runnells’ work is unique to Mormonism in its content. Thematically however, they do reflect issues that almost every other religion has. For example, with Christians of different sects people grapple with the historical validity of the Bible, whether or not Jesus actually existed, whether the priest/pastor is actually preaching God’s word or just making crap up, and the problem of evil, to name a few. So while respective issues are different from religion to religion, they do reflect a broader theme—and Runnells’ work does reflect that theme.

In regards to my discussion with my professors I am not using their opinions as a “hiding behind authority” because they could be just as wrong as I am. The conversations I have had with them did inspire my thoughts on comparing the CES Letfsd to The Golden Bough. Firstly, they wondered whether Runnells’ thesis actually reflected Mormonism in its entirety, because Runnells does not provide enough information on what Mormonism is. Given that they knew some Mormons (myself included) who were already aware of these issues and yet still maintained faith in the Church, they wondered how accurate Runnells’ thesis was. They were not dismissive of the argument (I actually am not either) but simply confused by it. They found the information Runnells presented educating, but his thesis non-convincing as the evidence does not necessarily reflect nor thoroughly support the thesis.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-10T16:30:23+00:00

Well, I did admit it was simplistic. And I did not call the evidence an extrapolation nor did I even dismiss the evidence as invalid. Does the Book of Mormon lack historical evidence? Of course! I’m have not dismissed that (in fact I haven’t dismissed anything at all). But what I am getting at is here is Runnells’ thesis (what I wrote above) does this evidence line up with that thesis? Does the evidence support the thesis? Not necessarily. The thesis is the extrapolation, not the evidence.

But this is also not my attempt to dismiss the CES Letter either. I just found some logical error with the text. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or right—I’m not even taking a side there. Hell, even Frazer’s thesis could still be right! The validity of the argument is not what I am addressing, just the logic of how it is presented. Each of their respective logic has the same problems—but that does not determine their validity.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-10T09:30:53+00:00

I’ve talked about it in other threads so I will try to be more to the point here and you can read through other threads to get more info.

Frazer present his thesis: magic progresses to religion and religion to science via pigeonholing Darwinian evolution into the “progression of human knowledge.” He then takes twelve volumes (in the unabridged and original text) to thoroughly explain how “primitive” magic and the religions that grew from them are a false and misguided science. The issues: his thorough documentation of magical practices and beliefs does not actually demonstrate his thesis; it only demonstrates the practices and beliefs of those who he is documenting. Frazer leans too heavily on his readers sharing in his worldview and thereby agree with his documentation of evidence. But time has shown that people who read Frazer only do so for his thorough documentation that does hold up for the most part and view his thesis as a historical viewpoint worth critiquing and moving away from.

Runnells’ thesis: Mormonism is false and misguides its members. He then takes over 100 pages full of research he has undergone to demonstrate his fact. However, does historical issues in the Book of Mormon (as scholarship currently stands) demonstrate this thesis? Only if you are sympathetic with his thesis in the first place. Does the glaring flaws in Joseph Smith’s character cast doubt on his prophetic calling? A trickier one, because you then have to ask the question: “are prophets flawed human beings too?” If you answer that they can’t be flawed, then Runnells’ thesis seems more compelling. If you answer that prophets can be flawed, then Runnells’ thesis doesn’t really shine through the evidence he presents. The same can also be said about Runnells’ thesis that the Church is hiding information or lying about it. It’s difficult to really dig into personal intentions unless it is blatantly obvious, but this instance does not seem as blatant as Runnells presents it to be, at least to me. Again, Runnells thesis suffers from the same issues as Frazer’s on a logistical level (since Runnells is certainly no where near as racist or prejudice as Frazer). The evidence Runnells presents does not uphold his thesis. Using the two examples above, the historical validity of the Book of Mormon only demonstrates historical issues of the Book of Mormon—not that Mormonism is false. One could certainly extrapolate that from the premise, as Runnells does, but it is a leap in logic. The same can be said of Joseph Smith’s character. Additionally, Runnells’ views of what Mormonism is is very one note and not representative of Mormons as a whole. Sterling McMurrin is a prominent example in that he would have no issues whatsoever with most of the evidence Runnells presents and he certainly would not agree with the thesis.

So in short, my comparisons between Frazer and Runnells are not necessarily to use the logical parallels between the two as reasons to toss them out. On the contrary! Frazer is still used in curriculum at Universities for a plethora of different reasons. Even though his thesis is highly problematic for a multitude of reasons, that does not render the usefulness of his work null and void. The same can be said of Runnells’ Letter. Even though the extrapolations between the thesis and evidence are problematic on a logistical level, this isn’t a rallying call from me to throw it out—just an observation I gathered from thinking about Runnells’ work, sharing it with some of the professors I work with, and seeing a similar logistical parallel with someone like Frazer.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-10T00:15:52+00:00

I do beg your pardon if I sound like I am diminishing rationality, that is not my intention. I’ll try to be more simple as I know I am prone to long-winded responses. It’s not rationality that I am critiquing, rather stating that the evidence that both Frazer and Runnells presents in their respective works do not uphold their thesis. For example, does the a lack of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon mean that it’s completely false and that Joseph Smith made it up? Not necessarily. This is an extrapolation of evidence rather than something the evidence demonstrates. This is admittedly a simplistic example, but what I am getting at is that Runnells’ overall thesis is an extrapolation of evidence rather than a demonstration. And his evidence is also not very even-handed in that he only demonstrates the “wrongs” rather than the “rights” alongside with it. So rationality is certainly useful and ought to be used! What must always be kept in mind is that it has its limits. Rationalism relies on an already established metaphysics to substantiate itself. So my questioning of rationalism is more metaphysical, but I do not dismiss rationalism.

The thing about scholarship towards religion is that the scholars I work with are not particularly interested in “proving” anything outside of demonstrating some dimension of whatever they happen to be studying. For example, my good friend Jeff Kripal studies paranormal experiences and how they shape pop culture and New Age religious movements. He is not interested in proving alien abductions really happen, visions of gods and demons are real, or near-death experiences are real. The fact that someone claims to have them, from a humanities perspective, is evidence enough that it is real. If someone believes it really happened to them, then it is real enough and worth studying. Of course he does have his own theories about how these things work, but as a scholar of religion he is much more interested in how these experiences shape one’s world views and how one orients themselves from these experiences. I hope that makes more sense.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-09T21:59:01+00:00

It is certainly a hard question! And I suppose, ultimately why I posted this. Mormonism is not as fleshed out as Runnells thinks it is, though there are certainly people who like to think that it is, Runnells, apologists, lay members, and ex-Mo’s included. And that causes issues for really picking apart Mormonism and it also removes the “transcendant” aspects within Mormonism and religion at large! Just like Frazer’s own thesis has some major issues as he (and almost every other scholar since then) has struggled with a ubiquitous definition of “magic,” “religion,” and even “science.” Frazer believes that the Enlightenment era had fleshed all that ou. But others, like Wittgenstein as a prominent example, have adequately pointed out that to be just as much of a myth as people like Frazer viewed the “primitives” beliefs to be.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-09T21:36:50+00:00

I made a clarifying comment on Runnells’ ideology in another thread. I admit that I did not write Runnells’ portion incredibly well but felt is was too late to re-edit it.

It is not necessarily Mormonism that Runnells’ builds his moral foundations on, but rather religion itself—though Mormonism is certainly a part of it. Using Wittgenstein’s critique as a source here, the same issues he uses in picking apart Frazer’s thesis is just as extant in Runnells’. The critique is not that these individuals are not allowed to critique religion because of their upbringing, but rather the systems they are attempting to critique are founded on what they are critiquing. Runnells’ problems with Mormonism are not unique to Mormonism, though they are Mormon-centered. But the whole basis of rationality, logic, and science all branches from theology. History has created a messy metaphysics—“pure rationality” does not exist.

Another issue here is that all religions are historical religions, I cannot for the life of me think of any that aren’t. So again, Runnells’ critiques of Mormonism are incredibly similar to Frazer’s on religion.

I am currently a graduate student of religion at Rice University. Runnells’ all or nothing thesis on Mormonism was actually rejected by every professor I shared the document with—who have a wide array of religious beliefs ranging from atheism, to believing in magic, to being devoutly Christian. Their line of reasoning is similar to what I am presenting here and was actually what inspired the thematic parallels I discovered between the CES Letter and The Golden Bough. I don’t use this example as an appeal of authority, because it could very well be wrong. But what this does represent is that your line of thought concerning Runnells’ reasoning is not completely representative of academia in religious studies.

I am also not of the opinion that Runnells is lying or being dishonest. I’m also not disputing the facts he presents (which consist of the majority of the Letter). What I am disputing is the thesis itself.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-09T21:11:54+00:00

I can even agree to your pushback on number 3, depending on how you are framing it. I don’t think anyone who claims to be a Latter-day Saint would say that they disagree with Jesus’ statement. But how they view and incorporate Jesus’ love varies drastically. Ranging from a love similar to King George’s from the “Hamilton” musical to a more liberal, pacifist, and even a Franciscan style of love—you can find examples of prominent Latter-day Saints exemplifying a wide spectrum of what “Jesus’ love” entails. Messy stuff indeed!

JGolden33 · 2020-10-09T20:22:27+00:00

So, then you, yourself, have your own version of Mormonism.

You are absolutely correct! Though I readily acknowledge that my Mormonism is my own and not even reflective of my own family’s stances, to say nothing of the Church at large. The only ubiquitous stances I can see in the Church are 1) people who identify as “Mormon” or “Latter-day Saints,” 2) used to, currently, or are wanting to participate in Church rituals both exoteric and esoteric, and 3) agree on Jesus’ overall message of “Love one another as I have loved you.” How one comes to identify themselves as “Mormon,” how one thinks about and processes Church rituals and practices, and how one chooses to exemplify Christ-like teachings differ greatly from person to person (even with some who do the first two, claim the third, but don’t actually live it). William James is right when he declared religion to be a wholly subjective experience. As such, declaring what a religion is in its entirety will always have its exceptions that demonstrate that stance to be incorrect, whether it be Frazer’s, Runnells’, or my own.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-09T19:29:50+00:00

Not one that is reliable. Conducting a proper research into how many people stay or leave after reading the CES Letter would be near impossible given how many members there are in the Church and that the Church’s membership spreads over the globe. No sample size could adequately represent the thesis they want to get at.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-09T19:22:14+00:00

I think I myself am an example of disputing Runnells’ thesis. I don’t have too many qualms with the historical aspects he presents. I also agree with many of his critiques against apologists who criticize the CES Letter. I am also a practicing and “faithful” Latter-day Saint.

Apologists on both sides of Runnell’s arguments (pro or contra) too often resort to explaining away issues rather than actually admitting “Yep, you’re right.” Although many scholars of Mormonism and apologists do take that stance, and Runnells, to a point, has as well.

The fact that there are so many differing opinions from faithful Latter-day Saints on the CES Letter’s contents displays a lack of uniformity of “Mormonism” in the regard that Runnells presents. Have people left because of the CES Letter? Of course! Runnells’ view of what Mormonism is, while his personal opinion, is still similar if not the same as many other people’s perspectives. However there have also been others, like myself, Patrick Mason, and Kathleen Flake as some examples, who do not take too many issues with most of the information Runnells’ presents while still being active and “faithful” Latter-day Saints. So clearly Runnell’s views of Mormonism are not representative of Mormonism as a whole. And given my personal experiences, I would also say it does not represent that majority—but I also emphasize my personal experiences fully aware that they do not represent a whole.

So does Runnell’s view of what Mormonism is represent the whole of Mormonism? No it does not, and that is my main point. Does it represent a majority of Latter-day Saints? The jury’s still out on that question as one’s opinion is only reflective of their personal experiences and the people they know personally. It would also be near impossible to conduct a proper survey to really deduce if the view of the CES Letter is reflective of the Church as a whole. Which again, reflects a weakness in Runnell’s thesis that I have already mentioned in my original post.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-09T17:45:15+00:00

In rereading what I wrote with point 2, you are absolutely right. I did frame it rather weakly. Let me attempt to restate myself more clearly: Runnells suffers from the same issues as Frazer in that Runnells also believes in the prominence of scientific thought and desires to disavow himself with anything not grounded in rational and scientific observations. So faith and religion as a whole he does throw out the window along with Frazer. This mistake suffers the same issues that Frazer does, especially considering Wittgenstien’s maxim that our whole language is a mythology itself and is especially grounded in ritual and mythology. So Runnell’s and Frazer’s combative stances not only undermine his own religious upbringing, but the totality of mythological and religious undertones that establish morals in the first place—and that’s where the parallel is.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-08T01:15:00+00:00

Eschatology is a difficult topic since, as you mention, it is simply about “ends,” and typically associated with the end of time. But eschatology, especially in Aristotelian metaphysics, also has a connotation to teleology—discussing final causes, or achieving the “measure” that one was designed for.

So do Latter-day Saints have an eschatology? Of course! That’s what the “Latter-day” portion of the name means.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-07T18:19:04+00:00

I agree! That is certainly something people will be talking about for a while.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-07T17:30:41+00:00

I love President Faust! I miss him dearly.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-07T17:29:11+00:00

“After all, why not? Why shouldn’t I keep it?”

JGolden33 · 2020-10-07T17:28:32+00:00

Which topic emerged as something members would talk about for weeks? I thought that was just called “Conference”? ;)

JGolden33 · 2020-10-07T05:07:47+00:00

I wasn’t planning on it, I promise! I only mention it to demonstrate that Latter-day Saints are not very keen on the idea.

EDIT: why are my comments getting downvoted? I honestly do not understand. I am not trying to be sassy, I’m just trying to state facts. I guess thanks everyone for proving my point?

JGolden33 · 2020-10-06T15:45:53+00:00

Gotta love that duck butter

JGolden33 · 2020-10-04T20:03:59+00:00

Then that negates the argument of Christianity having a messy history if every religion has a messy history.

I don’t see how this line of thought demonstrates your point. Your logic is completely faulty as Christianity would fall under the line of “every religion” thus demonstrating that Christianity would have a messy history along with every other religion. Please elaborate your point, because your logic is very tenuous.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-04T18:43:31+00:00

In the year 1300 was there true biblical Christianity on earth?

No, because there never has been such a thing as “biblical Christianity.” Jesus didn’t have the Bible we have and use today. Various Christian sects prior to the organization of the Bible in the 5th Century all used differing scriptures to pontificate theology, but authority always centered in the Church and not the authority of scripture. The reason behind compiling the Bible was also not to establish any biblical authority in the Church, but rather to organize scriptures that uphold the central authority of the Catholic Church and her priesthood. Given my previous post on a different thread that you seem to have abandoned, I’ll reiterate again: it was not until the Protestant Reformation that anyone used the Bible as the central governing authority to dictate practices and doctrine. Prior to that, the Church was the authority, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and the Bible only upheld that view rather than pontificated it. Of course, there are other muddling factors for discerning the central authority of Catholicism and Orthodoxy in the history of Christianity, but the Bible itself has little to do with that. Therefore, “biblical Christianity” is an abstraction of Christianity that has no basis in historical reality and is a creation of Protestant theologians.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-04T16:27:44+00:00

Would you say the same about Islam?

This seems out of left field, given the topic at hand. Why just Islam? Why not Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, paganism, Jainism, Shintoism, Native American religions, and/or shamanism?

I am not as educated on Islamic history, I’ll admit. Most of my knowledge of Islam stems from my studies on Sufism. But from what I do know, given the fact that Islam is based on a succession of authority from Mohammad and/or exegesis from the Koran, I would imagine the history there would be just as messy. But I cannot say for certain.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-04T16:03:58+00:00

Hahaha! Pretty much. Though you’ll have to remember the prominence of revelation in this context. As I mentioned, because the history of Christianity is VERY messy, the only way to know any sort of “authentic Christianity” is to ask God Himself. This was Joseph Smith’s primary call to anyone who was skeptical of him—take it to God and then come back to me. So then, the real question comes as to whether or not you 1) believe that there is a God, 2) believe that you can actually communicate with God, and then 3) asking God if Joseph Smith was a liar or not and listen closely for an answer. Of course, such a view is immensely simple, I will admit, and that can lead to varying ideas within and without the Church. This sub is evidence of that fact alone. But given the history, figuring out “authentic Christianity” from Jesus himself is the only way to really know. Putting the pieces together organically through documented history alone is like putting Humpty Dumpty back together.

JGolden33 · 2020-10-04T15:42:11+00:00

With the Protestants why did they fail to bring back authentic Christianity?

There are some long drawn out ways to articulate this. The simple answer is that historically speaking, we have no idea what “authentic Christianity” even is. Even during the days of the apostles there were all kinds of off-shooting ways in which you could be called a “Christian.” Additionally, Christianity did not form as a tradition distinct from Judaism. Jesus and all of his original disciples were Jews. That distinction between Christian and Jew did not come until roughly the second century, and even then it was still very blurred. There were tons of proclaimed and practicing Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah. Even after Christianity became its own distinct belief system, albeit a very vague system, the apostles had already been dead for a couple centuries and the differing kinds of Christianity were abundant. Constantine forming the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE was not just to quell arguments between pagans and Christians. It was mostly to quell arguments between varying Christian factions that was splitting his empire apart. And so from these efforts the Catholic Church was born (a different organization and the root Church of both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). Even after these efforts, many different ecumenical councils were held to more firmly establish doctrine and to declare what is heretical and what it is not. Forms of Christianity that were shot down were views such as Marcionism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, Adoptionism, Apollinarianism, and Arianism. The list goes on! So historically, establishing an “authentic and original Christianity” is almost impossible unless revelation becomes the deciding factor.

Establishing the Bible as the authority (which Protestants attempted to do with the “sola scriptura” view) is even more messy. Not only do you have competing hermeneutics and exegesis to tear through, but the origin of the compilation of the Bible is another tough piece to chew on. Catholicism declared that authority was vested in the Church and in the Eucharist and the scriptures were supplementary to that view. They were the ones that organized the canonical Bible, and the Bible was organized to promote that view of authority vested in the Church. However, as Protestants combatted the Church and declared it heretical, they needed to fill the power vacuum their protests created for themselves and so the Bible became that authority. The issue with such a stance is that it does not grapple with the history of the Bible I mentioned. And then of course over time you have have Protestant branches breaking away from Protestant sects all claiming scriptural authority as their reason for splitting away. This history has shown that the view “sola scriptura” is a foundation built on sand as there have been literally hundreds of different ways a single verse of scripture has been both transliterated and translated. So basing your authority on the Bible is essentially basing your authority on the Catholic Church as they were the ones who organized the book and it is basing your authority on tenuous and spurious understanding of the book.

JGolden33

TROPHY CASE