The CES Letter

[Uncle Ted]

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?

Well, depending on the account you use both God, the Father, and Jesus didn't both appear to JS Jr. That could be considered gray.

[SandYFan]

Well, depending on the account you use both God, the Father, and Jesus didn't both appear to JS Jr. That could be considered gray.

What I'm saying is either they did appear to him or they didn't. Accounts don't factor into it.

[Sullyute]

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?

Here are a few grey areas:

- Maybe God the Father appeared but not Jesus.
- Maybe it was Jesus but not the Father.
- Maybe it was one being and as Joseph's idea of the Trinity developed so did his memory of the encounter.
- Maybe Joseph saw an angel and thought it was Jesus and/or God.
- Maybe Joseph had a vision of Jesus and/or God
- Maybe Joseph saw Jesus and/or God with his "spiritual eyes"
- Maybe Joseph had an incredibly spiritual experience and believed he saw Jesus and/or God.
- Maybe Joseph wanted attention and made up the encounter but later on was called of God to translate, start a church, etc.

[Sullyute]

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

Thanks for thinking about my feelings.

[Pelado]

Thanks for thinking about my feelings.

Enjoy it. YOhio has never cared about my feelings, which saddens me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Black and white thinking saddens me.

For my part, I guess I am more of a black/white person

[YOhio]

It's not his fault! It's the Mormon church that made him that way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It's not his fault! It's the Mormon church that made him that way.

Oh. OK, never mind.

[Jeff Lebowski]

However, the more nuanced people still are not welcome with open arms in the church currently.

That's not true!

[Northwestcoug]

That's not true!

If a random member confides to a random church leader that he/she doesn't believe in (take your pick): a literal visitation of God and Jesus to JS, the necessity of the priesthood and saving ordinances, god-sanctioned polygamy, chances are that member will not be given the same callings or a similar church experience than one who believes more literally. I think that's a pretty safe bet.

I am not saying that these members will not be fellowshipped in church, nor will they not find some opportunities to give meaningful service. I can think of quite a few people who are 'marginal' believers and both attend and serve. But I'm pretty sure I know how the church wants it's members to believe. Reading the current gen conf thread, I saw references to (yet again) staying away from the internet and giving JS a pass. There is still a premium for orthodoxy.

[creekster]

That's not true!

Whatever. It's not like one of them is a bishop or something.

[Commando]

What I'm saying is either they did appear to him or they didn't. Accounts don't factor into it.

I agree with you. I believe the Spirit has confirmed this to me, but I don't know how to explain this to people who say to the contrary. The silver lining is that I don't think people without a spiritual confirmation will really be accountable for non action on that information, but that may be little consolation to folks dealing with the cultural/familial ramifications of non belief.

[Solon]

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.

I agree with this observation.

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

Personally, I don't reconcile the problems, but I am also comfortable with ambiguity.

The historian in me finds it very unlikely that Abraham wrote down anything, let alone a historical account. Gee's lame Ensign article aside (there are so many problems with the premise of this article that I don't have time to enumerate them), there's really nothing in the atual text of the Book of Abraham to suggest that it is of ancient origins.

On the other hand, just because a book isn't what it claims to be doesn't disqualify it from having merits, whether scriptural, inspirational, whatever.
Lucian's de dea syria was written in an archaic (for him) version of Greek, suggesting a composition date hundreds of years earlier than it actually was.

Personally, i think joseph smith produced the book of abraham out of his own mind - whether he did so under the inspiration of God, or just with a helluva imagination is not really my place to judge.

[SandYFan]

Personally, i think joseph smith produced the book of abraham out of his own mind - whether he did so under the inspiration of God, or just with a helluva imagination is not really my place to judge.

Doesn't that affect everything the Church teaches? If Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham with his imagination, are his teachings on the afterlife valid, for example?

[creekster]

Doesn't that affect everything the Church teaches? If Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham with his imagination, are his teachings on the afterlife valid, for example?

Doesn't what affect it? There can be little question, it seems to me, that it came from his mind, just as any translation comes from someone's mind, or any bit of prose comes from someone's mind. What other source could there be? The important question is the one Solon sagely sidesteps, leaving it to each of us to determine: was the product of his mind directed by divine inspiration or not?