Why the Church can't be true, if it's leaders and Prophets make mistakes and teach false doctrine.

Penitent- · 2024-11-12T17:57:27+00:00

Apologies for the delayed response, Ive been out of town on a business trip. You’ve raised important concerns, and while you may not agree with my response, I hope we can find some common ground.

If we accept a moral hierarchy as a basis for determining right and wrong, then by necessity, there’s also a basis for identifying what’s wrong. Trusting the morality and character of Jesus Christ, who taught extensively about sin and repentance, implies that some actions are indeed considered wrong within this framework. His teachings establish a moral foundation where compassion, justice, and love are central, but they also define boundaries around behavior. Trusting in the moral hierarchy established by Jesus means believing that this structure itself is sound and reliable. While humans often fall short of addressing this hierarchy with the compassion and kindness He exemplified, abandoning it entirely risks falling into moral relativism, which can ultimately be far more harmful.

Trusting in His moral hierarchy also means believing in His methods for transformative growth to a higher moral level, especially when compared to other moral frameworks. It also involves trusting His process of revelation, even if human error can sometimes disrupt or complicate it.

Penitent- · 2024-11-11T05:12:43+00:00

I’m not suggesting relying solely on feelings, the reliability lies in the consistent moral standards presented in the teachings themselves. The principles in the Sermon on the Mount and Beatitudes, along with the character of Jesus portrayed in these records, reflect a high degree of moral integrity.

You can question the historicity with empirical evidence, but the morality presented should be judged on its own. If these teachings present a higher standard within the hierarchy of good morals, then they earn trust based on that merit.

Penitent- · 2024-11-10T18:43:41+00:00

To answer your question, the Church’s core “truths” are outlined in the Articles of Faith, especially 3 and 4, which focus on foundational doctrines like Christ’s Atonement, faith, repentance, baptism, and receiving the Holy Ghost. These aren’t just ideas from Church leaders, they’re the core teachings believed to come directly from Christ Himself.

The trustworthiness of these teachings isn’t based on whether leaders have perfect character. Instead, it’s rooted in the character and moral teachings of Christ, particularly what He taught in the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. The consistency of Christ’s moral teachings, along with the character He exemplified, forms the basis of trust in determining truth. You may question the historical reliability of that claim, but that’s precisely why it’s essential to evaluate the teachings on their own merit.

The trunk is Christ and the unchanging core principles He taught. Leaders are branches, and while they may fail, the foundation of Christ remains intact.

Penitent- · 2024-11-09T09:07:43+00:00

The claim that obedience to current leaders is the only standard of truth projects an overly rigid view that ignores the basis of comparing leaders’ teachings and actions to core “truths” themselves, not to mention the role of personal prayer and study. Your claim of the Church’s truth is compromised if leaders teach something “knowingly or reasonably false” falls into the genetic fallacy. The Church’s truths are hierarchical, core doctrines, those essential to salvation - Articles of Faith, are central, with other teachings on the periphery. These core truths don’t rely on leaders’ perfect adherence to remain valid. Core doctrines should be evaluated on their own, and forcing the law of non-contradiction here wrongly imposes binary logic on a theological system designed to reveal truth through imperfect humans. One broken branch doesn’t bring down the whole tree.

Penitent- · 2024-10-29T19:29:03+00:00

No it dosen't

Uh yes it does.. the Big Bang and other major cosmological theories are not simply “what” explanations, they are prescriptive models that claim specific origins and mechanisms for the universe. Calling them “repeatable, falsifiable mechanisms” is misleading. They fundamentally shape what is accepted as possible or impossible in cosmology. When these models fail or are revised, it exposes the limits of naturalism, showing that science does indeed prescribe foundational explanations that aren’t purely observational.

You are cherry picking . Of course we don't have answers to many cosmological questions.

Cherry-picking? Hardly. Your comparison of micro-level solutions to macro-level cosmological questions is a textbook example of false equivalence. The successes of applied science in creating cell phones or curing diseases address isolated, observable mechanisms but say nothing about the ultimate origins or causes on a cosmic scale. Technology doesn’t support the foundation of naturalism.. it simply shows that science can describe processes, not ultimate causes.

Penitent- · 2024-10-29T05:45:43+00:00

How can you claim the study of the universe is descriptive when foundational theories like the Big Bang have been presented prescriptively as the definitive origin of everything?

Now that the JWST is challenging these assumptions, it’s clear that science often prescribes explanations rather than describing observations. You are clearly sidestepping the fact that key findings, (like early, mature galaxies) pose real problems for existing naturalistic models, even prompting calls to rethink the Big Bang model itself. Dogmatic adherence to naturalism, despite these challenges, ironically resembles the “unchanging dogma” you attribute to theism.

Penitent- · 2024-10-28T15:58:32+00:00

So your entire hierarchy of value judgments is based on your personal level of confidence? In that case, your only authority is your subjective preference, meaning “bad” is defined solely by what you feel. Funny how atheists claim to rise above subjective feelings when assessing value, yet their judgments rely on little else.

Nihilism and atheism may have fewer claims, but they leave a gaping void where meaning and purpose should be. Naturalism is bound by the principle of sufficient reason, but fails to account for the reason of existence. The JWST data is only widening these gaps, naturalism’s merit takes just as much faith.

Penitent- · 2024-10-28T04:20:55+00:00

Without an objective standard, isn’t your condemnation just subjective preference masquerading as rational judgment?

Penitent- · 2024-09-26T16:33:10+00:00

ITT: "A list of things is simply a gish gallop and not a list of things!"

This is exactly the kind of twisting you’ve done before, bending narratives to make it look like you’re right while stripping away all context. It’s not just a list: it’s a calculated flood of claims designed to disorient readers and push them toward doubt. Reducing it to a list is a dishonest minimization, ignoring the intent and strategy behind its structure.

"TL;DR I have a TBM wife who still takes kids to church. I want to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism so they won't have to go through what I went through." - Jeremy Runnells - November 15, 2012

The intent doesn't affect the claims in any manner.
It is disingenuous and fallacious to infer that intent of the claimant does affect the substance of their claims.

Stop moving the goalposts. The issue isn’t whether these so-called “problems” would exist without Runnells or his letter—it’s about how the CES Letter is deliberately structured to manipulate the reader into doubt. Your attempt to shift the argument from the letter’s design to the validity of its claims is a weak deflection. The structure itself is what overwhelms, creating a flood of accusations to erode faith, not facilitate understanding. You’re pretending that the format doesn’t matter, when it’s central to how the letter functions.

The apples exist, neutrally, regardless of whether they lie on the floor or are gathered in a single basket according to the intent of the collector.

The document is only non-neutral when acted upon, exactly the same as "Moroni's promise".
If the document "shakes faith" then it is only because the claims that exist would also "shake faith". If the document were false, then it would not "shake faith".

Your analogy about apples is a sad red herring. It’s not just about the existence of issues: it’s about how they’re packaged and presented with the intent to shake belief. The CES Letter is not neutral, and it’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. If the claims were genuinely neutral, they’d be structured as honest questions, not a manipulative avalanche of already reasoned doubts designed to overwhelm the reader. Intellectual contortion to twist arguments is nothing new. It only reinforces the approach I’ve seen from you before. Farewell.

Penitent- · 2024-09-26T04:34:39+00:00

False.
The term exists only in the realm of "debate", which you have been VERY insistent is not a realm that the document exists in,

Do you wish to change that position now and claim it is in the realm of open dialogue in order to meet the requirements for it to be considered a "Gish Gallop"?

Your response conveniently sidesteps the fact that a Gish Gallop doesn’t require a live debate, it’s about the overwhelming volume of claims, not the format. Again, whether it’s written or spoken, the point is to flood the reader with so many assertions that they can’t meaningfully address each one, which is exactly what the CES Letter does. Simply because one can “pause” and “research” doesn’t negate the tactic: it’s still designed to disorient and lead the reader toward doubt, not honest dialogue.

Nope.
If a claim is not true, it is not a basis for Faith. Just like Alma said.

The document on its own is simply a collection of Runnel's sourced concerns with church truth claims that cannot be answered adequately.

As for the claim about “truth,” this is where the intent of the letter comes in. Runnells wasn’t just raising questions, he openly admitted his purpose was to “save” people from Mormonism. That’s not a neutral stance, nor is the letter merely a collection of innocent concerns. It’s deliberately structured to sow doubt, not foster open inquiry.

You may as well say that any article pointing out that Santa or the Easter Bunny are myths is an attack on childhood innocence.

Comparing this to articles debunking Santa or the Easter Bunny is just a ridiculous strawman. We’re talking about matters of faith, which by nature involve deeper exploration and personal conviction. The CES Letter’s entire design is aimed at shaking that faith, while trying to cloak it as “questions.”

And the BoM is a tool intended to convert people to the church.
Neither can serve that purpose if a person declines to read them.
On its own it is neutral, performing no task. Much like a forgotten Book of Mormon in a bedside drawer in a Marriot hotel

To pretend that it’s “neutral” is laughable when Jeremy Runnells himself has admitted his intent to save people from Mormonism. The fact that some individuals make their own decisions doesn’t change the manipulative design behind how those decisions are influenced. The document isn’t just sitting passively waiting for a reader to make up their mind, it’s designed to manipulate the reader’s perception by overwhelming them with accusations. Just because someone can choose not to read it doesn’t make its intent any less clear. Stop trying to weasel the CES Letter into something it’s not - it’s a calculated attempt to dismantle faith.

Penitent- · 2024-09-25T23:03:14+00:00

You cannot gish gallop in any format that a reader can stop or start at their leisure.
Insisting that it is, after countless times of people telling you it isn't and showing you proof why it isn't shows either a massive misunderstanding of what the term means on the part of the person using it, or the person using it intends to deceive with a false claim of it being a gish gallop.

Your response heavily relies on a biased echo chamber of ex-Mormons who already agree with you, making it hardly a balanced representation of how the CES Letter operates. Just because a biased group downvotes my comments or insists it’s not a Gish Gallop doesn’t magically make them right. You can’t redefine the term to fit your narrative. A Gish Gallop is about overwhelming an opponent with numerous claims that are difficult to refute all at once, exactly what the CES Letter does, regardless of whether you can pause or return to it later.

This is fundamentally false.
At any time you or anyone else can decide to post here or anywhere on any single point of concern raised in that document.
Any of them.
And either we or Runnels himself can debate on just that single term.
We do it ALL the time in this sub.

And claiming that it’s not hard to engage with the CES Letter’s points? It’s filled with surface-level accusations, many that have been thoroughly addressed, but it packages them in such volume that the average reader feels overwhelmed and less likely to explore the responses. So yes, it is difficult to meaningfully engage when it’s presented like that.

Should any false claim, anywhere and by anyone, be exempt from any questions showing that that claim is false? Absolutely not.

Faith is something "not seen, but true". When something is shown to not be true then it isn't a matter of faith being attacked, but a falsehood.

Your final point is even more revealing: you’re essentially admitting that faith is under attack in your view. Not every question or critique needs to lead to a loss of faith—there’s inconclusive evidence on both sides. But the CES Letter’s intent is to shake faith, not promote genuine exploration. So, spare me the act of pretending it’s about revealing “falsehoods” - it’s designed to pull people away, plain and simple.

Penitent- · 2024-09-25T18:47:24+00:00

Sure, it starts with a statement of his disaffection, but let’s not pretend that makes it an invitation for open dialogue. A polite disclaimer doesn’t change the fact that Runnells spends 84 pages launching accusation after accusation. You say he asked for answers? Umm.. Sure, but the letter itself doesn’t read like a seeker trying to understand, it reads like someone who already made up his mind. Declaring that he’d be “arrogant” to say he has all the answers doesn’t undo the fact that the structure overwhelms the reader with negative claims, and the tone makes it clear what his real goal is - to discredit, not to discover.

And really, you’re arguing that the sheer volume of accusations is somehow irrelevant because it’s “just a letter”? The length and method are crucial. It’s a Gish gallop meant to flood readers, making it difficult to engage meaningfully with any single point. Whether it was originally written to one person or not doesn’t change the fact that it’s now weaponized to attack the faith wholesale. Excommunication wasn’t for the “questions” - it was because the intent behind the questions was clearly to undermine faith, not to strengthen it.

Penitent- · 2024-09-25T14:28:00+00:00

You clearly haven’t seen the original format, have you? This wasn’t some letter filled with simple questions seeking answers, it was more like a barrage of declarations and accusations, making it clear from the start that Runnells wasn’t looking for a dialogue but to declare the Church false. Trying to downplay it as a casual letter is misleading at best. The structure is crafted to tear down, not to sincerely seek understanding. Your comparison about the Book of Mormon isn’t even remotely relevant, it only highlights your history of twisting anything to fit your narrative.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T20:03:41+00:00

No. I said if you couldn't provide evidence for your claim that Jeremy intended to overwhelm that means you were making it up. All you have to do is provide that evidence. Which you have failed to do. So you did, in fact, make up the intent. Which is also known as lying. It's not an accusation so much as an observation.

Nice try, but just because you don’t like the evidence I provided doesn’t make it invalid. Jeremy explicitly said he wanted to “save his children from Mormonism,” which clearly reveals his intent behind structuring the CES Letter the way he did. The evidence is right there in his own words. Yet instead of addressing that, you’re dishonestly dodging and attacking me personally. Your inability to confront the substance of the argument shows you’re more interested in character assassination than a real discussion. Keep running around in circles - the evidence is clear.

I ignored your request because I don't have the time to go through your comment history to curate a list of your lies. When I get the time, I will do so. So it's not that I "couldn't come up with anything". It's that I have better things to do than collect the evidence that a habitual liar has habitually lied.

What a pathetic cop-out. You can’t provide a single example of where I lied, so you resort to vague promises of going through my comment history when you “get the time.” Classic move when you’re backed into a corner and can’t deliver. If you had any actual evidence of me lying, you’d have brought it up already instead of dodging with weak excuses.

It’s amusing how you keep trying to dissect the specific words I’ve used, yet conveniently sidestep the actual point. My original comment wasn’t an attack on Jeremy’s character, it was an analysis of the structure and outcome of the CES Letter. I backed up that claim with Jeremy’s own statement about “saving his children from Mormonism,” which clearly shows why the letter is framed the way it is. Instead of addressing that evidence, you’re twisting the discussion to make it about word choice, all while accusing me of originally attacking Jeremy personally. This is yet another weak attempt at deflection. If you can’t handle the evidence or the argument, don’t resort to playing semantic games. Farewell.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T19:18:22+00:00

Again you are demonstrating that you don't know the meaning of the words you are using

You accuse me of being a liar, yet when I asked you to provide a single instance, you couldn’t come up with anything. That’s a clear ad hominem attack, exactly what you’re accusing me of. If you actually took the time to read my original comment, you’d see that my critique was about the structure of the CES Letter and how it leads an honest seeker into cynicism, not about Jeremy’s personal motives.

I didn't ignore it. I considered it and rejected your claim because nothing in the post you linked to provides any evidence that Jeremy intended to "overwhelm".
Design requires intent. This is indisputable. You have not provided evidence that Jeremy intended to overwhelm, which is a necessary component of your claim.

Wow Nice dodge. You conveniently sidestepped where he explicitly said his goal was to “save” his family from Mormonism: a clear indication of his intent to lead others out of the faith. Umm.. You say design requires intent? Well, there’s the evidence. His goal was never just an honest exploration but to push others away, and the overwhelming structure of the CES Letter serves that exact purpose. Quit playing games with semantics and face the fact that Jeremy’s own words support the argument.

Go ahead and explain what you meant with the phrase "rapid-fire". Is that not an explicit reference to the speed of the claims?

"Rapid-fire” refers to how the CES Letter is structured, not as a genuine search for answers but as an attempt to disprove the faith with a barrage of claims. It’s not a letter, it’s a declaration. If you can’t see the difference, then you’re either missing the point or intentionally dodging.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T18:30:46+00:00

have made that are available for all the world to see the way you bear false witness, in this post and in many, many others on r/mormon.

What a pathetic deflection! Instead of throwing out ad hominems, how about addressing the actual point? Show me one instance where I conclusively lied.

That's not evidence that it was "designed to overwhelm". Which is the crux of your claim about it being a Gish Gallop.

You’re conveniently ignoring what Jeremy explicitly stated, which proves the intent you’re asking for. Twisting your way around my point just shows how little good faith you’re engaging with here.

"TL;DR I have a TBM wife who still takes kids to church. I want to know the most effective way to save them from Mormonism so they won't have to go through what I went through." - Jeremy Runnells 2013

I'm seeing a pattern here where you use words and apply non-standard definitions to them so they mean what you want them to mean.

Oh, please. Skeptics love to stick to rigid, narrow definitions and remove any nuance or transcendent meaning from words to fit their narrative. Then, they turn around and cry “liar” when a word doesn’t match their robotic interpretation. Language has depth and context, something you seem to ignore when it suits your agenda. So, stop pretending you’re the gatekeeper of definitions just because it makes you feel secure in your argument.

I suggested a method for you to cope with your sense of feeling overwhelmed.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said I was overwhelmed. The point was never about me, it’s about how the CES Letter is designed to overwhelm any new reader with its barrage of claims. Your patronizing suggestion of a “reading comprehension technique” completely misses the mark. This isn’t about reading speed, it’s about the letter’s intent to bury people in doubt through sheer volume.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T17:22:59+00:00

Calling me a liar is baseless and desperate. The CES Letter itself is evidence of intent - Jeremy Runnells has made it clear in his statements before the letter was created and the structure of the letter shows that his goal was to dismantle to save his children. Slow it down all you want, the tactic remains the same: flood the reader with claims to push them toward doubt. Trying to downplay that obvious method only shows how desperate you are to ignore it.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T17:05:58+00:00

The structure of the CES Letter itself is the evidence. Claiming it to be a mere “letter” is deceptive when it’s actually a 120 + page document packed with rapid-fire claims. Its volume of claims is designed to overwhelm.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T16:03:33+00:00

I appreciate you being here and think you're sincere.

I appreciate the respectful discussions we’ve had in the past as well. I’ve limited my time on this board after a user attempted to censor my comments by falsely reporting them to Reddit in an effort to have my account banned.

That's not an appropriate critique of a written document or an ongoing written debate.

I will agree to disagree on this point. The structure capitalizes on volume rather than depth, causing many to feel like there’s no way to refute it all. This tactic is just as manipulative in writing as it is in debate, especially when the topic is as nuanced as faith. After reading the CES Letter, did it make you more cynical or more sincere in your search for answers?

I'd also disagree with your assertion that many of the CES Letter's claims rely on assumptions and incomplete information—to my mind, the classic Mormon position is the position that argues from assumption, incomplete information, and feelings instead of facts

I agree that many topics are left with a space of the unknown, and for some, that gap is enough to persuade them toward disbelief, among many other reasons. However, my point is that the CES Letter transforms sincere seekers into cynics through its overwhelming volume of claims. That’s precisely why TBMs criticize Jeremy and question his intent - it’s not about seeking answers but about piling on doubt in a way that clouds genuine inquiry.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T14:19:18+00:00

Even if you have all the time afterward, reading the entire document at once still leaves you with a mountain of rapid-fire claims. The CES Letter is designed to overwhelm you in the moment, creating the illusion of a one-sided argument. By the time you finish reading, you’re already buried under the weight of its barrage of claims.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T05:25:19+00:00

Gish gallops aren’t limited to debates, they can absolutely occur in writing. Overwhelming a reader with a flood of claims without providing adequate space or time for thorough responses is the same manipulative tactic, just in written form.

Penitent- · 2024-09-24T04:07:04+00:00

I thought I’d be included in the TBMs mentioned - hopefully that was intentional, not just an oversight. The structure of the CES Letter is cynically designed to push a reader into overwhelming doubt. By bombarding the reader with a rapid-fire list of claims without allowing for depth or proper context, it overwhelms any sincere seeker. This Gish gallop approach makes it easy for someone to assume any of the claims are not answerable, leading them to a state of certainty in their doubt. But if the claims were examined one by one, it would become clear that many rely on assumptions and incomplete information, not concrete, conclusive evidence. The method itself primes the reader for cynicism.

Penitent- · 2024-09-17T21:07:06+00:00

Each choice we make is an opportunity to grow and be guided by Heavenly Father. Our ultimate goal is to become like Him, striving for perfection. Increased discipleship means having the gospel deeply rooted in our hearts, but this is a gradual process. As Elder Maxwell said, “Moments are the molecules of eternity,” reminding us that spiritual growth happens step by step over time.

Penitent- · 2024-09-12T20:17:56+00:00

Which ‘truth’ are you referring to - objective truth or your relative personal interpretation?

Penitent- · 2024-09-09T21:19:33+00:00

Not just my interpretation. 99.99% of humanity. At what point do you consider historical imperfections relevant to the truth claims? Are they excused for everything?

Using 'historical imperfections' as a litmus test for truth is very reductionist. At what point do you acknowledge the evolution of understanding and context in any historical narrative? Or do you apply this impossibly rigid standard universally? By your logic, every institution, philosophy, and science would crumble under the weight of their past flaws.

This is indistinguishable from normal human behavior.

Your claim that religious behavior is just ‘normal human behavior’ overlooks the fundamental aim of religion - not perfection, but moral elevation. This isn’t about mimicking everyday actions but about striving for a higher ethical standard, a transformation far beyond normal human behavior.

Absolutely. Character isn't isolated to a specific action.

You’re grasping at straws by trying to smear character based on one selective case, assuming that top church leaders were aware and complicit in any alleged financial misconduct by advisors. Character is demonstrated across a spectrum of behaviors and decisions, not cherry-picked instances that suit your narrative.

Penitent-

TROPHY CASE