If You Liked the CES Letter...

[Stig]

...you're going to love this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B18W3A ... c0RWc/view

One man's 145 page letter outlining everything he's learned that's wrong with the Church's claims. Very well done, IMO.

[Newme]

From my overview, I found it well researched & I like how he prefaced it with love & a heads up that basically contrary to teachings, cognitive dissonance is not the same as adversary influence.

I also found it fascinating how he brought up the Rosetta Stone.
To me, JS may have screwed up in various ways, but I believe he did have spiritual experiences & began a new way of thinking - even new for Protestants.

[Charlotte]

And...if you didn't like the CES Letter, you'll like this much more. Even if I don't agree with everything in either of them, I think For My Wife and Children is much better. I hope it generates some real give-and-take discussions.

[asa]

I personally think this is far superior to the CES letter. It is better reasoned, more carefully nuanced,and more articulately presented. However it contains nothing new and is essentially a catalogue of virtually every complaint or criticism that anyone has raised about the church or Joseph Smith in my life time and I am old ! I suspect most on this board are well acquainted with everyone of these arguments because each one has been hashed out for decades or longer. If any of this is new I would recommend you using his argument as a starting point for your own research. Not that anyone is interested but I have carefully examined each argument over the years. I have concluded that much of the criticism leveled at the institutional church is justified and appropriate
I have also concluded that that the bulk of the attacks on the foundational narrative as poorly conceived and misdirected. For instance suggesting that there is something suspect about the testimony of the three witnesses because they did not all witness the same event simultaneously is misleading. The issue is what did they claim to see. This is particularly egregious since the published narrative always made the sequence clear.. On the other hand the fact the the witnesses all left the church and each believed Joseph to be a " fallen" prophet but nonetheless always to their dying day affirmed the reality of their experience is of course never mentioned. Joseph's veracity is attacked because of multiple accounts of the first vision that differed in some details but no mentioned is made of the fact Anthon gave multiple accounts of his interview with Martin Harris that differed in significant details. This should not come as a surprise I suppose because the author is doing his darnness to justify a conclusion he has already reached and as expected systematically ignores any evidence that is contrary to his thesis. Thus if you still have an open mind ( a rarity) this polite diatribe should be the starting point for investigation not its climax.

[wtfluff]

However it contains nothing new and is essentially a catalogue of virtually every complaint or criticism that anyone has raised about the church or Joseph Smith in my life time and I am old !

Interesting... Nothing new eh?

Has the LDS Corporation come up with any "new" answers to theses "old" unanswered questions / complaints / criticisms?

For instance suggesting that there is something suspect about the testimony of the three witnesses because they did not all witness the same event simultaneously is misleading. The issue is what did they claim to see.

What do you say to the fact that the witnesses "witnessed" source material (the golden plates) which was never used in the "translation" of the current Book of Mormon?

[asa]

Wtf by "source material never used in the translation " I assume you mean Joseph "translated" the bulk of the B of M without direct contact with the plates. To borrow a phrase from my old advisor R Bushman the whole translation process is a puzzle. Let me offer a possible resolution . The plates are central to the entire story. No plates then no miraculous angelic visitors and no text. All three of the witnesses testimonies revolved a round the existence of the plates . At a very early stage Harris begin to believe when he hoisted the box the plates were in and concluded it was too heavy to be filled with rocks and he knew Smith didn't have enough money to be able to buy that much lead. Thus the plates story begin to be plausible. For others including the 8 witnesses the existence of the plates was a necessary prerequisite to their faith in the text. The fact that we don't understand the precise connection between what Joseph saw in the translators or the seer Stone and the text doesn't diminish the importance or reality of the plates. They are tangible evidence of a miraculous and otherwise inexplicable story. They serve as the bona fides of Joseph's story . You are skeptical of Joseph's story even with multiple witnesses to the reality of the plates . How much more unbelieving would you be if some boy produced a book that was only the result of him looking into a hat and mumbling words for 60 days and then claim he was inspired by God. Do you believe in the Book of Moses? No I didn't think so. The fact he didn't use he plates in the translation is of little moment since he wasn't translating in any conventional sense .The plates are critical physical evidence of the truth of the story but not essential to the production of the text.

[Stig]

I personally think this is far superior to the CES letter. It is better reasoned, more carefully nuanced,and more articulately presented. However it contains nothing new and is essentially a catalogue of virtually every complaint or criticism that anyone has raised about the church or Joseph Smith in my life time and I am old ! I suspect most on this board are well acquainted with everyone of these arguments because each one has been hashed out for decades or longer. If any of this is new I would recommend you using his argument as a starting point for your own research. Not that anyone is interested but I have carefully examined each argument over the years. I have concluded that much of the criticism leveled at the institutional church is justified and appropriate
I have also concluded that that the bulk of the attacks on the foundational narrative as poorly conceived and misdirected. For instance suggesting that there is something suspect about the testimony of the three witnesses because they did not all witness the same event simultaneously is misleading. The issue is what did they claim to see. This is particularly egregious since the published narrative always made the sequence clear.. On the other hand the fact the the witnesses all left the church and each believed Joseph to be a " fallen" prophet but nonetheless always to their dying day affirmed the reality of their experience is of course never mentioned. Joseph's veracity is attacked because of multiple accounts of the first vision that differed in some details but no mentioned is made of the fact Anthon gave multiple accounts of his interview with Martin Harris that differed in significant details. This should not come as a surprise I suppose because the author is doing his darnness to justify a conclusion he has already reached and as expected systematically ignores any evidence that is contrary to his thesis. Thus if you still have an open mind ( a rarity) this polite diatribe should be the starting point for investigation not its climax.

No question it's a summary of issues already known by most of us who have concluded the Church isn't what it claims to be. However, many of us are still in family relationships with people who have no idea what many of these issues are. It's nice to have a single document to which they can be referred, instead of sending them all over the Internet.

[Rob4Hope]

...you're going to love this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B18W3A ... c0RWc/view

One man's 145 page letter outlining everything he's learned that's wrong with the Church's claims. Very well done, IMO.

I can't get the link to work. Can you repost, or post where it might have moved?

[wtfluff]

The plates are critical physical evidence of the truth of the story but not essential to the production of the text.

You just made my point right here: The plates are not essential to the production of the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon was produced by a magic rock.

If the plates are not essential or important to producing the KEYSTONE of the religion, witnesses of the plates are also not essential.


How 'bout my other question?

Has the LDS Corporation come up with any "new" answers to theses "old" unanswered questions / complaints / criticisms?

[asa]

WTF ps with respect to the failure of the corporate church to be more responsive to "old" questions I am not holding my breath. They won't because generally they can't.The question is is there utility in replowing the same old ground ,again ,again and again . However as I said above this polemic isn't about reasoned discourse it is about persuading someone that the author's intellectual approach to questions of ultimate meaning is the only legitimate approach and his poor wife should reach the same conclusion he has because he knows more than she . Unfortunately it fails to acknowledge that there are multiple epistemological approachs to finding truth

[Red Ryder]

I agree Asa, and understand your point. That's the problem with this conflict. There are so many variables and colorful shades of truth that it's unfortunate that many of us quickly jump to black representing the lights out, fraudulent, "Mormonism is a con" answer. I also see this point of view and understand it all too well.

However I'm also learning to see the beauty in the story and the benefits of a nuanced view to maintain my connection to Mormonism and my heritage.

Mormonism is complicated when you open your mind to the epistemological approach to finding truth. Most of the exmo crowd doesn't make it that far. I surely didn't/haven't but your posts have made me rethink how I look at the history and re-evaluate my answers.

I appreciate your honesty.

[Stig]

...you're going to love this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B18W3A ... c0RWc/view

One man's 145 page letter outlining everything he's learned that's wrong with the Church's claims. Very well done, IMO.

I can't get the link to work. Can you repost, or post where it might have moved?

Hmmm, not sure what to do. Whenever I click on it, it still works for me. There's another thread in the "Support" forum about this same document. Perhaps one of that thread's links will work?

[wtfluff]

The question is is there utility in replowing the same old ground ,again ,again and again.

One thing you might not be considering asa: Though all of this "stuff" is old ground to you, most believing Mormons have never heard many of these issues, so all of that old ground is actually brand new to them. It's fertile ground for them, they aren't re-plowing anything.

...you're going to love this: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B18W3A ... c0RWc/view

One man's 145 page letter outlining everything he's learned that's wrong with the Church's claims. Very well done, IMO.

I can't get the link to work. Can you repost, or post where it might have moved?

Hmmm, not sure what to do. Whenever I click on it, it still works for me. There's another thread in the "Support" forum about this same document. Perhaps one of that thread's links will work?

Link works for me too.

Rob4Hope did you attempt to access it from a network (at work) where Google docs is blocked?

[Hagoth]

At a very early stage Harris begin to believe when he hoisted the box the plates were in and concluded it was too heavy to be filled with rocks and he knew Smith didn't have enough money to be able to buy that much lead. Thus the plates story begin to be plausible.

Thanks for you comments, asa.

What we have here is the divide that lies between believers and non-believers. Does the story become plausible because Martin thought the box was too heavy to contain lead? Well, yes, if you already lean toward believing that an angel with gold plates is the more plausible explanation, but that is a tremendous leap of faith for anyone who no longer believes or was never indoctrinated with that belief.

Might it be more plausible that Martin wasn't very good at guessing weights of things he couldn't actually see (Joseph Sr. claimed he weighed the plates and they came in at 30 lbs - half of what Joseph Jr. claimed)? Could Martin have been biased in estimating the weight because he wanted to believe? Might Joseph have actually had some lead? Did Joseph find a crashed UFO in which he found an extraterrestrial object that is more dense than most things found on earth? Many people would consider the last example as likely as the angel story. All of the others are much more plausible.

But I think we might even have a bigger problem to deal with, as Utah-oriented Latter-Day Saints. Even if all of Joseph's claims were true, does that validate anything that happened after Joseph's death and Brigham's usurping of the mantle?

It might be that Oliver and David never denied their testimonies because they really believed the spiritual witness they received, whether there were physical plates or not, and/or because they planned to carry on with the pre-polygamy church at some point. In fact, that's what they were trying to do at the time of Oliver's death. They agreed that they were the only men who actually possessed the keys and they were hoping to get the train back on the tracks.

ETA: oops, threadjack (sorry).

[Ghost]

I'd downloaded this a while back, but this thread (or maybe it was the other one) reminded me that I had not actually looked it over before. I like the way it collects a lot of good quotations in one place. There are even a few sources on some things that I don't remember coming across before. The illustrations are nice, too.

This part made me wonder whether the author had mentioned anywhere what his wife's reaction had been:

At the time when I needed you the most, I was faced with the option of divorce. I will never fully be able to communicate the pain this caused me.

A quick search led me to a Reddit thread with this post that seems to be from the document's author:

My tbm wife and I have been living in a mixed faith(no faith) relationship since early 2013 when i found out the truth. It's the gorilla/elephant in the room we aren't allowed to talk about. But we found our way to compromise and achieve a level of happiness. Is it ideal? Not by far, but it works. Once day I hope that she would chose me over the church and read this letter to her... but I stopped holding my breath.

[wtfluff]

ETA: oops, threadjack (sorry).

You and me both.

("Witnesses" aren't a hot button for me... Nope, not at all...)