The CES Letter

[SandYFan]

Sure- I was taking a TIC jab at him, but I have no reason to doubt that he is a true doubter.

Ah, I just meant it kind of makes me doubt that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon up until recently. The letter portrays him as a super devout Mormon right up until he compiled all the anti stuff and started asking for money.

I have my doubts.

[Commando]

Ah, I just meant it kind of makes me doubt that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon up until recently. The letter portrays him as a super devout Mormon right up until he compiled all the anti stuff and started asking for money.

I have my doubts.

I think the background intro- which I don't doubt is also true- kind of deflates the ethos of the whole thing (evidenced by the little jab I took at it in my original post). 6th generation this and RM that? That screams bishop's daughter stereotype; going through the motions on autopilot until he's out on his own and a moment of conflict derails everything... it's really not too shocking, honestly. I've seen it many times IRL as I'm sure a lot of others have. I can sincerely see how a person who has lived their life in lockstep with values or ideas they don't necessarily jive with could feel extremely liberated by shedding that infrastructure. More power to him if he can make a buck from those who feel similarly. Doesn't stop me from disagreeing or having a little chuckle at his little enterprise, but I don't really have too much else to say about it.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ah, I just meant it kind of makes me doubt that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Mormon up until recently. The letter portrays him as a super devout Mormon right up until he compiled all the anti stuff and started asking for money.

I have my doubts.

In my experience, it is usually the hard-core ortho-mos that end up being the most hard-core ex-mos. Everything is black and white on either side of the fence.

[Uncle Ted]

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:

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.

JS Jr didn't use the original so having it most likely would not be much help...




Therefore, it is most likely safe to assume that the "translation" of the BoA was done in a similar fashion. Too bad all that money was spent to acquire those old Egyptian artifacts just to get inspired.

[Commando]

JS Jr didn't use the original so having it most likely would not be much help...

Therefore, it is most likely safe to assume that the "translation" of the BoA was done in a similar fashion. Too bad all that money was spent to acquire those old Egyptian artifacts just to get inspired.

Sacrifice begets faith, brother!

[Pelado]

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

As the church stated in the essay, there is no evidence of his BoA translation being at all accurate. What is there to reconcile?

[SandYFan]

As the church stated in the essay, there is no evidence of his BoA translation being at all accurate. What is there to reconcile?

Just the general idea if Joseph was given the gift of translation, why are his translations incorrect for the two things we can verify?

[Pelado]

Just the general idea if Joseph was given the gift of translation, why are his translations incorrect for the two things we can verify?

Incorrect premise, perhaps?

[SandYFan]

Incorrect premise, perhaps?

Perhaps. Clarify further?

[Northwestcoug]

I think I said this before, but:

The CES letter does a pretty good job of highlighting the issues of the truth claims of the church, though it shouldn't be considered a scholarly work. I think everyone here pretty much agrees with the issues it states.

Everyone who reads it ultimately places their own value of significance to those issues. In general, their significance depends on how literally you believe the official historical position of the church. However, even that significance is modified by what value a person receives from church fellowship. If a member has full knowledge of the issues and has decided that the truth claims are not accurate, he/she can still actively participate in church if that is important. That faith does require significant nuance in the current church climate (which is not necessarily a bad thing). But if that member's value of church association heavily depends on truth claims (which I think is very common), it will be difficult to ignore the issues and still find joy in active participation.

The church's history is it's doctrine, and vice versa. Since the beginning, the church has based it's entire existence on a literal interpretation of a handful of occurrences. There are real concerns and issues with pretty much every one of them. Most people on this site understand those, and a proportion have decided that the church is not what it claims to be. But those who know and yet stay with the church, do so for valid reasons. Like JL said, black and white people get into problems when they realize the church isn't all white. However, the more nuanced people still are not welcome with open arms in the church currently.

For my part, I guess I am more of a black/white person, but I blame the church for that. In the end, I had to do simple math; the value I was getting from the church was outweighed by the pain that came from full activity. But my decision is only valid for me. I completely understand and support people who make the opposite decision.

[BigFatMeanie]

I reconcile the problems this way:

A. Joseph Smith didn't translate anything (plates or papyri), in the sense of how we typically think of a translation. Joseph wrote spiritual things using objects (stones, papyrii, etc.) that facilitated his communion with the Spirit.
B. I have made numerous observations on the Spirit and the nature of the Spirit. I am convinced that there is a God and that human beings can commune with His Spirit.
C. I feel the Spirit when I read the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham.

The conjunction of A, B, and C leads me to the following conclusion:

D. It is not relevant to me if a) gold plates actually existed or b) Joseph was able to translate gold plates or c) Joseph was able to translate papyri.

[Sullyute]

For my part, I guess I am more of a black/white person, but I blame the church for that.

Great write up. I agree that the Church is to blame for the black and white thinking. President Hinckley said on multiple occurrences that the first vision happened or it didn't. The book of Mormon is true or it isn't. etc. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. There is nuance to belief and faith. Black and white thinking saddens me.

[Pelado]

Perhaps. Clarify further?

Sure.

Incorrect premise, perhaps?

Just the general idea if Joseph was given the gift of translation, why are his translations incorrect for the two things we can verify?

[SandYFan]

Great write up. I agree that the Church is to blame for the black and white thinking. President Hinckley said on multiple occurrences that the first vision happened or it didn't. The book of Mormon is true or it isn't. etc. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. There is nuance to belief and faith. Black and white thinking saddens me.

Elder Holland also comes to mind.

But... I hate to be considered a black and white thinker, but either God the Father and Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith or not. How is there gray area?

[YOhio]

Great write up. I agree that the Church is to blame for the black and white thinking. President Hinckley said on multiple occurrences that the first vision happened or it didn't. The book of Mormon is true or it isn't. etc. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. There is nuance to belief and faith. Black and white thinking saddens me.

So all you black and white thinkers out there better knock it off because you're making Sullyute sad!