Buy Raul Jimenez Men Jersey, 2016 Mexico Soccer Men Raul Jimenez Jersey at Official 2016 Mexico Soccer Shop. Buy our Our huge selection of Raul Jimenez White Men Jereys ,Raul Jimenez White & Red Stripes Men Jerseys and Raul Jimenez Grey Men Jerseys, Raul Jimenez Authentic Jerseys and Raul Jimenez Replica Jerseys, Raul Jimenez Home Men Jerseys, Raul Jimenez Away Men Jerseys and Raul Jimenez Third Away Men Jerseys for 2016 Mexico Soccer fans. Size in XS, S, M, L, XL.


Virto Thumbnail View for MS SharePoint 1.0.0 Free Download - Virto Thumbnail View for SharePoint: replace image icons with thumbnails.
Virto Thumbnail View for SharePoint: replace image icons with thumbnails.
Virto Thumbnail View Web Part allows you to show images thumbnails for the SharePoint document libraries.
SharePoint users tend to add pictures not only to the picture libraries, but to document libraries as well. By default pictures in SharePoint document libraries are shown with icons opposite them. But working with pictures should include the ability to view at least their reduced-size copies - thumbnails.
To resolve the issue Virtosoftware has launched Virto Thumbnail View for Microsoft SharePoint. The solution enables you to replace standard picture icons with their thumbnails and makes working with pictures in document libraries more visual and convenient.
Moreover by a single click on a thumbnail, SharePoint user can switch to slideshow and view pictures manually or in the automatic slideshow mode. The solution is simple-to-use and adjusted in several minutes after installation in a document library settings.
Statement: First, please download the orginal installation package by clicking the download link. Of course you may also download it from the publisher's website. Using Virto Thumbnail View for MS SharePoint crack, key, patch, serial number, registration code, keygen is illegal. The download file hosted at publisher website. We do not provide any download link points to Rapidshare, Hotfile, Depositfiles, Mediafire, Filefactory, etc. or obtained from file sharing programs such as Limewire, Kazaa, Imesh, Ares, BearShare, BitTorrent, WinMX etc. Software piracy is theft. If you like Virto Thumbnail View for MS SharePoint please buy it.


WhatsApp Share Its user Information to Facebook from this Summer!
- ASUS Republic of Gamers Announces ROG Phone With Snapdragon 845 SoC, 3D Vapour-Chamber Cooling - How to password protect a USB flash drive - ASUS ZenFone Max Pro M1 will now be available 24/7 - Top Upcoming Smartphones in India 2019 - MX Player Vs VLC for Android – Detailed Comparison - Redmi 4 launched Today -Price, Specifications and Everything You Want to Know - A-Z about the latest OnePlus flagship, the OnePlus 5 - Free! The Complete Ethical Hacking Course by Udemy - Yahoo Mail Makes Mother's Day Emails Beautiful and Special, Just like Mom - NVIDIA's Nationwide Gamer Connect Tour - Huawei P20 Pro tops DxOMark's ubiquitous camera quality charts - Hardware Wallets Review - OPPO F7, The Next Smartphone Featuring Notch Display like iPhone X - The Vivo V9 all set to launch in India on March 23 - Xiaomi India Announced Mi LED Smart TV 4A (32"&43") - Redmi Note 5 and Redmi Note 5 Pro -Everything You Need To Know. - WhatsApp Business Now Available Now In India - Flurry State of Mobile 2017 study (Yahoo Mobile Developer Suite) - InFocus unveils Vision 3, Transforming your display experience! - Google Assistant now Supports 'Hey Google': Here's How to Get it on your Phone - Top 5 Best Android Smartphones To Buy Under 10000 Rupees in India - Vivo V7 with 24MP Front Camera and a 5.7inch 18:9 display launched in India - All you need to know about to Redmi Y1 & Y1 Lite - Google Tez app: Everything You Need to Know - WhatsApp Video Call feature coming soon! - Google Allo An Intelligent Messaging App - Better Alternatives to Garageband for Windows - Why do You need To Download Freedom APK? - 6 Blogs to follow to keep up the updates about 3D printing - Your Android phone can become a real Game Boy with this gadget - Kitchen Gadgets to make cooking easy - Top 7 Advantages of Online Shopping - How To Fix Windows 10 Taskbar Not Working - Will iOS 11 Come Up with a Better Control Center? - Startupoid launches Healthpreneur'17, An International B-Plan Competition on the occasion of International Yoga Day - Top 5 Best Android Phones under 7000 Rupees in India - Abusive posters in social media will land in jail! - ASUS Teams Up With Reliance Jio To offer Up To 100GB Additional 4G Data For Select Phones - Samsung Galaxy S9 leaks are setting higher hopes - HTC launches flagship smartphone HTC U11 priced at INR 51,990 /- in India - Frameworks for Flexible & Functional Mobile App Development - ASUS Announces All-New ZenPad 10 (Z301ML/MFL) at Computex - Download Cartoon HD on Blackberry Devices Sporting 10.2 or Advanced OS - YouTV Player Provides the Users With Great Facilities Unlike Others - Paytm Bank/Wallet: Everything You Need To About - LCARE Launched New Fitness Band Lifesense Band 2 & Lifesense Watch - Sims 5 is Expected to Come out in the Year 2019 - Know why it is important to have WordPress theme customization services - The Simple Steps to Download ShowBox for Windows PC - ASUS Unveils ZenFone Live ; Specifications and Everything You Want to Know - PlayStation 5 Expected price has to be low - FIFA 18 Will Bring in More Types of Games - How To Root Any Android device Easily! - Top 5 Android competitors of iPhone 8 - Why Do You Need SnapTube For Your Device - iMessage is Expected to Get New Features With the Launch of Apple iOS 11 - Hike plans to outdo WhatsApp with a new feature - Top 5 Interesting uses of drones - What makes iMessage so special - Real-Time Location Sharing And Its Connection With Whatsapp - Comparision Between Android And IOS. - 6 Things you Must Know about Alternative Lending - ASUS Launches Asus Zenfone Go 5.5 variant in India -Price, Specifications and Everything You Want to Know - WhatsApp Share Its user Information to Facebook from this Summer! - How To Record WhatsApp Calls On Android And iOS Devices - Lyft and Uber rates surge to incredible price after BART stopped - Google Launched An App to make android more stunning - How To Track Facebook Profile Visitors - How To Delete Worthless Photos In WhatsApp Automatically - How To Activate YouTube's Secret Dark Mode - Xiaomi Mi 6 launched -Price, Specifications and Everything You Want to Know - BSNL Launches An Amazing plan, Offers 10GB Per Day At simply Rs 249 INR - Reliance Jio New Tariff Plans Announced, Here Is Everything you need to know - How To Restore Deleted Files In Android. Without Root - Airtel Internet TV launched; offers Android TV STB, 500+ channels and Netflix - How To Update WhatsApp Status Like a Pro - Micromax Dual 5 India Launch Set for Today; Watch Live Stream - How To Use Both WiFi & Data To Boost Internet Download Speed - The New Lineage OS Released List Of supported Devices And Downloads - How to Enable Multi Window Feature In Android 6.0 - Xiaomi Mi3/4 Custom rom BeanStalk 7.0 [7.0.0_r14] - CyanogenMod 14 Custom Rom With Android Nougat Review! - How to Get Google Assistant On Any Phone Running Android Marshmallow or Higher - The Xiaomi Mi Note 2 Launched - Microsoft Surface Studio PC announced - How To Schedule Whatsapp Messages On Android - How To Turn Your Android Device Into Mac OS - WhatsApp Brings Two-Step Verification On Android: How To Enable - Top 7 Dating App To Try On This Valentine.


What makes ixigo Cashback REAL?
Tired of the websites that claim to give you Cashback but end up giving you a bunch of points or virtual cash that can be used in limited places, for a limited period of time, etc? Fret no more! When you book through ixigo we guarantee 'REAL' Cashback.
1) ixigo cashback is valid on both one-way and return flight bookings. Hence, if you choose to book one-way tickets individually for your trip, you end up saving twice as much!
3) The best part is, the cashback is credited to your Citrus Wallet, from where you can transfer the entire amount to your bank account with just a few simple clicks. You can click here for more information on how to make this transfer.
So what are you waiting for? Take advantage of the REAL ixigo Cashback and book your flight NOW!


Avid traveler and accomplished photographer Conrad Earnest spent some time in the Ice House on Main recently to document the unique spaces and textures of the historic structure.
Conrad is the Director of Clinical Science at Nutrabolt International and Research Scientist at Texas A&M University. A recent transplant from Bath, England, Conrad and has traveled extensively, documenting more than 30 countries in photos and is showing no signs of slowing down.
We are honored that Conrad chose Bryan's Ice House on Main as his subject and has allowed us to share his images here. To see more of Conrad's stunning photography, visit Conrad Earnest on Flickr.


Dr. RaeDeen Keahiolalo-Karasuda (2013), the Director of the Office of Native Hawaiian Partnerships at Chaminade University, received her PhD in political science from the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. Her dissertation, "The Colonial Carceral and Prison Politics in Hawai'i," analyzes the historical and contemporary ways that policy, representation, and discourse perpetuate and enable the criminalization and over-incarceration of Hawaiians. Her professional background spans a range of disciplines, including law and policy, research, and community education. RaeDeen's passion to contribute toward the well-being of Hawaiians drives her commitments in both her professional and community work.
In this interview, RaeDeen reflects upon the experiences that influenced her political consciousness, her research on Chief Kamanawa (her article is in the below attachment), her work on the Native Hawaiian Justice Task Force (as reflected in the attached report), and her commitment to higher education. I began the interview by asking where was she born and raised.
Running time approximately 28 min.


text:
An Open Letter To William Lane Craig
To Dr. William Lane Craig:
Dear Dr. Craig,
I have followed your work for some years now as my interest in philosophical theology has grown. I have sporadically listened to your podcast and have read a number of both your online and print publications. I have watched a number of your debates with prominent atheists on the question of God's existence. I have even listened to you speak in person. A year ago you shared a stage with Jordan Peterson and Rebecca Goldstein at the University of Toronto debating the question: "Is There Meaning to Life?" I was in the audience on that occasion. For the most part I have found you to be a fine public speaker, a persuasive debater, thoughtful, and thought-provoking. I have not always agreed with your arguments, but as a fellow theist I have at least always appreciated that you have so vocally defended the existence of God.
There is one area, however, where, I must confess, I have found your reasoning and argumentative abilities so woefully impaired that I feel compelled to air a few of my thoughts (for whatever they might be worth).
That area is how you discuss the claims of "Mormonism," so-called, or more properly the beliefs and history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The catalyst for my decision to write to you was when a close friend of mine who is entering a PhD program in philosophy at Texas A&M University sent me a link to your May 26, 2019 podcast episode on "Mormon" Transhumanism. I listened to your interview with Mr. Kevin Harris with attentiveness. I was previously aware of your chapter in The New Mormon Challenge critiquing the Latter-day Saint concept of Creation, and even though I disagreed with your critique, I thought perhaps you might have something interesting to say in this episode.
I was, however, greatly disappointed with what I heard.
I shall not endeavor here to list all of my complaints with your most recent podcast discussing "Mormon" Transhumanism. If I have to pick just one thing I found particularly objectionable, it was your abuse of Richard Bushman's already oft-abused quote about "the dominant narrative" of the Church not being true. You, apparently, immediately took this to mean that Bushman was urging some kind of need to move Latter-day Saint theology "toward[s] orthodox Christianity," and that he was otherwise providing signs for "a real hope that the Mormon Church [sic] might morph into another Christian denomination that would come to actually embrace orthodox Christian doctrine and repudiate the errors of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young." Suffice it to say that you have badly misunderstood Bushman's comment. Bushman himself has clarified what he meant with his off-the-cuff statement that "the dominant narrative [of the Church] is not true." Quoth Bushman, "I still come down on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations." What he appears to have meant with his comment was that Latter-day Saints need to move beyond a simplistic Sunday School version of their history, and that a robust, mature Latter-day Saint historical and theological narrative needs to appreciate how people can react differently to the same disconcerting information about the early history of the Church. (Incidently, I wholeheartedly agree with Bushman on this point.)
In any event, after I listened to this podcast, I went deeper down the rabbit hole out of what I can only call morbid curiosity to see what else you might have said or written about "Mormonism." There I discovered additional episodes of your podcast, such as this one, where you rehash some of your criticisms of the "Mormon" view of Creation, or this one, where you say remarkable (and abysmally uninformed) things like, "Mormonism [sic] as a religious movement is not characterized by a kind of intellectual element in the way that Christian theology and the Christian church has been. It is more experiential, less doctrinal, less intellectual, and that would fit right in with the Rescue Plan – not attempting to mount an intellectual defense of Mormon [sic] doctrine and give apologetics but to simply do public opinion surveys and a better job of PR." (There is well over 180 years of a rich "Mormon" apologetic tradition which amply disproves this notion that Latter-day Saints have no intellectual grounding for their faith.)
My continued investigation led me back to some of your debates with prominent atheists and critics of creedal Christianity. There I was astounded at how blithe and dismissive you often were towards Latter-day Saint theology and history during what were otherwise engaging intellectual discussions.
Take, for instance, this exchange in your debate with Alex Rosenberg:
Rosenberg: "Let's turn to the argument from the New Testament. I am sort of gob smacked as a philosopher that he should persist in propounding this preposterous argument. Ask yourself the following question: in 1827, Joseph Smith got eleven people to certify that they observed the golden tablets which he – an illiterate person – was able to translate from Reform Egyptian and convey the Book of Mormon to the Latter Day Saints. Do we believe on the basis of those eleven certificates that are only about one hundred and sixty years old that the Book of Mormon is the revealed word of God?"
Craig: "As for the resurrection of Jesus, he just doesn't understand, I think, the credibility of the New Testament documents in this regard. You cannot compare them to Joseph Smith which were probably lies or to Mohammed's ascension which is probably a legend because in this case we are dealing with early eyewitness testimony that is not the result of conspiracy or lie; these people sincerely believed what they said. That is why most historians accept those three facts. Therefore, the naturalist has got to come up with some alternative explanation. You can't indict eyewitness testimony in general and then use that against a specific case – you would have to show in the specific case of the Gospels that this testimony is unreliable. That is not the opinion of the majority of historians who have investigated these documents."
Here you offhandedly dismiss Joseph Smith's claims as "probably lies." But you never actually explain why or give any evidence for this belief. You merely assert it. Nor do you actually address Rosenberg's argument. He is, strictly speaking, correct. There are multiple reliable eyewitnesses to the existence of the golden plates. Latter-day Saint historians and, yes, apologists have produced a compelling body literature arguing for the sincerity, truthfulness, and credibility of these witnesses.1 Have you engaged this literature at all? Are you familiar with it? Are you familiar with the trend among even skeptical or naturalistic historians and biographers of Joseph Smith to acknowledge at least the material existence of the plates, even while seeking naturalistic explanations for them?2 You can't merely brush aside the testimonies of the early, sincere eyewitnesses to the Book of Mormon as "the result of conspiracy or lie[s]" simply because they are inconvenient to your argument.
After this exchange, in a post-debate summary, you again affirmed, "I would say with regard to Joseph Smith that what he was saying about the golden tablets and the golden spectacles were just lies. I think Joseph Smith was an imposter, and so these were lies." It may be that Joseph Smith was an imposter, but why do you think so? What specific reasons do you have for arriving at this conclusion? I'm sure I don't need to tell you how problematic it is for a man of philosophical erudition like yourself to make sweeping claims such as this with nary a shred of evidence, or even some kind of justifiable argument.
Your debate with Rosenberg is not the only instance where you have given unsatisfying and perfunctory answers to important questions about Joseph Smith. On your July 12, 2011 podcast responding to questions about evidence for the Resurrection, you make the following claim: "And as for Joseph Smith, he had obvious motivations for carrying on this ruse in view of the fact that he was the leader of the cult and it gave him a position of power and prominence that he enjoyed. So I don't have any problem with saying that Smith could well have been insincere in his claims." Ignoring your pejorative language ("the leader of the cult") that is completely indecorous and entirely undignified for any serious intellectual, you casually indicate that you "don't have any problem with saying that Smith could well have been insincere in his claims" on the grounds that "he had obvious motivations for carrying on this ruse." You may not have a problem with saying such, but that can only be because you, frankly, appear not to have the slightest clue about the life, personality, or character of Joseph Smith. It is the summit of pure folly to make him into some kind of a moustache-twirling nineteenth-century David Koresh or Jim Jones. I know of no serious historian or biographer (not Fawn Brodie, not Robert Remini, not Richard Bushman) who would paint such a crass portrait of one of America's most important religious figures. Even Joseph's most ardently skeptical biographers, such as Brodie, have granted his basic sincerity. It is simply impossible for any reasonable, fair-minded individual to walk away from reading his papers and honestly believe Joseph Smith was insincere or conniving.3
But you need not take my word for it. If you think I'm wrong, I invite you to rummage through the Prophet's papers for yourself. Kindly point me to specific examples of his insincerity, conscious deceit, or wilful malice. If you cannot, then I would urge you to refrain from further making any such embarrassing comments.
Perhaps the reason why you have not given concrete examples of why you believe Joseph Smith was untruthful, or why you have not provided any specific reasons for believing he was insincere, is because you are incapable of doing so. I say this because of your July 12, 2011 podcast you say the following:
Dear Dr. Craig, doesn't your argument for the resurrection prove too much? If it is true that people willing to endure persecution are such solid witnesses to their claims, to have eye-witnessed truth, then what about the claims of the witnesses of the golden plates in Mormonism? Even if the plates were a forgery, what motivation would Joseph Smith have had for carrying on his claims in the face of persecution? If he had none, but did it anyway, why couldn't the apostles have done the same?
Dr. Craig: Well, now here it's important to understand what the argument is intended to prove. This argument from the disciples' willingness to die for the truth of the message they proclaimed is only meant to show that they sincerely believed what they said. It's not meant to prove that what they said was true, but simply that they sincerely believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead. And then we want to ask the question, well, what is the best explanation of the origin of that belief? So the claim here that's being made is very modest, namely that these men sincerely believed that Jesus was risen from the dead. And I don't know anybody who would doubt that—any historical scholars. Now with respect to the witnesses to the plates – I'm not an expert on Mormonism [sic] – but as I understand it I think the original witnesses did recant and claim that they didn't see the plates after all. It's not true that they persisted.
Notwithstanding your understated disclaimer, this answer, Dr. Craig, betrays your profound ignorance of early Latter-day Saint history. As a matter of fact, the Three and Eight Witnesses of the Book of Mormon never recanted their testimonies. Not in the face of damage to their reputations or literal mob violence. Not even after a substantial number of them fell out with Joseph Smith and were either excommunicated from or otherwise abandoned the Church of Jesus Christ. Again, the literature on this topic is substantial. You'll pardon me for asking a question with an obvious answer, but are you acquainted with any of it?
What's more, the parallels to the behavior of the witnesses to the Resurrection are striking. So striking, in fact, that Latter-day Saint apologists have made more or less the same argument you have made: "This argument from the Book of Mormon witnesses' willingness to die for the truth of the message they proclaimed is only meant to show that they sincerely believed what they said. It's not meant to prove that what they said was true, but simply that they sincerely believed that Joseph Smith had seen an angel and had golden plates. And then we want to ask the question, well, what is the best explanation of the origin of that belief? So the claim here that's being made is very modest, namely that these men sincerely believed that Joseph Smith had seen an angel and had golden plates. And I don't know anybody who would doubt that—any historical scholars."
This is precisely why Rosenberg brought this up in your debate with him. Your arguments for the reliability of the witnesses of the Resurrection have been employed to great effect for the reliability of the witnesses of the golden plates. Out of what I am charitably going to assume is mere neglect, you are clearly incapable of properly responding to this counter-argument, which I further assume is the reason why you have succumb to such uncharacteristic condescension and disdain.
Now I harbor no delusions that any of this is likely to change your mind about Joseph Smith or the Restored Gospel. But if I may be indulged to offer you some advice, Dr. Craig, it would be this: rather than persist in making such uninformed and easily discreditable remarks, inform yourself on the life and teachings of Joseph Smith by becoming knowledgable in the best of Latter-day Saint academic history and apologetics. Again, there is a substantial body of work by Latter-day Saint historians and apologists chronicling a believable account of the Prophet's life and ministry and offering compelling arguments for the credibility of the his claims. I would be more than happy to give you my own recommendations if you desired.4
I mean this sincerely, Dr. Craig, when I ask: what do you have to lose? You will be benefited by shedding your heretofore ill-informed views thanks to the help of credible scholarship, which is the hallmark of true intellectual integrity and honestly, and you'll become better-prepared to provide actual cogent rebuttals (not snide handwaving) the next time an atheist or a Latter-day Saint brings up this line of argumentation. And, as a Christian, is it not your biblically-mandated duty not to bear false witness against your neighbors (Exodus 20:16) and to otherwise exercise your God-given rational faculties to the best of their abilities in defending what you suppose to be the truth (1 Peter 3:15)?
Should you elect to undertake it, I would be more than happy to help you in an endeavor to become more knowledgable about the history and faith of the Latter-day Saints.
Stephen O. Smoot
The foundational work on the Book of Mormon witnesses is Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1981); see also Richard Lloyd Anderson, "Personal Writings of the Book of Mormon Witnesses," in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 39-60; Steven C. Harper, "Evaluating the Book of Mormon Witnesses," Religious Educator 11/2 (2010): 37-49; Alexander L. Baugh, "The Testimony of the Book of Mormon Witnesses," in A Reason for Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine & Church History, ed. Laura Harris Hales (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2016), 45–58; Larry E. Morris, A Documentary History of the Book of Mormon (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019). Online resources summarizing this scholarship include these offerings from Book of Mormon Central: "Who Were the "Few" Who Were Permitted to See the Plates?", "Why Were Three Key Witnesses Chosen to Testify of the Book of Mormon?", "How Important Was Oliver Cowdery in Bringing Forth the Book of Mormon?", "How Did Martin Harris Help Bring Forth the Book of Mormon?", "Did the Book of Mormon Witnesses Really See What They Claimed?"
The most recent offerings in this trend being Ann Taves, "History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates," Numen: International Review for the History of Religions 61, no. 2–3 (2014): 182–207; reprinted in The Expanded Canon: Perspectives on Mormonism and Sacred Texts, ed. Blair G. Van Dyke, Brian D. Birch, and Boyd J. Peterson (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2018), 93–119; Taves, Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies in the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016), 50–65.
The experience of my friend Don Bradley is illustrative of this point.
Here and here are two good places to start.
Tags Book of Mormon witnesses, Joseph Smith, William Lane Craig Post navigation
A Review of the Annotated Edition of the Book of Mormon (Postscript)
Book Review: First Vision: Memory and Mormon Origins
33 thoughts on "An Open Letter To William Lane Craig"
Melanie RIWAI-Couch
Brother Smoot, an excellent letter. I wonder what reply might follow, as you say, what is there to lose.
Corey Wozniak
Thanks, brother Smoot!
S. Hales Swift
I went to the Rosenberg debate with my wife and she left ticked with both of them. I vividly recall the exchange that you cited and thought how differently the whole debate would have gone if their had been a qualified Latter-day Saint participant.
Louis Midgley
It pleases me that the first to comment of Stephen Smoot's open letter to William Lane Craig was Dr. Melanie Riwai-Couch, who is a gifted Maori educator. I very much doubt that Dr. Craig will respond. We will see.
Luiz Botelho
What an amazing and well constructed criticism of Dr Craig's work. Good job Stephen.
bwv549
I look forward to WLC's response and note that few Christian apologists seem intimately familiar with LDS history/apologetics, which is a huge field of study by itself. Christian discourse on Mormonism can certainly be improved.
> Kindly point me to specific examples of his insincerity, conscious deceit, or wilful malice
Deceit or insincerity is always difficult to prove beyond doubt because we don't have direct access to JS's mind during these events. Still, here are a few candidates where such a conclusion seems consistent with the data.
* Joseph Smith denied practicing polygamy on numerous occasions (https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/joseph-smith-polygamy-denials/) but there is good data to suggest that he was, in fact, practicing it. He also went to some lengths to disparage or facilitate the disparagement of those who had called him and other leaders out for the practice (e.g., Martha Brotherton).
* Joseph Smith's retelling of his Charles Anthon visit seems to correspond poorly with the actual events that likely occurred, suggesting possible deceit in the retelling (https://medium.com/@jellistx/fact-checking-mormon-history-did-charles-anthon-authenticate-josephs-translation-of-reformed-7aa9736965b7)
* A side-by-side comparison of the original Book of Commandments with the Doctrine and Covenants suggests the possibility of unwarranted embellishment (i.e., conscious deceit on some level). (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6ItuDdVWOO8X2JqTlVCb3E5dTg/view)
"Deceit or insincerity is always difficult to prove beyond doubt because we don't have direct access to JS's mind during these events."
That's sort of my point. Craig believes JS was insincere. Okay, one can believe that if one wishes. But how are you going to prove it? the closest way would be to find either admission of guilt ("The Secret Confessions of Joseph Smith" perhaps) or cracks in the façade in JS's private papers (letters, journals, etc.). If Craig can't prove it, then he's engaging in mere wishful thinking.
"Joseph Smith denied practicing polygamy on numerous occasions"
I am satisfied that Joseph's public denials of "polygamy" were awkward attempts at equivocating, not outright deception. Brian Hale's recent work on this has convinced me of that:
"'Denying the Undeniable': Examining Early Mormon Polygamy Renunciations," Journal of Mormon History Vol. 44, No. 3 (July 2018), pp. 23-44.
"Joseph Smith's retelling of his Charles Anthon visit seems to correspond poorly with the actual events that likely occurred, suggesting possible deceit in the retelling"
I disagree with this assessment:
https://knowhy.bookofmormoncentral.org/knowhy/why-did-martin-harris-consult-with-scholars-like-charles-anthon
"A side-by-side comparison of the original Book of Commandments with the Doctrine and Covenants suggests the possibility of unwarranted embellishment (i.e., conscious deceit on some level)."
The phrase "unwarranted embellishment" is interesting. Who, for instance, gets to decide what is "unwarranted"? JS had no problem freely revising the text of his scriptural productions: he did it with both the 1837 and 1840 editions of the Book of Mormon, he did with the 1842 printing of the Book of Abraham, and, as you mention, with printed editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. Several (Bushman, Flake, Ashurst-McGee, Jensen, Skousen, Matthews, etc.) historians and text critics have already explored what prerogatives JS assumed with his roles as "seer" and "translator," and that apparently includes the freedom to expand or revise his scriptural texts as he pleased.
But your point is taken: one could potentially argue for conscious deceit from these examples, but I think it would be an argument that would find serious pushback from informed Latter-day Saint historians. And, in any case, Craig never makes any of these arguments.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I think we agree on the difficulty of proving insincerity.
> I am satisfied that Joseph's public denials of "polygamy" were awkward attempts at equivocating, not outright deception.
To equivocate is "to use equivocal language especially with the intent to deceive" and "equivocal" means "subject to two or more interpretations and usually used to mislead or confuse."
The logic is straightforward:
1. Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy at the time he made the denials.
2. The words JS spoke on these occasions seem clearly designed to give the impression that he was not, in fact, practicing polygamy. This may be inferred by the fact that most of these were delivered in contexts where he was being accused of practicing polygmay or his words are so transparent as to admit of one clear interpretation (i.e., he was not practicing polygamy).
We can quibble over whether he was deceiving through the clever use of double meanings (which would not have been understood by anyone who didn't already know he was practicing polygamy) or even whether he was ultimately justified in these deceptions, but Joseph Smith was doing one thing and the words he spoke seem designed to give the impression that he was not doing that thing. This is the textbook definition of "deceive" ("to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid").
> Brian Hale's recent work on this has convinced me of that.
That article is behind a paywall, but I've read most everything publicly accessible written on the topic of JS's polygamy denials (including many of Hales's arguments in various venues and every first-hand account in its complete context). I've responded to the idea that Joseph Smith wasn't actually lying here (https://www.reddit.com/r/mormonscholar/comments/66qepx/response_to_hales_challenge_please_show_me_even/).
> I disagree with this assessment: …
The KnowWhy article only peripherally deals with some of the claims made in Ellis's article, and it fails to touch on many of the claims relevant to our discussion here. For instance:
> In 1832, Joseph records that Anthon told Harris that he could not read the document (but was willing to try to decipher the original, which would provide a much larger body of material to work from). In 1838, Joseph recounts a glowing endorsement from Anthon of the characters' authenticity and Joseph's translation.
We can posit various reasons for a person contradicting themselves in two accounts of the same event, but one of those reasons may be to deceive/mislead others (i.e., to pass off as true one story which does not correspond with the actual truth).
> Who, for instance, gets to decide what is "unwarranted"?
Well, at least one of Joseph Smith's contemporaries (whose testimony Latter-day Saints tend to regard) thought the changes were "unwarranted" (https://archive.org/details/addresstoallbeli00whit/page/56):
> Some of the revelations as they now appear in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants have been changed and added to changed and added to. Some of the changes being the greatest importance as the meaning is entirely changed on some very important matters; …
> But your point is taken: one could potentially argue for conscious deceit from these examples
That was my main point, so I think we've found some common ground.
> but I think it would be an argument that would find serious pushback from informed Latter-day Saint historians.
One is equally unlikely to find an informed Muslim historian willing to concede any deception on the part of Muhammad, but this probably says more about their acceptance of Muhammad as a prophet than the likelihood that Muhammad was ever deceptive? So, we've probably reached our stalemate here, which is fine.
> And, in any case, Craig never makes any of these arguments.
And that is a travesty. Hopefully he'll take notice of your post and become better informed.
Thanks for your reply. I'm sure we could go back and forth on each of these individual points, but I suspect we would not agree, for the most part, in our conclusions.
So instead, let me say that I agree more or less with your final point: Although I would personally find it rather weak, Craig could potentially make an argument for conscious deception or fraud with these points if he wanted, but he did not. Sadly, he opted for mere assertions and handwaving. Hopefully he will step up his game in the future.
FWIW, if I were going to make an argument from these data points that was not in Joseph Smith's favor, I would opt for some kind of sincere-self-delusion or pious-fraud argument, rather than an outright-conscious-deceiver argument.
But that's perhaps a conversation for another time I suppose.
ScottW
Thanks Steven. I've had similar thoughts. If Craig was as sloppy in his critical thinking skills about Jesus, God, and the New Testament as he is about Joseph Smith and Mormonism, nobody would ever take him seriously.
I have listened to many of WLC's debates and statements. It seems the reason he is dismissive of the church is because it doesn't profit him to inform himself or to take is seriously. The majority of his audiences don't even get into the Church's existence or have a need to bring it up. He would seem to prefer to go with the misinformation that already exists. His choice to be ignorant does support the probability that he is on his own mission, not God's
Gary Burnett
Great letter. Well done.
Walden Barney
I would like to make a point regarding the supposed "deceptive" inclinations of Joseph Smith. The gentleman making the argument in that direction seems not to recall that all mortal human beings fall short in adhering to the teachings of God and his Son. For example, the head of the original apostles, Peter, upon being interrogated by those present when Jesus was being put through the indignities that He went through at the time of his condemnation by the Jews, denied repeatedly that he even knew the man (Jesus). Would we try to argue that he had no intent to deceive those who questioned him? Or would we say, rather, that his moral fiber as a mortal and imperfect human failed him in a moment of peril and under the threat of being condemned himself and perhaps suffering a fate similar to that of Jesus? God had only ONE perfect Son, capable of enduring such things, and all others, even though they might be prophets, or apostles or whatever, because they are mortal humans, may in some instances fall short, particularly under extenuating circumstances. Humans are prone to do this when they realize that the things they are engaged in are misunderstood by those around them, and upon the realization that openly recognizing before the uninformed public the things they are engaged in, can indeed be a recipe for serious disaster. This was true for Peter, and also for Abraham when he presented his wife to Pharaoh of Egypt in such a way that the Pharaoh would not realize that she was actually his wife. If we have cases such as these documented in the scriptures, showing that prophets, apostles, and men of God have in past times behaved perhaps below the level we might tend to expect of them (and realizing that indeed we ourselves may also misunderstand truth and reality), then why assume that a servant of God in our own times might not in some instance give in to the same weakness (or indeed, we could go so far as to label it as being "prudence") as we ourselves have each given in to at times when we perceive that openly confirming something inconvenient will bring severe wrath down upon us. Sometimes we do this because we indeed are behaving in a manner unbecoming a disciple of the Lord, but other times we are not necessarily doing anything wrong, but we realize that the perception of others around us as to what is in fact "wrong" is so extremely different from reality that if we recognize and confirm publicly with them our actions and understanding of what is in fact right, we will immediately become subject to severe actions against us. So, I say, why should we assume that Joseph's motive was deceit when there are so many things that confirm that that was NOT his nature. He may have feared the reaction from those as yet unprepared to understand what he understood, but he was not of an inherently deceitful nature, and NOT intent on leading others astray, as testified by endless details of his life, and by those who knew him intimately and had the opportunity to observe him under every conceivable circumstance. No mortal human is capable of living a lie to such a level over such an extended period of time… the truth always somehow surfaces, and those closest to him would eventually have found him out, and they were all putting their lives on the line because of him. I say no to that theory. And taking into account his willingness to put his life at risk for others, and to endure extreme hardship and persecution rather than recant those things he personally affirmed to be true, we would have to concede (if we would be rational and intellectually honest), that if we are going to strike down his testimony and assertions (or those of the other witnesses and followers) on the basis of his occasional mortal frailty, we will then indeed be negating the validity of using this self-same argument of sincerity of belief being evidenced by the trials and sufferings endured, as commonly applied in favor of the validity of the testimony of the apostles of Jesus (which, again, is why that fellow made use of it as a pretext to try to dismiss the testimonies of the apostles regarding the resurrection of Jesus, knowing that the good Dr. Craig would be unable to stomach allowing for the same argument to apply to Joseph Smith and his followers). And you have to admit that the claims made by the Latter-Day-Saints sound no more preposterous to those around us in our times than those made by Christ and his followers did to those of their times, and the same kinds of accusations have been made regarding Christ and his disciples as are made against the Latter-Day-Saints in our day. Why would anyone expect that it would be otherwise, and that the Father of Lies would for some unfathomable reason cease to rail and accuse against the truth in our times? I, personally, see that fact as one more witness that the "restored gospel", as we commonly refer to it among members, is in fact the restoration of the very truth that Christ originally established during his mortal ministry.
Lks
You heard him.
Anthony Diaz
Well said, brother Barney!
Keen Observer
I do not mean to sound vindictive, but Mormonism just can't be taken seriously as a candidate for truthful religion.
There are larger, heavy duty anachronisms and contradictions among other issues compared to other faiths. Although any faith can have an "apologetics department", only intellectually viable faiths can make a real case for themselves.
The case for mormonism is desperate to say the least. This is just the reality of the situation.
WLC is just as informed as he needs to be.
Your condescending dismissiveness is duly noted and afforded the level of serious consideration it merits.
The absurdities found in Mormonism are beyond compare with other religious systems. And the attempt to make it palatable to thinking people is simply a form of apologetic deception. Joseph Smith's "snake oil salesman" character traits give pause to anybody seeking the truth about Mormonism. You can call that condescending dismissiveness Mr Smoot, if you like – I call it being truthful.
Joseph Smith's "snake oil salesman" character traits give pause to anybody seeking the truth about Mormonism.
I'm willing to bet that if asked, you wouldn't be able to name the top five biographers or historians of Joseph Smith, much less could say you've read their work, without having to cheat with Google.
I intend to be dismissive, but not condescending. (I've failed)
Although you are correct in pointing out that WLC has been intellectually lazy in regard to LDS theology, you don't bother pondering why this might be so. This is quite unlike WLC who typically follows every thread until the end.
Do you really see it as unjust that the LDS Church isn't taken seriously by philosophers and theologians? WLC's laziness (whilst not justified in its own right) is indicative of the state of Mormon apologetics, is it not?
"you don't bother pondering why this might be so."
If I'm being charitable, I would attribute Dr. Craig's shortcoming in this regard to innocent neglect.
If I'm being more honest, based on anecdotal evidence and his own published comments, I think it's because of personal bias or even animus against Latter-day Saints on Dr. Craig's part as an Evangelical polemicist.
Whatever the case, I emphatically do not believe it is because "Mormonism" is deserving of such dismissive contempt. Such a view, I am convinced, is born of either ignorance or bias.
"Do you really see it as unjust that the LDS Church isn't taken seriously by philosophers and theologians?"
Yes. Although I would qualify this somewhat. It is perhaps not taken seriously by conservative Evangelical theologians like Craig, but my bookshelf of volumes from Oxford, Cambridge, and other university presses on Latter-day Saint history and theology tells me that Craig's attitude is not representative of academia more broadly.
"WLC's laziness (whilst not justified in its own right) is indicative of the state of Mormon apologetics, is it not?"
No. Not in the slightest.
What kills me here especially is exactly the same sentiments you and Dr. Craig have disparagingly expressed against "Mormonism" and "Mormon" apologetics can and have been expressed by vociferous atheists against Dr. Craig's own brand of Evangelical Christian apologetics and conservative theism.
The hypocrisy is palpable (as I pointed out somewhat in my post).
I think it's a combination of neglecting that area of study and bias. I don't believe he is contemptuous. And if he is it's unjustified.
"…volumes from Oxford, Cambridge, and other university presses on Latter-day Saint history and theology tells me that Craig's attitude is not representative of academia more broadly."
I'll plead ignorance here as I'm not familiar with the academic writings you refer to, I'm only a dabbler in Mormon theology. Do you mean to tell me that the popular notion that LDS beliefs are unfounded is a creed of ignorance? I've followed the conversation a little (CES letter and it's replies) and it seems overwhelming.
"…the same sentiments you and Dr. Craig have disparagingly expressed against "Mormonism" and "Mormon" apologetics can and have been expressed by vociferous atheists against Dr. Craig's own brand of Evangelical Christian apologetics and conservative theism."
How can you make such a comparison!? Do you honestly believe that the questions stemming from the atheist camp on general faith are equivalent to the issues raised in the BOM? C'mon, you couldn't possibly believe such a thing!
"I'll plead ignorance here as I'm not familiar with the academic writings you refer to, I'm only a dabbler in Mormon theology."
I would recommend you start with:
https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199778362.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199778362
https://cup.columbia.edu/book/the-columbia-sourcebook-of-mormons-in-the-united-states/9780231149426
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/mormon-christianity-9780199316816?cc=us&lang=en&
https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674737433
To name just a few volumes off the top of my head.
"Do you mean to tell me that the popular notion that LDS beliefs are unfounded is a creed of ignorance?"
I mean to tell you that only the uninformed or the prejudiced dismiss "Mormon" claims out of hand or without having first thoughtfully engaged with Latter-day Saint beliefs and claims. (That includes, of course, thoughtfully engaging with the academic literature written about "Mormon" beliefs.) Of course, there are plenty of intelligent, sincere, thoughtful people who investigate "Mormonism" theologically and historically and remain unconverted. But rarely, if ever, will you find these individuals making the kind of broad, sweeping, and uninformed comments as those of Dr. Craig.
"I've followed the conversation a little (CES letter and it's replies) and it seems overwhelming."
And there it is.
To be frank, this is the equivalent to somebody casually reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and maybe a handful of apologetic Christian blogs or websites reviewing it and then walking away with the conclusion that Christianity (and theism in general) has "overwhelmingly" been refuted.
"How can you make such a comparison!?"
Because atheists themselves have literally made this comparison. I even quote some of them in my post.
"Do you honestly believe that the questions stemming from the atheist camp on general faith are equivalent to the issues raised in the BOM?"
I think the questions raised against the Book of Mormon are, on the whole, magnitudes weaker than the objections raised against orthodox Christian theism.
"C'mon, you couldn't possibly believe such a thing!"
You'd be surprised what I'm capable of believing if I'm sufficiently persuaded by the evidence.
Thanks for all those titles. I can't promise I will read them though.
This isn't the place to debate the nitty gritty. But ultimately your saying that:
The attitude that BOM is anachronistic and lacks convergence etc. (as compared to other religious scriptures) stems from ignorance. If one only "thoughtfully engaged with the academic literature" they would see that the BOM is in the same league as other religious scriptures in terms of validity.
the criticisms of the BOM are empty, like that of The God Delusion (which as you correctly note, are poorly researched.) The rebuttals to the criticisms of the BOM are more compelling than that of the responses to the Dawkins types.
From all the knowledge I have thus far, I just couldn't disagree more. The responses to Dawkins are strong and very compelling. It make me wonder if he ever did basic research. The defense to the BOM seems very apologetic and wishful. It makes me think Mormons wish we didn't do research.
I can't say that every criticism is
valid (they arent) or that I have all the knowledge necessary (I don't). But the totality of the BOM seems to set it apart from say the new or old testament in terms of reliability. Thats seems to be the reality of the situation.
I'm not excusing WLC or the Orthodox Christian attitude (I'm not a Christian myself although I am a theist).
Await you response.
That's entirely up to you. My point in sharing them was merely to demonstrate how Latter-day Saint theology and history is taken seriously as an academic discipline, not to give you a bunch of homework.
Here's what I am saying:
William Lane Craig and many others have taken an unjustifiably dismissive stance towards the beliefs, history, and scriptures of the Latter-day Saints. They have not adequately engaged with Latter-day Saint apologetic and academic literature. They have not thoughtfully gauged the evidence for and against Latter-day Saint claims. And in the worst cases, they have not even taken the time to so much as acquaint themselves with the very basics of Latter-day Saint beliefs and history. Whether one ultimately accepts or rejects Latter-day Saint truth claims, this is entirely unacceptable for anyone wanting to count themselves as serious academics. This is wholly unbecoming of a man such as William Lane Craig who, most of the time, provides thoughtful and reasoned engagement with competing theological and metaphysical worldviews. The fact that, whether out of neglect or spite, he does not afford Latter-day Saints the kind of basic intellectual courtesy he owes them is what prompted me to write this post. If Craig thinks "Mormonism" is just too laughably absurd, or too transparently false, for him to give it serious consideration, then that's of course entirely within his rights. But that, in turn, compromises his otherwise laudable intellectual fairness.
As for criticisms of the Book of Mormon, what I am saying is that most, but not all, of the criticisms levied against it have entirely satisfactory answers. What's more, the trend over the past two-hundred years, and especially over the past, let's say, forty years, has been favorable towards its authenticity. That is to say, as we've learned more about the ancient world, the Book of Mormon finds more convergence therewith. As such, while I would not presume to say that the Book of Mormon is obviously true beyond dispute, I am convinced that anybody who wants to seriously engage the text, and who wants to be taken seriously in their own opinions thereof, must seriously engage this growing body of literature, and must confront the text and explain its existence somehow other than the explanation given by Joseph Smith. Again, William Lane Craig and many others unjustifiably ignore this, and do not afford the attention and consideration which I believe the Book of Mormon rightly demands as world scripture and as a purported ancient text.
"The defense to the BOM seems very apologetic and wishful. It makes me think Mormons wish we didn't do research. . . . I can't say that every criticism is
You'll forgive me, but inasmuch as, by your own admission, you aren't really familiar with the body of literature, why should I care at all about your opinion on this matter? Your comment that "it makes me think Mormons wish we didn't do research" is, to be blunt, particularly absurd. Are you familiar with the body of Latter-day Saint academic literature from the past 40 or so years? Do the names Leonard Arrington, Hugh Nibley, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Daniel Peterson, and many others mean anything to do? How about institutions such as the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, FairMormon, the Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central, the Faith Matters Foundation, the Book of Mormon Studies Association, and others? What about the Mormon Studies programs at Claremont, the University of Virginia, USC, Utah State University, and other institutions of higher education?
Let's be very clear here: the CES Letter is to "Mormonism" what The God Delusion is to theism. As a matter of fact, it's even worse. Dawkins is at least an academically-qualified scientist who actually got his book published by a reputable mainstream press. Jeremy Runnells, by comparison, is without question the worst kind of self-publishing, intellectually-crowd-sourcing, amateurish dilettante the Internet could produce.
So, again, I am not saying that the case for the Book of Mormon is so overwhelming that everybody must accept its truthfulness. What I am saying is that saying something like "well I've read the CES Letter and have dabbled in some Mormon blogs so what's the big deal if William Lane Craig is intellectually lazy when it comes to Mormonism?" is entirely indefensible.
"William Lane Craig and many others have taken an unjustifiably dismissive stance…"
Fair. He shouldn't make sweeping statements (the likes of which you mention above) without thorough research and engagement. This is especially as a distinguished philosopher and a theologian as you point out.
However, as I mentioned above you do not seem to question why or how this prejudice has formed. I do not believe that this is simply because Mormons are the pesky younger brothers of Orthodox Christianity so to speak (although there is certainly some of that too.) I can speak for my self; I am not nor have I ever have been a Christian, but I understand why this attitude toward the BOM exists.
"As for criticisms of the Book of Mormon, what I am saying is that most, but not all, of the criticisms levied against it have entirely satisfactory answers."
I do not agree. I have read the back and forth and although each issue in isolation is treatable to a certain extent, the totality seems to weigh heavily against the Mormon position. Seems like a lot of band-aids to me.
"why should I care at all about your opinion?"
You don't have to 😉
"Are you familiar with the body of Latter-day Saint academic literature from the past 40 or so years? Do the names…"
I am not an expert on Mormon academic literature (nor do I have to be to take a position.) I have heard lectures from some of those names you mention, particularly Daniel Peterson. I have read much from the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, Fair Mormon and Joseph Smith Papers Project.
Everything aside I don't seem to get the point. With all of his qualifications notwithstanding, Dawkins produced a poor quality book; academic atheists know it and say it openly. Not because of who he is or the position he is taking but because of the quality plain and simply sucked. He didn't ask any good questions! (almost as bad as Bill Mahr's "Religilious" if you ask me). Jeremy Runnells essay on Mormonism is powerful precisely because he lacks the expertise; there are so many holes and issues with Mormon theology and belief that credentials aren't needed to spot them. As the saying goes: "I know BS when I see it."
If there are such "satisfactory answers" from the "past 40 years" from such venerable "scholars" and "institutions" why hasn't the CES Letter been knocked out of the park as the God Delusion has? I know you think it has but many clearly don't agree.
Everyone is free to decide for themselves where the preponderance of evidence leads them. This includes the matter of the contested authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
"Jeremy Runnells essay on Mormonism is powerful precisely because he lacks the expertise; there are so many holes and issues with Mormon theology and belief that credentials aren't needed to spot them. As the saying goes: "I know BS when I see it.""
This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that anti-vaxxers and young earth creationists use. "Oh yeah? Well, we don't need academic training and credentials because we're just obviously so right and nobody can refute us! There are so many holes in [vaccination science][evolution] that credentials aren't needed to spot them!"
I'm deeply unimpressed with this line of argumentation.
Instead of Runnells being some rogue sleuth who finally figured things out and is speaking irrefutable truth to power, he is instead the poster boy for the Dunning–Kruger Effect.
Quoth Wikipedia,
"As of January 2010, the English version of The God Delusion had sold over 2 million copies. As of September 2014, it increased to 3 million copies. It was ranked second on the Amazon.com best-sellers' list in November 2006. It remained on the list for 51 weeks until 30 September 2007. The German version, entitled Der Gotteswahn, had sold over 260,000 copies as of 28 January 2010. The God Delusion has been translated into 35 languages."
Clearly many people don't agree with you that Richard Dawkins is peddling pseudo-intellectual pablum.
See how easy this game is? The popularity or success of the CES Letter has absolutely zero bearing on its credibility or truthfulness. The same goes for The God Delusion, but using your very own standard, I can say: "Well The God Delusion must be true, because despite all the hard-hitting theistic counter-arguments to Dawkins' thesis, the book continues to be successful and influential. Why hasn't it been knocked out of the park yet?"
And, again, I can do this with anti-vaxxers. "Just look at how successful the crusade against vaccines has been! Scientists and public health experts are helpless to stop it. If vaccines really were safe, then why haven't anti-vaxxers been knocked out of the park yet?"
There have been multiple direct and indirect rebuttals to the CES Letter. Individuals are free to decide for themselves which side they find more persuasive, but to pretend like Runnells hasn't faced sustained, serious critique from highly knowledgeable and qualified experts (just as The God Delusion has) is not a fair representation of the facts on the ground.
Runnells has zero academic credibility and the CES Letter is pulpy Reddit trash. Period. The refutations to practically all of Runnells' arguments were articulated even before he was born, but being the illiterate that he is, he didn't know about them when he crowd-sourced Reddit (which, by the way, he has lied about to the press when asked about how he got involved in all of this: https://www.plonialmonimormon.com/2016/02/ces-letter-author-jeremy-runnells-to.html), and now that he's the de facto leader of an Internet cult, he refuses to walk back even the stuff that he recognizes is demonstrably wrong with his PDF (e.g. his argument from the Vernal Holley maps, which even he has recognized has been refuted, but still refuses to remove from his PDF).
No amount of rhetorical skullduggery about how Runnells is the scrappy underdog who don't need no academic training or whatever will change this fact.
"This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that anti-vaxxers and young-earth creationists use"
In order for that comparison to work, you must insist that for the layman, the intellectual viability of the BOM is reasonably equivalent to that of anti-vaxxerism.
But it isn't. I do not need knowledge in immunology nor evolutionary biology to have sufficient reason to trust the medical and scientific community. Real-life experience and general awareness of societal norms, has given me more than adequate reason to trust the scientific and medical consensus. True, I could not defend my position on vaccines in front of say, Andrew Wakefield, nor would that weaken my case. Basic critical thinking is the most valuable data there is.
The CES Letter is exactly that; an exercise in critical thinking from a layman (even if there are errors therein). His doubts about the BOM stem from the same place my doubts towards anti-vaxxers stem from; common sense (not to say that they're equivalent.)
Do you really believe the challenges to the BOM are in any way comparable to anti-vaxxerism? (lemme guess, yes??)
At the end of the day, the devil is in the details and we cannot adequately ascertain the veracity if the BOM in the comments section without hashing out each argument. You insist that at the end of the day the details are not alarming. I disagree and I believe WLC does too.
What I meant to write was:
In order for that comparison to work, you must insist that for the layman, the intellectual viability of questioning the BOM is reasonably equivalent to that of anti-vaxxerism.
Jeffrey A Faulkner
I love your blog Ploni Almoni, and just read your open letter to Willian Lane Craig. Dr. Craig apparently doesn't know how close we are to locating the setting of the Book of Mormon. I don't think many of the saints know–or even care.
I'm concerned about the direction Book of Mormon geography studies are going in. There seems to be a trend toward identifying the Usumacinta river system with the river Sidon. I believe this is very wrong and that the Grijalva river is the Sidon. I believe next year will be a banner year for all aspects of BoM studies–including geography. Now seems to be the time to settle the river controversy.
I have submitted many notes, essays, and articles to Interpreter Foundation and have emailed several scholars–only to hear nothing back. Only Brant Gardner will pay attention to my ideas. Kirk Magleby listened to me only until he found out that I can't support any Usumacinta models. I have no credentials. Am only a Book of Mormon geography buff.
Are you at all interested in any of my writings? If so, I could email you something for your consideration. In particular, I recently sent out a note about my thinking on the real meaning of Alma 50:8. (I don't think it is referring to the original land of Nephi in Highland Guatemala.) If so, what is your email address?
Hi Jeffrey,
Thanks for your comment. Truthfully, I am not interested in Book of Mormon geography debates to the intensity and degree which you touch on here (the precise locations of specific rivers or cities, etc.). So I will politely decline your offer, but wish you all the best in your personal studies. Cheers!
Leave a Reply to Anthony Diaz Cancel reply

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Godwin Karol Marian von Brumowsky (26 July 1889 – 3 June 1936) was the most successful fighter ace of the Austro-Hungarian Air Force during World War I. He was officially credited with 35 air victories (including 12 shared with other pilots), with 8 others unconfirmed because they fell behind Allied lines. Just before the war ended, von Brumowski rose to command of all his country's fighter aviation fighting Italy on the Isonzo front.

Life before entry into air service
Godwin von Brumowski was born into a military family in Wadowice, Galicia (in present-day Poland). He attended the Imperial and Royal Technical Military Academy in Mödling near Vienna and graduated as a lieutenant commissioned into the 29th Field Artillery Regiment on 18 August 1910.

He was serving in the 6th Artillery Division as regimental adjutant and had just turned 25 years of age when war was declared against Serbia on 28 July 1914. He served on the Eastern Front against Russia, winning both a Bronze and Silver Medal for Bravery before transferring to air service in the Imperial and Royal Aviation Troops (k.u.k. Luftfahrtruppen).

Aerial service
He was posted to Fliegerkompagnie 1 (Flik 1) at Czernowitz, commanded by Hauptmann Otto Jindra, in July 1915; von Brumowski was thus initially assigned as an aerial observer on the Russian Front. His flight log describes him as 1.77 meters (5 feet 10 inches) tall, with blue eyes and light blond hair.

On 12 April 1916 Jindra and von Brumowski crewed one of the seven Austro-Hungarian planes that participated in bombing a military review attended by Czar Nicholas II. In the process, they shot down two of the seven Russian Morane-Saulnier Parasol two-seaters that attempted to drive them off.

On 3 July 1916 von Brumowski became a pilot with Flik 1, despite the defective vision in his right eye that he corrected with a monocle. In November, he transferred to Flik 12 on the Italian Front. He helped down an Italian Caproni bomber on 3 December. On 2 January he became an ace when he was victorious over an Italian Farman two-seater while piloting a Hansa-Brandenburg C.I. It is notable that von Brumowski became an ace while still flying two-seater craft basically unsuited for air-to-air combat.

The next month, when Flik 41J was established on the Italian Front as Austro-Hungary's first dedicated fighter squadron, von Brumowski was chosen to command it. He spent nine days in March flying four sorties with the Germans of Jagdstaffel 24 to learn German fighter tactics, before assuming his command. While here he met the Red Baron, Manfred von Richthofen; von Brumowski would later copy the baron's aircraft paint scheme for his own plane.

Brumowski continued amassing victories through May, ending the month with a total of eight. By now, he was flying a single-seat fighter, the Hansa-Brandenburg D.I. Although better suited for air-to-air combat than the C.1, it still suffered three major disadvantages: the pilot's vision was partially obstructed; the single machine gun was not synchronized to fire through the propeller arc, and it was a difficult craft to fly because it was easy to spin at any altitude. Aiming and firing a gun mounted above and ahead of the pilot was more difficult than simply aiming the airplane at the enemy and firing a synchronized gun.

As was customary with Austro-Hungarian units, Flik 41j had an assortment of aircraft types available. In June 1917 von Brumowski flew an Aviatik D.I with no combat success. The Austro-Hungarian Fliks were also hampered by a doctrine that tied them to escort of reconnaissance aircraft instead of freeing them to rove and hunt in the German fashion.

In July 1917 Flik 41J lost eleven of the D.I fighters in accidents; the Hansa-Brandenburg's nickname became "the flying coffin".

In August 1917 von Brumowski scored a remarkable streak of victories, being credited with 12 confirmed and 6 unconfirmed kills between 10 and 28 August. Two of these victories, on the 19th and 20th, were the result of a partial transition to a newer fighter plane, a German Albatros D.III with twin synchronized guns. On the 20th he scored once with the Albatros and twice with the Hansa-Brandenburg D.I. By the end of August the transition was complete; he would use the Albatros to score the rest of his victories.

On 9 October 1917 he shot down and burned an observation balloon for his 22nd victory; it was the first of five balloons he would down. His Albatros that day was painted all red, in emulation of von Richthofen, with the addition of mustard colored skulls on either side of the fuselage. This paint scheme would become characteristic of his aircraft until war's end.

On 1 February 1918 von Brumowski became involved in a fight with eight enemy fighters. Some of the 26 bullets striking his Albatros ignited the fuel tank built into the upper wing. He managed to land at his home field without serious injury, becoming a rare survivor of an in-craft fire. The fire ate the fabric off the upper wing and the inboard portions of the lower one, leaving only the scorched bare spars and struts of the wing roots.

Three days later, while flying another Albatros he fought eight English fighters and took multiple machine gun hits. With his wings breaking up he still managed to land, though the Albatros flipped over and was totally destroyed.

Brumowski fought on until 23 June 1918, when he was ordered on extended leave. His last successful fight was on 19 June; he scored his 35th victory and suffered 37 hits in his plane. He had flown 439 combat sorties, but his combat career was ended.

Also on 23 June he was invited by Generaloberst (Colonel-General) Ferdinand to make the customary mandatory application for Austria-Hungary's highest decoration, the Knight's Cross of the Military Order of Maria Theresa. Brumowski's reply:

Austria-Hungary's leading fighter ace never received his nation's highest award.

On 11 October even though he was still only a Hauptmann (Captain), he was named to command all Austro-Hungarian fighter squadrons on the Isonzo Front. World War I ended a month later.

Postwar career

The end of the war left von Brumowski at loose ends. After a spell in Vienna, he farmed his widowed mother-in-law's land in Transylvania for ten years. As a city dweller lacking the Hungarian language skills to communicate with his farm workers, he bore serious handicaps. He had little success.

Brumowski took the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire very hard. He indulged in hazardous pursuits, seeking the thrill of danger by racing automobiles about on the poor local roads, riding horses into exhaustion, hunting in the mountains. He threw parties, danced, swam, ice skated to distract himself. He finally left his wife and daughter and began a flying school in Vienna in 1930, and remarried.

During the early 1930s von Brumowski piloted aircraft on behalf of the conservative Heimwehr militia. During the brief Austrian Civil War in 1934 he flew several reconnaissance missions as well as a single combat sortie.

On 3 June 1936, he died in a plane crash while instructing a Dutch student at Schiphol Airfield, in the Netherlands. His life was summarized thus by his daughter: "He was a very unique and interesting person either very much loved, or hated, and even considered crazy by many."

Awards and decorations
 Order of the Iron Crown, 3rd class, with War Decoration
 Knight's Cross of the Order of Leopold with War Decorations and Swords
 Gold and Silver Bravery Medal for Officers
 Silver Military Merit Medal
 Bronze Military Merit Medal
 Iron Cross of 1914, 2nd class

List of aerial victories
See also Aerial victory standards of World War I

Confirmed victories are numbered. Victories marked "u/c" were unconfirmed.

Citations

References

1889 births
1936 deaths
People from Wadowice
Austro-Hungarian World War I flying aces
Austrian monarchists
Austro-Hungarian Air Service personnel
Aviators killed in aviation accidents or incidents
Recipients of the Medal for Bravery (Austria-Hungary)
Recipients of the Iron Cross (1914), 2nd class
Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in 1936

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Auto Sour Melon Mass Feminized Marijuana Seeds by Critical Mass Collective Seeds: A very large Autoflowering hybrid bringing together our beloved Monster Mass, an exotic and powerfully sour Sensi Star and our own CMC Big Bud Auto...all superior yielders and a genetic force to be reckoned with. Commonly a dense central cola will thunder skyward flanked by many branches exhibiting large clusters of dense, cantaloupe green flowers within short inter-nodal distances. All buds smell of subtle sweet citrus and musky melon and are always thick with shimmering trichomes. Although the FIM method is not advised for Automatic strains, gentle crimping will have a positive effect if administered correctly, subtly twisting the plants branches to promote advancements in carrying nutrients and water to its budding sites. Two weeks into flowering is a great time to train them to promote even bigger yields but this can take some getting tight with Autos. Flowers are always the perfect density and it can pull in excess of 180g per plant when treated well. With an average height between 60cm and 120cm from around 70-80 days post germination, it will finish fat and swollen, laden with tangy and exotic fruit that produce a classic deep and Skunky meditative state.
SMELL: The smell is of subtle sour citrus and smooth vanilla mixed with sweet musky melon. The skunk profile from the Monster Mass balances it with a deep earthy edge...exceptionally beautiful smelling bud.
TASTE: Musky Vanilla, haze and sweet melon candy with an intensely sour lemon bite on the exhale stemming from the Sensi star with a Skunk layer from the Monster Mass. As with the smell, the taste of this plant is simply divine and a connoisseurs dream.
EFFECT: A deep skunk stone that one could expect from Temple ball or other soft, dark Afghani hashish lifted cerebrally by the slight Sativa lineage. Expect flushed cheeks and a real heady, ceiling high that is intense but manageable, with no paranoia, or uncomfortableness.


Our sister company Cooney's Florists will gladly assist you when choosing the appropriate floral tribute.
Our qualified and experienced staff are always on hand to offer advice and assist you with all your requirements.
Visit www.cooneysflorists.ie or call +353 (0)51 421416.
1Can you deliver Fresh Floral Tributes within the Isle of Ireland?
Yes, provided we have 24 hours notice. To place an order between 8am and 8pm telephone 051 421416 or +353 51 421416, if you are phoning from outside Ireland. This service will require payment by Credit Card at the time of ordering flowers.
2Are Floral Tributes always appropriate?
It depends on the wording in the Death Announcement. The family may request that donations be given to a designated charity in lieu of flowers.
3Should I send flowers when someone is being cremated?
Yes. Families will always appreciate Fresh Floral Tributes unless otherwise specified in the Death Notice.
4Can you organize a Fresh Floral Tribute to my specific needs?
Yes, our experienced staff can cater for most requests that are outside the items included in our range.
5Can I request specific colours and flowers in the Floral Arrangement that I require?
Of course, depending on availability. We will endeavor to meet your specific requests but please note that flowers are seasonal by nature and on occasions certain flowers can be difficult to obtain.


text:
King's Fund urges STP perseverance, despite local authority engagement fears
lucbouchard 14 November 2016
Limited engagement with local government, frontline staff and clinicians are among the key concerns in developing Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) intended to set out a clearer strategic direction to integrate and overhaul UK health and social care services.
In new findings from the King's Fund think tank, it was noted that draft STPs were being kept out the public domain, leading councils such as Camden to publish their own documentation as a means to raise "serious reservations" about the current process. A number of other authorities have also questioned the process, which is supposed to ensure strategies are in place for funding and adopting technology that can better underpin new care models that support interoperable working and efficiency.
The think tank has maintained that STPs are the best means of improving health and care services going forward, despite the process being "beset by problems so far", reflecting what it says are criticisms from politicians, authority leaders and patient groups.
However, it has backed the need for stress testing of the plans to ensure they are credible, while improving collaboration with stakeholders such as patients and care staff, and greater clarification around leadership structures.
A total of 44 authorities have been charged with setting out their STPs to provide more detail on how they aim to meet the key aims of the Five Year Forward View in order to support closer integration of health and social care services and systems, while maintaining existing operations in the meantime.
The 'Five Year Forward View' plan functions as a blueprint for closer integration of health and social care through technology and data systems, with the STPs – that were expected to be signed off in October – providing more strategic direction on the exact deliverables.
It was anticipated by NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens back in July that the plans would be signed off last month. However the organisation has failed to clarify if this timetable has been met, or whether work to implement STPs will move ahead in the New Year without delay.
In its latest report on introducing the transformation plans, Chris Ham, the chief executive of the King's Fund, argued that it was vital to stick with the strategy despite the frustrations for those involved.
"For all the difficulties over the last few months, their focus on organisations in each area working together is the right approach for improving care and meeting the needs of an ageing population. It is also clear that our health and care system is under unprecedented pressure, and if STPs do not work then there is no plan B," he said.
"The progress made so far has only happened because of the hard work of local leaders who have been prepared to work around the difficulties. It is vital that NHS national bodies learn the lessons so far, so that we can see STPs fulfil their potential."
Among primary concerns in the report are what is described as "patchy" collaboration with local government and fears of insufficient planning time to work with frontline staff and clinical leads.
"Patients and the public have been 'largely absent' from the process," noted the report.
According to the findings, current STP leads were also said to be struggling with a confused process resulting from changing deadlines and a lack of clear instructions from national NHS organisations.
"There is a lack of governance structure or formal authority for STP leaders that has led one STP lead to describe their role as being like 'operating in a sea of fog'," said the King's Fund.
NHS England chief addresses Brexit and integrated care challenges


Stocks took a nosedive on investors fears of political antics such as the trade war and rising interest rates.
In the past eight days, $4 trillion has bee wiped off from what had been record high values. According to NBC News, Europe's main markets started down as much as 3 percent and shares tumbled in Asia after a wild day for U.S. markets. Two days of steep losses have erased the U.S. market's gains from the start of this year, ending a spate of record-setting calm for stocks. The Dow Jones industrial average closed down 1,175 points on Monday, as the market bet on more interest rate hikes, the same day that a new Federal Reserve chairman was sworn in.
"It is a source of some concern that asset valuations are so high," outgoing Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen told CBS News, highlighting price-earnings ratios in equities. Yellen appeared to be sounding the alarm on stock prices urging caution. But most economists have foreseen this kind of a market drop.
"Everybody knew this was coming — stocks are close to record valuations and it was a matter of when it was going to happen, not if," said Dan North, chief economist at Euler Hermes North America. "I would expect that at this point, it's probably sentiment-driven and we'll get a rebound.
David Kelly, the chief global strategist for JPMorgan Asset Management agrees with North's assessment. "It's like a kid at a child's party who, after an afternoon of cake and ice cream, eats one more cookie and that puts them over the edge," Kelly said.
Last week, many in the mainstream media talked about the trade war, the situation in Italy, and the tensions with Saudi Arabia over the murdered journalist, linking those situations to a sliding market. But Peter Schiff had a different explanation, according to Seeking Alpha, and that is: we're in a bear market.
Schiff has been warning of a market collapse for quite some time, and he said it could very well be upon us.


Wine bottle presentation / gift boxes and wine stoppers with custom engraved designs and personalized text of your choice. Wine gift accessories makes great awards, hostess gifts, house warming present or wedding gift.
Horses, sports, boats, trains, marine, animals and more.


text:
Iran could use U.N. talks as cover to build bomb, Ban Ki-moon says
Iran's quest to possess nuclear technology: Iran said it has made advances in nuclear technology, citing new uranium enrichment centrifuges and domestically made reactor fuel.
By Anne Gearan
The United Nations must be decisive and swift in judging whether diplomacy can resolve world concerns about Iran's nuclear program, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday, or invite the risk that Iran, like North Korea, will use talks as a cover to build a bomb.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Ban said he wants to accelerate diplomatic talks with Iran and give them new urgency. World powers will hold another meeting with Iran later this month, the latest in a series of thus-far ineffective efforts to resolve questions about the scope and intent of Iran's nuclear development. "We should not give much more time to the Iranians, and we should not waste time," Ban said. "We have seen what happened with the DPRK."The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, the formal name for North Korea, exploded a third nuclear test device this week. The North exploited a decade of fitful diplomatic efforts to make progress toward a weapon.
"It ended up that they [were] secretly, quietly, without any obligations, without any pressure, making progress," Ban said.
The U.N. Security Council must "show a firm, decisive and effective, quick response," Ban said, that makes plain to Iran that the rest of the world is not convinced that it is not seeking nuclear weapons.
Ban said he told Iran's supreme leader and president last year that he is not satisfied with their assurances that the program is peaceful. He traveled to Tehran over objections from the United States and other nations that his presence could reward the clerical regime.
In the interview, ahead of a meeting with new Secretary of State John F. Kerry, Ban sounded frustrated by the slow pace and lack of results from the latest round of international talks with Iran. The U.N.-backed envoy, E.U. High Representative Catherine Ashton, has already signaled low expectations for the Feb. 26 session in the Kazakh capital of Almaty.
Iran recently sought to acquire tens of thousands of highly specialized magnets used in centrifuge machines, The Post reported Thursday, a sign that the country may be planning an expansion of its nuclear program that could shorten the path to a weapon.
Iran also has taken recent steps to ease Western fears, chiefly by converting a portion of its uranium stockpile into a metal form that cannot be easily used for weapons. A forthcoming report by the U.N. nuclear watchdog is expected to document Iran's dual moves.
Kerry, who met with Ban and Ashton on Thursday, said the talks can progress only if the Iranians are ready to "make and discuss real offers and engage in a real dialogue."
The United States and the five other international negotiators have made only slight tweaks to a proposal that Tehran rejected in June. That plan called on Iran to freeze some of its most worrisome nuclear activities in exchange for a promise of future relief from economic sanctions. Iran has demanded that Western governments formally recognize its right to make enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power plants.
The United States says Iran could assemble a weapon as soon as next year if it chose to do so. A shrinking of Iran's timeline for obtaining weapons capability could increase pressure on Israel to launch a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.
"We are not going to get trapped into a delay-after-delay process here," Kerry said. "It is incumbent on the Iranians to prove that they are prepared to meet our willingness, President Obama's willingness, again and again stated by the president, to be open to a diplomatic resolution here."
Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said earlier this month that Tehran was prepared to talk directly with Washington. But he said Iran needed assurances that "the other side this time comes with authentic intentions. . . to resolve the issue."
Courtesy: The Washington Post


Nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface is covered by water and Oceans boldly chronicles the mysteries that lie beneath.
Directors Jacques Perrin and Jacques Cluzaud (Travelling Birds) dive deep into the very waters that sustain all of mankind, exploring the harsh reality and the amazing creatures that live within. An astonishing look at the world of the oceans, with never-seen-before imagery captured by the latest underwater technology, it is awe-inspiring stuff. Shot over four years, it reveals inspiring wildlife, including endangered marine species. Not a standard nature documentary, it is also part thriller and part meditation on the vanishing wonders of the aquatic world. It's a powerful celebration of our underwater world; a world that requires our attention.
Visually spectacular yet with a salient eco-message, it will mesmerise and educate in equal measure – Oceans is already one of the most successful documentaries of all time grossing almost $100 million to date.


We are working with people from the communities who are keen to support children and their families to achieve better outcomes in terms of communication, language and literacy development. If you haven't met with us yet but you would like to, please do let us know.
We are keen to support local people to build on their own capacity to meet the needs of those living in their communities. Therefore, funding has been made available for local early years providers and community groups from each of the project areas to set up activities which meet one of the projects aims.
Improve parental awareness, knowledge and confidence of their role as primary educator in supporting their child's communication, language and literacy development, in order to improve in the home learning environment (children aged 0-5).
Increase the awareness, knowledge and confidence of the Early Years workforce in identifying and supporting communication, language and literacy development of children.
To increase the awareness, knowledge and confidence of local community and county-wide organisations and Partners (e.g. speech and language therapy, health visitors, GPs, housing officers, midwives, children's centre staff, library staff, Job Centre Plus and voluntary sector organisations) in identifying and supporting children, parents/carers and wider community members, with communication, language and literacy needs.
We are delighted to announce that the funding round for 2019 is now open. We are looking to fund innovative community based/led projects that will support families living in our project reach areas.
If you are interested in applying for funding download the guidance document and application form below. Applications must be completed and returned to the Talking Together in Cambridgeshire team by midday on 3 May.
The Funding Panel will then review applications on 9 May. Applications will be scored as set out in the application form, and the highest scoring projects will be recommended for funding.
The next stage will require organisations to submit audited accounts for the last three years, and two references, one from a beneficiary of your service and another from a representative of another organisation that knows of your work and governance structure. Funding will be released following review of these documents. The panel's decision on funding is final.
If you have any queries regarding the funding application process or you wish to discuss your ideas, please call 01223 699671 or email community.literacy@cambridgeshire.gov.uk .
Read Easy will recruit & train 24 volunteer coaches from across NE Cambridge City to support adults from our project reach area who want to learn to read on a one to one basis. The Read Easy team will also visit each new Reading Pair once a month & hold a get together for volunteer coaches four times a year.
KHFSP will be collaborating with Playlanders Playgroup & The Meadows Children & Family Wing to develop a series of borrowing boxes containing story sacks, puppets, story cards & books. The boxes will be managed by parent volunteers and shared with families attending groups run by the project team in NE Cambridge City. Storytelling workshops for staff & parents will also be provided so that methods of reading & talking about stories with children can be modelled, embedding knowledge about how to support children's early communication & language skills.
Huntingdon Community Action Projects will visit five established voluntary community groups based in Huntingdon on a weekly basis to provide relaxed & fun picture book-based activities for parents & young children. The project aims to develop parents' knowledge of, & enthusiasm for picture books; developing a deeper understanding of how these can be shared with children using the principles of serve & return. Once established, the team intends to work in partnership with Hinchingbrooke Park to run two story sessions from the park.
Ramsey Rural Museum will create a Treasure Chest loan box specifically aimed at children aged 0-5. The box will contain artefacts from across the museum & a set of tools for children to investigate the novel objects at close quarters. The objects will be specifically chosen for children to handle & examine with a magnifying glass, shine a torch on it, etc. The box will be taken into early years settings & childminders across March, Chatteris & Huntingdon. Museum staff will also provide each setting visited with a photo storybook to keep, share & talk about together.
Parson Drove Pre-school will collaborate with Murrow Pre-school, Stepping Stones Pre-school, Elm School Nursery and Ladybird Day Nursery to raise awareness of the importance of good quality interactions with children. This work will involve staff development in terms of training in the delivery of Helicopter Stories as well as attending the ICAN Early Talk Boost course. Gorefield Pre-school & Wisbech St Mary Pre-school will also access the training & the resources. Settings will encourage local communities to get involved with communication & literacy development through their Peeping Pebbles project & will also offer literacy-based workshops for families that attend the settings. Additionally, the settings involved intend to replenish their Chattersacks & Babblesacks for families to use.
The Fitzwilliam Museum will collaborate with Wisbech and Fenland Museum, and Wisbech South Child and Family Centre (CFC) to support 10 families with children aged 0-5 to be part of the project. An initial session at the CFC will be followed by three sessions at Wisbech Museum where families will be introduced to objects in the museum collection through stories, play activities, art and music. All participants will have an opportunity to share the experience together, talk about something new and be inspired to try some of the activities at home or in other places in the community that will bring benefits in terms of the children's communication and cultural development.
The Murrow Pre-school team will create six bottle books which are bottles that contain props from a story. The bottles will be used to introduce books to 2 year olds in small group sessions to help gain their attention and develop their listening skills. The bottles will be used to inspire children to talk and be interested in stories, while older children will have the opportunity to retell stories in their own words or make up stories with the aid of a bottle book. The setting will also offer a workshop for parents on how to make the bottle books. Additional sets of bottle books will be provided to the local book café and four other local preschools.
Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination will work alongside educators and practitioners to provide a series of six half-day workshops for reception-aged children at Mayfield Primary School and younger children at Roundabout Pre-school in NE Cambridge City. At the workshops, the project team will share creative activities which connect young children and their educators with the nature on their doorsteps. The children, educators and artists from the project team will have opportunities to share their discoveries at a celebratory community event. Throughout, the project will explore themes of talking, listening, making and creating together, and will support educators and families to learn more about language and literacy development through play and experimentation.
The Fitzwilliam Museum will collaborate with the North Cambridge Child and Family Centre (CFC) to support 10 families with children aged 0-5 to be part of the project. An initial session at the CFC will be followed by three sessions at the Fitzwilliam Museum where families will be introduced to objects in the museum collection through stories, play activities, art and music. All participants will have an opportunity to share the experience together, talk about something new and be inspired to try some of the activities at home or in other places in the community that will bring benefits in germs of the children's communication and cultural development.
The project will encourage children to explore their local environment and use this to formulate an understanding of the wider world, and to develop the supporting language to talk about it. PECT will provide a range of practical resources and ideas to be used by Early Years practitioners and childminders in a natural environment. PECT will also train Early Years practitioners and childminders from across March, Chatteris, Wisbech, Huntingdon and NE Cambridge City in the use of the resources at a half-day workshop to be held in each of the project areas.
The funding award for Home-start's project work in Huntingdon will provide funding to train & support up to 10 Home-start volunteers. The team will then provide language & literacy support to 5 families through one-to-one support & at least an additional 10 through group sessions delivered in conjunction with local partners.
The funding award for Home-start's project work in March & Chatteris will provide funding to train 5 Home-start volunteers. The team will then provide language & literacy support to 5 families through one-to-one support & at least an additional 5 through group sessions delivered in conjunction with local partners.
The funding award for Home-start's project work in Wisbech will provide funding to train 5 Home-start volunteers. The team will then provide language & literacy support to 5 families through one-to-one support & 10 through their established weekly group.
The Home-start team will also hold briefing sessions for Health Visitors, schools & early year's practitioners on the aims of the programme & the referral process.
An eight month 'Talking Together' programme specifically aimed at providing a range of interactive and imaginative activities, ideas, resources and encouragement to families accessing free school meals in NE Cambridge City. After each session families will be provided with a Talking take-away pack which includes an activity or challenge which they can complete at home. The project will lead to an exhibition of celebration to be held at Kettle's Yard where families will have an opportunity to talk to each other about their creations.
We are very excited about working with each of these projects in communities across our reach area. If you'd like to get involved with any of the projects mentioned above, please let us know.
Under section 10 of the Children Act 2004 the County Council has a responsibility to promote inter-agency cooperation to improve the welfare of children. One way we do this is to co-ordinate community based projects such as the Community Literacy Project. As you are a partner in this project, we are keeping your contact details so that we can let you know about the progress of the project.
We will not share your details with anyone outside the project group. If at any time you no longer wish to be part of, or hear about the project please let us know and we will remove you from the project communication list. If you wish to read the Council's Privacy Notice, it can be viewed here: https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/privacy-statement/privacy-notice/.


Here's a copy of The Re-Alignment Routine, a series of simple, yet profound exercises to get you on the road to Better Bone and Back Health. Click on the link above to download the pdf. Please feel free to contact me at sara@sarameekspt.com with any questions you may have.
The first exercise, The Decompression Exercise, is the "single best exercise for most back pain." Not all you can do but a good start.