-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
CES Letter
- Thread starter sageowl
- Start date
Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
I haven't read it in its entirety, but I've seen most of what it contains elsewhere.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Hello,
I read the full piece. I didn't come across anything that looked original. It's an assemblage of anti-Mormon criticisms: some are dated, some are more recent. I think it would be more effective, if the author didn't simply opt for a throw everything at wall approach. It comes off as disjointed and sloppy in parts. Wanting to present an effective criticism requires more than a simple cut and paste. There is no editorial eye behind the work. I didn't get the sense the author really understands or is able to weigh the rhetoric or logical force of the myriad criticisms he presented. The anti element of an anti-X work can all too often can blind one to being properly rigorous.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
You asked for thoughts. My thoughts are what I posted. I didn't get the sense the fellow who put the piece together really understood the various arguments. When I state the piece seems to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the rhetoric or logic of the criticisms presented and lacks rigor, that is more than a commentary on style or texture. The piece is some 80 odd pages long. I feel no compulsion to rebut every tired criticism. If there is something you want a specific response to, let me know, otherwise a general request for 'thoughts' gets a general reply.
Read it. It's completely non-original, just a poorly written list of old-rehash issues that have been dismissed a million times. Rather than critical thinking or writing skill, the author’s strategy seems to be just brute force listing of things.
RECYCLING OF LOW-LEVEL CRITICISMS MAKE ME YAWN
I suspect that all religious movements, whether LDS, or Catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, or JW, or Episcopal, etc. yawn at recycled criticisms they’ve seen responded to over and over. I admit that once I see that a criticism is based on stale or recycled or re-worded criticisms from old sources that have been addressed before, or a criticism based on an incorrect premise, or lack of understanding regarding accurate LDS doctrine, then I lose interest in it quickly. I think this stuff was interesting when I was a non-LDS christian and first introduced to Restorational / LDS theology and I went through much of this stuff when I was a new convert to restorational/LDS theology. But not now.
As I mature, I now want to avoid petty and insignificant thoughts and I want to hear NEW thoughts and PROFOUND issues brought up, rather than re-cycling old ones.
I agree with Orontes, that the writer of the CES paper does not understand LDS theology despite his claim to have been LDS. The writer says he was a “disaffected member” and he spent over a year of “intense research and an absolute rabid obsession with Joseph Smith...”. I found myself thinking that he could have simply spent some of that time “researching” answers for himself and saved readers a lot of time on most of the issues I looked at.
Having said this, I think the LDS benefit from the better researched historical criticisms of their base salvational doctrines. The LDS themelves, frequently do not realize the strength of their base doctrines in the historical context. I have wondered if the LDS might actually enjoy more scholarly criticisms since they have a better chance at being relevant and are more interesting and more profound in their application.
HIGHER-LEVEL CRITICISM THAT PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT AND PROFOUND CONSIDERATIONS THAT LOW LEVEL CRITICISM CANNOT
For example, the Hebraist, Michael Heiser, a PhD in Semetic language (hebrew) and the editor of logos software offered, for his PhD, a thesis on “the council of the Gods” and it’s place in early Israel’s religious history. After delivering his thesis, he was accused of being a “closet mormon” since the data was so friendly to the LDS worldview.
In response Michael, who is not LDS, printed a response that detailed what he thought were differences between his view and the LDS view. While Michael is educated, he simply doesn't understand LDS doctrine. Thus, even his explanations as to how the LDS and his beliefs differed, tended to further confirm LDS doctrines. The LDS may wish to read his criticism and response in attempt to separate himself from the Claim that he was secretly “pro-LDS”. One response by LDS scholars named “If you’ve seen one Elohim, you’ve see them all.” is a wonderful explanation as to why even Heisers denials are friendly to the LDS doctrines he did not mean to support. It is the data itself that is turning him into a convert of LDS friendly doctrines. One can read it at the Maxwell Institute site : http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/19/1/S00013-5176a81cbf97e13Heiser.pdf
The fact that the newer historical textual discoveries of old text are funneling the scholars in directions friendly to LDS base doctrines is inevitable, since, to go in other doctrinal directions, the scholars must disregard the textual witnesses.
For example, even the great scholar Charlesworth, converted to LDS friendly doctrines without knowing it simply as a matter of his research. The LDS church is not oblivious to the import of these early texts and their witnesses. The prologue of the 2000 page Charlesworth volumes thanks the LDS church / BYU for financial contributions that helped fund the translation and publication of such texts.
The point is, that the lower level criticisms that have been answered and are simply being re-cycled are counterbalanced very nicely by the higher level changes taking place among scholars. The ignorant re-cycle but the textual scholars of these early textual witnesses are, even against their will as it were, are being pulled in LDS friendly directions. For example :
ANCIENT TEXTUAL DISCOVERIES AND THEIR WITNESS
In 1957 the Dead sea scrolls were on the front cover of Time magazine and they were touted as the greatest religious textual discovery of the generation. However, as the scholars started to dig into the texts, it became apparent that there was a great deal of “Christianity” in them. In fact the Jewish scholar Teicher became so uncomfortable with the christianity imbedded in the texts that declared that they were Christian! For example, this group were lead by a group of 12, had a Eucharistic-like meal, baptized, etc. This was too uncomfortable for the Jewish scholars who then became much less excited about the texts once it became apparent that the texts did not confirm their expected bias (i.e. the texts did NOT confirm their modern brand of religion). The Christians also, became put off by the texts because the texts described a form of Christian worship that existed before they thought it should have existed. Neither group were excited by the unexpected implications and the fact that the texts did not confirm their former biases.
It was the LDS scholars (and a few others) in the main, who remained excited about these early doctrinal surprises because it was friendly to their own beliefs and biases. If you remember my point about Michael Heisner, these parallels are becoming stronger and the non-LDS scholars cannot help but notice.
It is, often difficult for non-historians to recognize the patterns and parallels and their importance. And, these textual patterns which are increasingly apparent in ancient Judeo-Christian texts, are not noticed by superficial study bent on proving errors in a religion. For example, the parable of the sower and the seed that exists in the New Testament also exists in a parallel in the Book of Mormon. It exists in New Testament Hermas (3rd-4th c.e. New Testament C. sinaiticus). It also exists in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The various versions simply transfer the same meanings onto a different set of symbols, but the base doctrine is the same.
In this way, regardless of which version one reads, one describes similar conclusions. This is the process that is happening among scholars who are describing their conversions to LDS friendly premises and conclusions. In the context of this sort of high-level, scholarly groundswell of textual discovery, the recycling and cutting and pasting of old and answered arguments in the CES paper looks like a high-school science project compared to a well done doctoral thesis.
Another simple point :
Criticisms of all type tend to focus on points of perceived error and defects. I've yet to see any significant or scholarly criticism discuss how Joseph accomplished what he DID accomplish. As a simple example, If the ancient textual discoveries are describing a Christianity that was so different than modern Christian tradition, how did Joseph Smith get so many historical details right. It's like this teen-age upstart shows up without any prior abilities and rolls 30 sevens in a row before rolling a five while playing a religious craps game. The critics point out the five and disregard the impossibility of the rest of his game.
Even as a non-LDS, I considered how he could have made such historical connections and parallels and I could not think of any mechanism that could explain it better and more efficiently and more likely than revelation. Those sort of answers, I've not seen anyone tackle, other than to point out superficial points. If, anyone wants example of what I mean by historical parallels without sufficient sources, I will certainly provide some.
These are my thoughts.
Clear
τωειακω
I suspect that all religious movements, whether LDS, or Catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, or JW, or Episcopal, etc. yawn at recycled criticisms they’ve seen responded to over and over. I admit that once I see that a criticism is based on stale or recycled or re-worded criticisms from old sources that have been addressed before, or a criticism based on an incorrect premise, or lack of understanding regarding accurate LDS doctrine, then I lose interest in it quickly. I think this stuff was interesting when I was a non-LDS christian and first introduced to Restorational / LDS theology and I went through much of this stuff when I was a new convert to restorational/LDS theology. But not now.
As I mature, I now want to avoid petty and insignificant thoughts and I want to hear NEW thoughts and PROFOUND issues brought up, rather than re-cycling old ones.
I agree with Orontes, that the writer of the CES paper does not understand LDS theology despite his claim to have been LDS. The writer says he was a “disaffected member” and he spent over a year of “intense research and an absolute rabid obsession with Joseph Smith...”. I found myself thinking that he could have simply spent some of that time “researching” answers for himself and saved readers a lot of time on most of the issues I looked at.
Having said this, I think the LDS benefit from the better researched historical criticisms of their base salvational doctrines. The LDS themelves, frequently do not realize the strength of their base doctrines in the historical context. I have wondered if the LDS might actually enjoy more scholarly criticisms since they have a better chance at being relevant and are more interesting and more profound in their application.
HIGHER-LEVEL CRITICISM THAT PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT AND PROFOUND CONSIDERATIONS THAT LOW LEVEL CRITICISM CANNOT
For example, the Hebraist, Michael Heiser, a PhD in Semetic language (hebrew) and the editor of logos software offered, for his PhD, a thesis on “the council of the Gods” and it’s place in early Israel’s religious history. After delivering his thesis, he was accused of being a “closet mormon” since the data was so friendly to the LDS worldview.
In response Michael, who is not LDS, printed a response that detailed what he thought were differences between his view and the LDS view. While Michael is educated, he simply doesn't understand LDS doctrine. Thus, even his explanations as to how the LDS and his beliefs differed, tended to further confirm LDS doctrines. The LDS may wish to read his criticism and response in attempt to separate himself from the Claim that he was secretly “pro-LDS”. One response by LDS scholars named “If you’ve seen one Elohim, you’ve see them all.” is a wonderful explanation as to why even Heisers denials are friendly to the LDS doctrines he did not mean to support. It is the data itself that is turning him into a convert of LDS friendly doctrines. One can read it at the Maxwell Institute site : http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/19/1/S00013-5176a81cbf97e13Heiser.pdf
The fact that the newer historical textual discoveries of old text are funneling the scholars in directions friendly to LDS base doctrines is inevitable, since, to go in other doctrinal directions, the scholars must disregard the textual witnesses.
For example, even the great scholar Charlesworth, converted to LDS friendly doctrines without knowing it simply as a matter of his research. The LDS church is not oblivious to the import of these early texts and their witnesses. The prologue of the 2000 page Charlesworth volumes thanks the LDS church / BYU for financial contributions that helped fund the translation and publication of such texts.
The point is, that the lower level criticisms that have been answered and are simply being re-cycled are counterbalanced very nicely by the higher level changes taking place among scholars. The ignorant re-cycle but the textual scholars of these early textual witnesses are, even against their will as it were, are being pulled in LDS friendly directions. For example :
ANCIENT TEXTUAL DISCOVERIES AND THEIR WITNESS
In 1957 the Dead sea scrolls were on the front cover of Time magazine and they were touted as the greatest religious textual discovery of the generation. However, as the scholars started to dig into the texts, it became apparent that there was a great deal of “Christianity” in them. In fact the Jewish scholar Teicher became so uncomfortable with the christianity imbedded in the texts that declared that they were Christian! For example, this group were lead by a group of 12, had a Eucharistic-like meal, baptized, etc. This was too uncomfortable for the Jewish scholars who then became much less excited about the texts once it became apparent that the texts did not confirm their expected bias (i.e. the texts did NOT confirm their modern brand of religion). The Christians also, became put off by the texts because the texts described a form of Christian worship that existed before they thought it should have existed. Neither group were excited by the unexpected implications and the fact that the texts did not confirm their former biases.
It was the LDS scholars (and a few others) in the main, who remained excited about these early doctrinal surprises because it was friendly to their own beliefs and biases. If you remember my point about Michael Heisner, these parallels are becoming stronger and the non-LDS scholars cannot help but notice.
It is, often difficult for non-historians to recognize the patterns and parallels and their importance. And, these textual patterns which are increasingly apparent in ancient Judeo-Christian texts, are not noticed by superficial study bent on proving errors in a religion. For example, the parable of the sower and the seed that exists in the New Testament also exists in a parallel in the Book of Mormon. It exists in New Testament Hermas (3rd-4th c.e. New Testament C. sinaiticus). It also exists in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The various versions simply transfer the same meanings onto a different set of symbols, but the base doctrine is the same.
In this way, regardless of which version one reads, one describes similar conclusions. This is the process that is happening among scholars who are describing their conversions to LDS friendly premises and conclusions. In the context of this sort of high-level, scholarly groundswell of textual discovery, the recycling and cutting and pasting of old and answered arguments in the CES paper looks like a high-school science project compared to a well done doctoral thesis.
Another simple point :
Criticisms of all type tend to focus on points of perceived error and defects. I've yet to see any significant or scholarly criticism discuss how Joseph accomplished what he DID accomplish. As a simple example, If the ancient textual discoveries are describing a Christianity that was so different than modern Christian tradition, how did Joseph Smith get so many historical details right. It's like this teen-age upstart shows up without any prior abilities and rolls 30 sevens in a row before rolling a five while playing a religious craps game. The critics point out the five and disregard the impossibility of the rest of his game.
Even as a non-LDS, I considered how he could have made such historical connections and parallels and I could not think of any mechanism that could explain it better and more efficiently and more likely than revelation. Those sort of answers, I've not seen anyone tackle, other than to point out superficial points. If, anyone wants example of what I mean by historical parallels without sufficient sources, I will certainly provide some.
These are my thoughts.
Clear
τωειακω
Last edited:
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Most likely because there are not so many.
Artists tend to focus on what they want to focus on. It does not matter if it is historically accurate to them or not.
It is comparable to all the "Nativity" scene portraits that portray the "Three Wise Men" in attendance at Christ's birth, which is not scripturally accurate.
The LDS Church has not tried to keep the method of translation a secret and have spoken on it at length in addresses, magazines and other publications.
Only recently has the church openly acknowledged this. It's certainly never been taught in any class I've had at church.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I do not believe this to be the case.
I have known about the Prophet's ol'stone in the hat trick since I was a boy.
Although, my father was the type of man to read everything and share it with me.
Well, that's not really strange or evidence of some kind of "cover up".
The classes on Sunday are there just to keep members on the straight and narrow.
They go over the scriptures and the core doctrine.
Not every topic of Gospel Knowledge or Church History is going to be discussed in our Sunday classes.
Unless my dad is there anyways...
I do not believe this to be the case.
I have known about the Prophet's ol'stone in the hat trick since I was a boy.
Although, my father was the type of man to read everything and share it with me.
Well, that's not really strange or evidence of some kind of "cover up".
The classes on Sunday are there just to keep members on the straight and narrow.
They go over the scriptures and the core doctrine.
Not every topic of Gospel Knowledge or Church History is going to be discussed in our Sunday classes.
Unless my dad is there anyways...
It is strange to me. The first time I learned of it I felt a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. It was very disconcerting.
As for keeping members on the straight and narrow, yes, that is what Sunday classes are for, and one way they do that is by watering down the history. And when they teach those lessons about translating the gold plates, it wasn't with pictures of a hat and stone. It's the classic image of two men at a desk with a curtain between them. In fact, if you go to mormon.org today and click on the link to Book of Mormon, it has a painting of Joseph studiously studying the gold plates, ink and pen nearby. I know the "hat trick" as you call it has been briefly referenced in small handful of articles over the decades, but it was never put forth as the primary way the translation happened. What's wrong with just telling it like it is and letting the people decide?
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Well, forgive me for being blunt, but how does the method of translation affect the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?
I personally do not understand how this could be disconcerting to you if you have already received the confirming witness of the Holy Spirit that the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.
The Holy Spirit either told you it was true or He did not.
That has been the modus operandi of most of the history classes I have ever taken. It was not until my college days that I started receiving the "meat" of history.
This does not mean that there is some underlying deception. History is just a vast topic.
We learn more and more specifics as we progress through the Church's educational system. Sunday school is like Elementary, Seminary is Junior High, our Auxiliary meetings are High School and Institute classes are our college courses.
The more you learn the more you come to understand and the less shocking certain facts become.
I remember being in my AP Calculus class when the teacher began talking about "imaginary numbers" and it blew me away. I wanted to swear off all math forever. It made no sense to me. But as I applied myself and learned more it started to make a creepy sort of sense.
Well, that happened too. Not all of the translation was done with the seer stone in the hat.
Like I said earlier, artists choose what they want to portray and it isn't all going to be historically accurate.
Yes that is true. Yet we all know that he had transcribers and did not write the book himself, so, again, the artists got it wrong.
Does any of that change the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?
It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith himself when describing how the book was translated claimed that it was done "by the gift and power of God" and never went into much detail.
He wanted people to focus on what was really important and he wanted the credit to go where it was due. The translation was done by the gift and power of God.
Just because the Prophet was not spiritually mature or experienced enough in his early years to translate the plates unaided does not alter the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.
I think the reason that it has been "downplayed", so to speak, is because of the false premise your question sets up.
Why should the method of translation alter anyone's decision about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon?
Does how God created the Earth change the fact that he did create the Earth?
Should someone disbelieve that God created the Earth when science proved that the Earth is billions of years old, yet they always thought it had been made in seven days?
Your concern about the method of translation is irrelevant to the message of the Book of Mormon, its truthfulness and the impact it should have in your life.
Simple. When the "how" of something is misrepresented it creates doubt as to the truthfulness and calls into question everything else that's been represented. It's a credibility issue.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
Did the Holy Spirit testify to your mind and heart that the Book of Mormon was true or not?
You mean, did I have a self-fulfilling prophesy based on what I'd been conditioned to expect and experience for years? Yes.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
It's a "No" then.
No wonder this affected you so much.
You should stop worrying about these tenets and hunker down with the Book of Mormon and pray about it often.
I'd recommend some fasting too.
Lol. Now you're trying to get into my head. I received the same "confirmation" you claim. Just because I didn't stay with it doesn't make it any less so.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
I received a witness from the Holy Spirit of God.
I don't know what you received, but it is not comparable to what I received.
Even if you decided not to "stay with it" I think a daily dose of Book of Mormon study, prayer and the occasional fast would do you good.
I think it would do anyone good, whether or not they received a spiritual witness.
You can't tell me if it was comparable or not because as you point out you don't know what I received. I've read the Book of Mormon several times, and I've concluded its a fake. No amount of fasting and praying is going to change that. The evidence against it and Joseph is too great. Too bad.