Comments on: Vote for Mormon of the Year 2014

By: Kent Larsen

Kent Larsen — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:57:32 +0000

Since we can’t manage to stay on topic, even after I indicated that we had gone off topic, I’m closing the comments here. You will still be able to vote, but this post will no longer accept comments.

By: Hedgehog

Hedgehog — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 21:04:20 +0000

James Watson. You seem to be significantly underestimating the coverage Kate Kelly received. Wasn’t only the NYT. There was a lot of coverage on the BBC, and in national newspapers here in Britain.

By: Jaren Watson

Jaren Watson — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 19:24:46 +0000

I suppose it’s my own failure for not seconding the nomination of Cliven Bundy, but his absence from the list is a significant oversight. It’s quite likely that ten years from now, the leading vote-getters on this list will be a footnote, and Bundy’s influence will be writ large in the form of altered multi-state land use policy. Yes, Kate Kelly and others warranted mention in the New York Times. Bundy, however, has been in every major publication in the U. S. and in Europe dozens of times. And the story is only half over. In a decade, I believe it will be clear whose impact reached furthest. If “Mormon of the Year” is about impact on the world, as well as on Mormonism, it’s hard for me to consider the others as anything but distant seconds.

By: James Gibbons

James Gibbons — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 18:45:27 +0000

No rebuttal link, Seth? Guess we’ll just have to take your word for it instead.

CES Letter uses same facts but because it comes to the conclusion that the LDS Church’s truth claims are verifiably not true, a conclusion you don’t like, it’s “anti-Mormon”. Got it.

Laughed at Brian’s “nothing TERRIBLY original” claim.

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:24:47 +0000

James, just because sources share the same facts does not mean they share the same conclusions. And it’s the CONCLUSIONS that matter – not so much the shared facts.

Basic logic.

I’ll drop it now to let things get back on topic.

By: Brian Rostron

Brian Rostron — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:21:15 +0000

I agree that there’s been nothing terribly original from Runnells, in any year, but some people seem to believe that a list of standard complaints about the LDS church, some of which go back 170 years, is somehow a revelation. Kelly and Dehlin, on the other hand, have done original things, which is why they have gotten coverage in places such as the New York Times.

By: Roman

Roman — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:30:15 +0000

I should think that discussing the merits of the accomplishments of the names up for the vote (though the validity of the vote is deeply questionable at this stage, IMHO) is absolutely in line with the subject of the post.

By: Kent Larsen

Kent Larsen — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:13:50 +0000

Folks, I´m having a hard time seeing how the ¨CES letter¨ has anything to do with the subject of this post. Can we get back on topic?

By: Roman

Roman — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 14:10:52 +0000

I wasn’t particularly impressed by the CES letter, thinking it contained every error and almost every truth ever discussed in the Church, to borrow Alexander Campbell’s phrase.

But now that I’m told it’s a game-changing, unstoppable force that our apologists have no answers for, I shall submit my resignation along with my fast offering this morning. :-)

If anything, James’s suggestion that the new essays confirm everything in the CES letter reinforces my own vote in favor of the essays, which I believe will have a much more lasting and wide-ranging effect on Church membership than whatever’s lighting up keyboards over at Mormon Stories and its various spin-offs and imitators.

By: James Gibbons

James Gibbons — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 06:59:25 +0000

Exactly what “rebuttal” are you referring to, Seth?

Guess the Church’s new essays are “anti-Mormon” too since they confirm the main points and facts contained in the CES Letter. Essays can be read at http://www.mormonessays.com.

You’re coming across as desperate in your attempt to paint the CES Letter and Jeremy as “anti-Mormon”. It’s not 1975 anymore. Time to come to 2015. The term is meaningless and obsolete now in attempting to discredit someone who is sharing the facts that the Church now admits in its new essays. In fact, the CES Letter mostly refers to the essays and official LDS sources.

Yesterday’s “anti-Mormon” materials is today’s Church essay facts. Funny, huh?

By: Seth R.

Seth R. — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 05:43:46 +0000

Actually, Runnells rebuttal already has received a rebuttal, and did so about a week after Runnells published it.

And honestly, a rebuttal wasn’t all that difficult, since the entire CES letter consisted of little more than rehashed anti-Mormon arguments that have already had responses sitting on the FairMormon wiki for years now.

He has a lot of fans over at Mormon”Think”

By: Left Field

Left Field — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 04:40:30 +0000

To really be taken seriously as having had the greatest impact on Mormons and Mormonism, I would think that the person and his/her work would need to be known and discussed beyond just the candidate’s own groupies. Clearly, Kelly and Dehlin fit the bill. Runnells? I had to look up who he is. And I read the Bloggernacle every day.

The Bloggernacle’s not the universe of course, but that’s who is sponsoring this poll. A search at Mormon Archipelago returns 59,800 hits for Kate Kelly, 11,600 for John Dehlin, and (not counting the two T&S “Mormon of the Year” posts) a grand total of eight for Runnells. And six of the eight were at M* and Mormanity, which I seldom read. I guess that’s why I’d never heard of him.

Obviously he’s got some well-organized groupies out there in some other specialized corner of social media. And no doubt there’s other people somewhere who know more about him than I do. But aside from his own devoted fans, his mother, his dentist, Daniel Peterson, Jeff Lindsay, and about ten other people, I’m wondering who all the Mormons are who even know who this guy is. He’s got a lot of missionary zeal it would seem, but not much name recognition among the people he’s allegedly influencing.

By: Riley

Riley — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 03:55:08 +0000

So has Runnells’ letter really gone un-debunked as James Gibbons asserts? Does that mean the Mormon charade over and I don’t need to bother voting?

By: James Gibbons

James Gibbons — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 03:33:44 +0000

Walker F,

The CES Letter took off to another level in 2014 thanks to FairMormon’s response and Jeremy debunked FairMormon’s response in February 2014.

“Beloved” Daniel C. Peterson came out with his FairMormon presentation last summer, which Jeremy also debunked.

Another apologist Brian Hauglid did his Book of Abraham piece on the CES Letter, which Jeremy also debunked.

Jeremy was also attacked by Hales and a few other Mormon apologists and it’s my understanding that Jeremy is currently finishing up his rebuttals.

Also, Jeremy was interviewed on Mormon Stories in the spring of ’14 so he became much more visible and publicly known.

So, 2014 was a huge year for the CES Letter and Jeremy.

By: Alison Moore Smith

Alison Moore Smith — Sun, 04 Jan 2015 03:16:34 +0000

fbisti:

Asking for additional nominees to a list of influencers of this sort would be more mature/admirable/meaningful.

fbisti, that just might have been the purpose of this post.