Any Mormons on here read the CES Letter?

[Horton]

So we see that the claims of the CES Letter quickly crumbles upon semi-close inspection. How accurate do you believe the CES Letter needs to be in order for it to be a serious document?

Of course this is the expect response from a true blue, however for those of us with the interior freedom to think for ourselves, the letter is perfectly logical and reasonable in pointing out the illogical and unreasonable claims of the LDS.

 

[twf]

Item #11 specifically claims that the Book of Mormon contains “Trinitarian language”, and yet each of the examples provided are patently non-Trinitarian.

I agree that those quotes didn’t strike me as particularly Trinitarian…at least not in the orthodox sense of the doctrine. But they don’t seem to accord with later Mormon theology on the Godhead either…

 

[RebeccaJ]

How many mistake will you tolerate in the CES letter and still consider it credible? Item #11 specifically claims that the Book of Mormon contains “Trinitarian language”, and yet each of the examples provided are patently non-Trinitarian.

It is coming from a man who was a Mormon at the time he wrote the letter. Mormons have no general knowledge of orthodox teachings. They are not taught it other than, when their leaders ridicule Christian teachings with GC sound bites in support of another fairytale, “the great apostasy”.

Also, regarding Joseph Smith’s use of the seer stone, the CES letter on page 29 specifically says "*Unlike the story I’ve been taught in Sunday School, Priesthood, General Conferences, Seminary, EF Y, Ensigns, Church history tour, Missionary Training Center, and BYU…Joseph Smith used a rock in a hat for translating the Book of Mormon.

The guy was talking about his own experience! Mormons read the church mags that arrived in the mail last week. It’s only the fringes that hang about in fringie Mormon stuff. The general Mormon population is squarely seated in pews and metal folding chairs. That is where 99% of Mormons get 99% of their information about Joseph Smith & Company. You get this kind of rebuttal from the fringes.

So we see that the claims of the CES Letter quickly crumbles upon semi-close inspection. How accurate do you believe the CES Letter needs to be in order for it to be a serious document?

This a logical fallacy, like asking, when are you going to stop beating your wife? Well, when? It’s pathetic that illogical rebuttals are all FAIR has to offer you. You do realize, they changed positions on the matter, and went from, a seer stone in a hat is an anti-Mormon lie, to claiming that they always knew about a seer stone and its those anti-Mormons that say they didn’t?

You need a better reference source.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

Oh look, what was taught consistently in the past is still taught today.

Don’t be ridiculous. Finding several mentions of seer stones buried in some Ensign articles 30 or 40 years ago, or in passing during a talk in no way is the church teaching the truth about the seer stones. And it’s not taught today either. The only Mormons who will find out about the seer stones are the few who go searching. For the vast majority, finding out that Joseph Smith translated the BoM with a magical seer stone comes as a surprise to say the least. Most are completely unaware of this until they hear about it, if they ever hear about it at all, from a source on the outside. And only then, if they bother, they might seek out some more information from church sources like you did.

It is certainly not the story they are taught in the missionary discussions or in Sunday school. So stop trying to make the claim that the church openly teaches this to the members. It doesn’t.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

The video is pathetic, but typical of Mormon apologetics. I’ll bet this is a response from the church when some LDS found out about the seer stone story and started asking questions, just like the Gospel Topics essays. I noticed how the video failed to mention that Joseph used seer stones to con people out of their money searching for buried treasure, which he NEVER FOUND ONCE by the way. Failed to mention about how he would locate the buried treasure with his seer stone, and then when digging for it how the treasure would sink deeper into the ground just beyond his reach until it disappeared. It also failed to mention that he was taken to court for this FRAUDULENT practice.

As I said, typical Mormon apologetics…lousy incomplete answers that only paint the church in the best possible light. So dishonest and misleading. Nevermind the truth as long as the church is protected.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Also, avoiding the sad topic of “The Salamander Letter”, which not ironically, was originally accepted as authentic by so-called Mormon scholars. But that really awful anti-Mormon, Jerald Tanner, called it a fake…all while BYU Studies (publication) devoted an entire publication to what “The Salamander Letter” revealed about Mormon history. One, being the usage of a seer stone by Joseph Smith as a means to “see anything he wishes”.

This was absolutely shocking to all of Mormondum, emphasis on dumb, as they tried to come to terms with this new, hidden, now brought to light information!

Oops, it was a forgery, but that doesn’t change the fact that the highest leaders in the LDS Church tried to hide this new historical information from its members.

What a thing it is. Hoffman forged a letter that included a strong reference to Smith’s usage of a seer stone, that the LDS Church tried to suppress (LARGE cash offerings to obtain Hoffman’s “historical” documents). Seer stone historical references, that Brodie and Quinn were vilified over, and now it’s, “we’ve taught it all along”.

I was still semi-active during the Hoffman debacle. Mormonism was a all abuzz with talk of angels as salamanders and Smith using seer stones to see anything he wishes.Then it was, “Its a forgery!”, and everyone breathed a sigh of relief and everyone I knew, wrote the whole thing off, including seer stones, as MADE UP.

 

[Pattylt]

From my point of view, the internet has been devastating to the LDS and their teachings. As long as they controlled the stories, they grew and people remained faithful. Now, especially the young go to the internet to get answers and are faced with this alternate history of Joseph Smith,the Book of Mormon and the origins of the faith.

Even if they don’t believe what they read in these alternate histories of their church, it introduces doubts and questions which often don’t have satisfactory answers to them. They then either continue to search for the truth or ask their leaders. The leaders may try to put a good spin on it but kids are savvy. They wonder why this stuff was never taught in the first place!

Many faiths can have serious questions arise due to reading on the internet but none more so than the LDS.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It should be a joke, but the Church is very open about this . . . now. Most of my life, it was taught that Joseph translated the gold plates using the interpreters, i.e., the urim and thummim. But these were taken from him when he lost the 116 pages of manuscript and were never given back to him.

I have this memory of the urim and thummim being taught as being stones, themselves, so I googled and that is what the D&C says they were.

LeGrand Richards, in an interview, was asked about Smith’s seer stone and if the LDS Church had it, he said no it does not. That it was taken into heaven with the golden plates.

This is my memory of LDS church teachings, that the Urim and thummim were stones, and associated to the breastplate of Aaron. Provoking some kind of divine power of translation but not used after the 160 pages were lost.

Also, the D&C says the earth will become a Urim and thummim, a planet sized great crystal ball, a magic globe for seeing, which a seminary teacher long ago, let us know that is how God (the Mormon God) is omniscient. He’s got massive sized tools.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

So we see that the claims of the CES Letter quickly crumbles upon semi-close inspection. How accurate do you believe the CES Letter needs to be in order for it to be a serious document?

Actually the claims of the CES letter hold up to examination very well, so much so that not a single LDS leader was ever able to answer any of Jeremy Runnells’ questions. Even his stake president, and those above him (Salt Lake), couldn’t answer. They promised Jeremy answers, yet none ever came. They didn’t even try. Why? Because there are no good answers. So instead of trying to help him, they excommunicated him instead. Apparently, they thought is was better to protect the church from Jeremy rather than try to answer his questions and save him from outer darkness.

 

[Chris-Wa1]

LeGrand Richards, in an interview, was asked about Smith’s seer stone and if the LDS Church had it, he said no it does not. That it was taken into heaven with the golden plates.

It’s amazing how lie upon lie upon lie eventually comes crashing down. The church does have Joseph’s seer stone. In fact it has more than one. This is the one he used to translate the BoM:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Lemuel]

I have read the seer stone referred to as the urim and thummim. There’s also this interesting quote from Joseph Fielding Smith:

“While the statement has been made by some writers that the Prophet Joseph Smith used a seer stone part of the time in his translating of the record, and information points to the fact that he did have in his possession such a stone, yet there is no authentic statement in the history of the Church which states that the use of such a stone was made in that translation. The information is all hearsay, and personally, I do not believe that this stone was used for this purpose. The reason I give for this conclusion is found in the statement of the Lord to the Brother of Jared as recorded in Ether 3:22–24. These stones, the Urim and Thummim which were given to the Brother of Jared, were preserved for this very purpose of translating the record, both of the Jaredites and the Nephites. Then again the Prophet was impressed by Moroni with the fact that these stones were given for that very purpose. It hardly seems reasonable to suppose that the Prophet would substitute something evidently inferior under these circumstances. It may have been so, but it is so easy for a story of this kind to be circulated due to the fact that the Prophet did possess a seer stone, which he may have used for some other purposes.”

FairMormon had fun with it. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again that being an apologist for the Mormons has to be one extremely difficult job. I could never sleep for wondering how I was going to defend the next lie or justify the next gyration.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, that’s a photograph of a photograph. I remain skeptical.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My favorite depiction of the urim and thummim:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Stephen168]

Item #11 specifically claims that the Book of Mormon contains “Trinitarian language”, and yet each of the examples provided are patently non-Trinitarian.

The examples clearly show an understanding that the Father and the Son are the same being. The 1830 Book of Mormon is even more clear.

 

[Lemuel]

The examples clearly show an understanding that the Father and the Son are the same being. The 1830 Book of Mormon is even more clear.

God can change his mind any time he wants to.

 

[Pattylt]

God can change his mind any time he wants to.

…and does so through the LDS Prophets! These same prophets that couldn’t discern a fake Egyptian document or the con man blackmailing them!

 

[Lemuel]

Y’all know the story of when the angel Nephi Moroni gave Joseph Smith the urim and thummim and the plates? Then it describes how Joe wrapped the plates in a piece of cloth and ran a couple of miles through the woods at the top of his speed, fighting off three guys with guns? Well, am I the only one who wonders what happened to the urim and thummim and how did they make it back to his house? It’s just something I’ve never known or studied.

 

[gazelam]

Ah, the gaslighting since about 2013. “You would have known if you had only looked.” Come now G, be honest, it was as shocking to, you as it was to every Mormon.

I find it curious that you believe you have the ability to know when something is shocking to someone - especially someone you’ve never met.

It’s well documented, from FAIR to even Ask Gramps, that the seer stone translation was denied as a anti-Mormon lie. Fawn Brodie brought it up in her book, and Nibley called her a liar for it.

Please provide the citation of Nibley calling Fawn Brodie a liar regarding the seer stone.

Now the Mormon masses pretend like everyone always knew about the seer stone, and to say otherwise is an anti-Mormon lie.

It’s quite the leap when I point out that the Church periodically mentioned the seer stone in its publications and you take that to mean all Latter-day Saints have always been aware of the seer stone. Lots of Latter-day Saints (myself included) don’t read the Ensign cover to cover each month. But that does not mean we didn’t have the opportunity to know.

It is coming from a man who was a Mormon at the time he wrote the letter. Mormons have no general knowledge of orthodox teachings.

So you’ll agree that Runnells was opining about topics he didn’t know anything about?

The guy was talking about his own experience! Mormons read the church mags that arrived in the mail last week. It’s only the fringes that hang about in fringie Mormon stuff. The general Mormon population is squarely seated in pews and metal folding chairs. That is where 99% of Mormons get 99% of their information about Joseph Smith & Company. You get this kind of rebuttal from the fringes.

I’m sure the USCCB isn’t making an ongoing effort to ensure all Catholics know how to respond to questionable Catholic history like the Cadaver Synod, the False Decretals, and the Synod of Elvira. (In a single year, would any of these topics even be addressed in any Catholic mass, RCIA, or CCD in the USA?) But those on the Catholic fringes, like Trent Horn, Brant Pitre, Scott Hahn, and Peter Kreeft have their responses at the ready.

 

[gazelam]

gazelam:

Item #11 specifically claims that the Book of Mormon contains “Trinitarian language”, and yet each of the examples provided are patently non-Trinitarian.

I agree that those quotes didn’t strike me as particularly Trinitarian…at least not in the orthodox sense of the doctrine. But they don’t seem to accord with later Mormon theology on the Godhead either…

It wouldn’t take a whole lot to put together a Catholic equivalent - a “Catholic CES Letter” if you will - full of existing misconceptions and lesser understood dogma and history. I’m sure there are a fair number of low-information Catholics for whom much of it would be a surprise.

 

[twf]

That’s true. So then I have to ask you…do you personally feel confident that you can address all the challenges raised by this letter?
If you prefer not to respond that’s OK, but I’m honestly curious…do you personally have an explanation for the View of the Hebrews and its parallels to the BoM?