The CES Letter

[Jeff Lebowski]

SandYFan asked about the CES Letter the other day and I mentioned that we have discussed it quite a bit, but it turns out that the discussions are scattered to the wind. May as well have a centralized location for future discussions. In case you missed it, the letter is here:

http://cesletter.com/

Just saw a new essay on the letter today. I think it is spot on. If you want to view religion in a superficial, simplistic and mechanical fashion, this letter will resonate with you. If you want to find superficial, simplistic and mechanical arguments against it, FARMS and FAIR will resonate with you. But that is not a particularly rewarding way to approach religion in either case.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/0...he-ces-letter/

This coin, of which FARMs and the Letter are two sides is meant to make things easier, either to stay or to leave. Just drop it in the vending machine slot and out pops a pretty little package full of reasons to help you justify and better articulate your already-held assumptions. But there is a crucial (Kierkegaardian) sense in which the spiritual life is to be made harder, in which both staying and leaving are meant to be difficult and fraught. Not unbearable, of course. Not miserable. But also, not comforting to the point of numbness or willful naivete of internal and external challenges. Whether one stays or leaves, the life of the spirit as well as the intellectual life is meant to be challenging, constantly re-inventing, and paradigm-undermining.

To paraphrase Tom Waits: The Church–and religion in general–can be a hellish place for some and a celestial place for others, but bad writing and thinking are destroying the quality of both our suffering and our joy by obscuring the deeper difficulties and the deeper significance of things that are meant to make leaving or staying much more meaningful and much much more challenging and invigorating.

[SandYFan]

SandYFan asked about the CES Letter the other day and I mentioned that we have discussed it quite a bit, but it turns out that the discussions are scattered to the wind. May as well have a centralized location for future discussions. In case you missed it, the letter is here:

http://cesletter.com/

Just saw a new essay on the letter today. I think it is spot on. If you want to view religion in a superficial, simplistic and mechanical fashion, this letter will resonate with you. If you want to find superficial, simplistic and mechanical arguments against it, FARMS and FAIR will resonate with you. But that is not a particularly rewarding way to approach religion in either case.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2015/10/0...he-ces-letter/

Thanks, Jeff. I just want to discuss a few things here, because I know this is a place to get straight answers (most of the time) when dealing with controversial stuff.

For starters, is it accepted knowledge that Joseph's translations of the papyri in the Abraham are incorrect? Or is this something anti-Mormons trot out as fact when it is more fuzzy than that?

[Pelado]

Thanks, Jeff. I just want to discuss a few things here, because I know this is a place to get straight answers (most of the time) when dealing with controversial stuff.

For starters, is it accepted knowledge that Joseph's translations of the papyri in the Abraham are incorrect? Or is this something anti-Mormons trot out as fact when it is more fuzzy than that?

Here's the church's essay about it:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translati...raham?lang=eng

[wuapinmon]

When I first read the CES Letter I felt that some people ignore the intangibles of faith and demand proof. I like proof, but there are some things I can't explain away. FARMS is stupid; their entire reason for being seeks to apologize for that which would need no apology if people had been open about the information all along--they're like Rick Perry's spin team; nothing they do will help. I keep believing, mostly out of habit and hope, but a little bit because the alternative is unpalatable to me.

[Commando]

Exactly ^ The point of even having a Spirit is to find your own way- which, by the way, is the only way to salvation anyway. What - if we put together enough materials will we no longer need the Spirit? I agree FARMS etc. is dumb. You can no more prove the veracity of our claims with empirical evidence than you can disprove it-- those are the bitter facts for people who insist on proof.

[Sullyute]

SandYFan asked about the CES Letter the other day and I mentioned that we have discussed it quite a bit, but it turns out that the discussions are scattered to the wind. May as well have a centralized location for future discussions. In case you missed it, the letter is here:

http://cesletter.com/

79 pages!! No thanks.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Thanks, Jeff. I just want to discuss a few things here, because I know this is a place to get straight answers (most of the time) when dealing with controversial stuff.

For starters, is it accepted knowledge that Joseph's translation of the papyri in the Abraham are incorrect? Or is this something anti-Mormons trot out as fact when it is more fuzzy than that?

Yeah, I think that is pretty well accepted at this point. I remember reading an article in the Ensign 20 years or so ago talking about that.

[Commando]

A native of Southern California, Jeremy was born in the covenant and was all set. A 6th generation Mormon of Pioneer heritage, Jeremy reached every superficial Mormon youth milestone. An Eagle Scout, Returned Missionary, and BYU alumnus, Jeremy was married in the San Diego Temple with expectations and plans of living Mormonism for the rest of his life. Whoopsie Daisy!

Surprisingly, you can give him money!

[SandYFan]

Here's the church's essay about it:

https://www.lds.org/topics/translati...raham?lang=eng

Woof, that's long, but from what I gathered, the counter argument is

"Well, yes, the translations are way off base according to what current experts say, and the papyri dates waaay after Abraham, but what if

1. It's a reproduction of an original from Abraham's time and/or

2. The understood translation of the symbols on the papyri were changed over time? Maybe Symbol A originally meant Elohim, but over time it became Anubis (example not exact)? "

I don't find this particularly convincing. I do appreciate the posts from those who want to emphasize faith in all of this, but I think I know how that works already.

[SandYFan]

Surprisingly, you can give him money!

I am 100% unconcerned with the author's sincerity. Either the statements put forth are true or not.

[Solon]

For starters, is it accepted knowledge that Joseph's translations of the papyri in the Abraham are incorrect? Or is this something anti-Mormons trot out as fact when it is more fuzzy than that?

It's the least fuzzy thing out there when it comes to picking on Joseph Smith's "translations" (no disrespect intended by the quotation marks, but the JST is more of an interpretation as well; I'm leaving out the BoM altogether since we don't have the original for comparison). The parts of the papyrus that have been recovered, as well as the facsimiles, bear absolutely no resemblance to the content of the Pearl of Great Price.

From the church's essay:

None of the characters on the [surviving] papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham,

This doesn't preclude a lot of apologetic "what-if?"s. I think most people LDS are less concerned about provenance than they are about the spiritual/religious/doctrinal content. Just like the Book of Mormon and all of its anachronisms, people aren't reading them for the historical content (at least, they shouldn't). They are looking to them for inspiration.

[SandYFan]

This doesn't preclude a lot of apologetic "what-if?"s. I think most people LDS are less concerned about provenance than they are about the spiritual/religious/doctrinal content. Just like the Book of Mormon and all of its anachronisms, people aren't reading them for the historical content (at least, they shouldn't). They are looking to them for inspiration.

I respect that viewpoint, but how do you reconcile the problems? Or do you not?

[Commando]

I am 100% unconcerned with the author's sincerity. Either the statements put forth are true or not.

What would that have to do with his sincerity? I don't doubt that for a second.

[SandYFan]

What would that have to do with his sincerity? I don't doubt that for a second.

I general, I see people who seek to profit off their attempts to teach truth in a negative light.

[Commando]

I general, I see people who seek to profit off their attempts to teach truth in a negative light.

Sure- I was taking a TIC jab at him, but I have no reason to doubt that he is a true doubter. I think one of the things that makes me smile about it most is his unflinching sincerity.