Anti-Mormon critics

Part 37: CES Letter Testimony/Spiritual Witness Questions [Section A]

by Sarah Allen

 

Entries in this series (this link does not work properly in old Reddit or 3rd-party apps): https://www.reddit.com/r/lds/collection/11be9581-6e2e-4837-9ed4-30f5e37782b2

***

While the CES Letter has jumped around a bit in terms of topics, the progression of ideas has been interesting to see. First, it went after the Book of Mormon, the First Vision, and Joseph Smith. Then, it went after Brigham Young and prophets in general. Now, it’s going after the Spirit and personal revelation. It’s directly targeting a member of the Godhead. It’s trying to systematically knock down all of the basic pillars of a testimony so there’ll be nothing left to hold it up by the end. The entire purpose of the Letter is to attack that firm foundation your testimony should be built on so that it can’t continue to stand.

Many of us grew up, or have kids who are growing up, singing “The Wise Man and the Foolish Man” in Primary. It’s based on the parable given by the Savior in Matthew 7:24-27, which teaches us that the wise man builds his house (or testimony) upon a rock, while the foolish man builds his house/testimony upon sand, which will wash away in a storm. The CES Letter works very hard to try to flip the script, saying that only foolish people will base their testimonies on sandy concepts like “feelings” and “revelation” instead of rock-solid concepts like “science” and “common sense.”

But there is nothing foolish about listening to the Spirit, and putting your faith in the knowledge of man rather than the wisdom of God will never lead you in the right direction.

I have to admit, this topic is a little harder to discuss than some of the others have been simply because it’s a more nebulous concept. We aren’t talking about historical facts, figures, and documents this time around. We’re talking about the Spirit, something more amorphous but equally as real as historical documents are. As such, I hope you guys will forgive me if this section is maybe a little clumsy compared to some of the others. Our sources on this section are going to be far more scripture- and talk-oriented rather than scholarly research, too. I’m looking forward to that because they’re the best sources to lean on, anyway.

[Read more…] about The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 37

Part 36: CES Letter Kinderhook Plates/Translation Claims Questions

by Sarah Allen

 

The Kinderhook Plates and Joseph’s attempt at translating them is something that the critics love to bring up, but when they do, they’re banking on you not knowing what really happened. Once you do understand the actual circumstances, you’re more likely to shrug and move on than you are to lose your testimony. Not only was this event inconsequential to the history of the Church, but it doesn’t even crack the top ten of supposedly controversial things Joseph said or did.

Right off the bat, Jeremy frames this dishonestly, and he either hasn’t read yet another of his own sources or he’s deliberately hiding what it says. He might link to his sources, but I’m pretty sure he’s hoping you’ll be too lazy to read them for yourselves. I’m going to go through the quotes he uses to open this section, and then I’ll talk about what really happened with the Kinderhook Plates.

He begins this section with this quote:

“I insert fac-similes of the six brass plates found near Kinderhook … I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, and that he received his Kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth.” — JOSEPH SMITH, JR., HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, VOL. 5, CHAPTER 19, P.372

The History of the Church was originally compiled by Joseph’s scribes, secretaries, and friends as The History of Joseph Smith after his death, and then later edited and expanded by B.H. Roberts into a 7-volume series. This quote is taken from volume 5 of Roberts’s series, as Jeremy mentions.

However, what Jeremy gets wrong is that this quote was not given by Joseph Smith. Back in the 19^th Century when these were compiled, it was relatively common while writing biographies for things originally in the third person to be changed to the first person as if the subject actually said them when they did not. This quote was originally written by William Clayton, one of Joseph’s scribes, and was taken from his personal journal entry for May 1, 1843. Where it says, “I have translated a portion of them,” the actual quote was, “Prest J. has translated a portion.”

[Read more…] about The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 36

Part 35: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section I]

by Sarah Allen

 

Jeremy’s sneering contempt for the idea of ongoing revelation and modern-day prophets is, I believe, quite telling. Later in the CES Letter, he uses the same method to cast doubt on the idea of personal revelation as well. It speaks to his mindset the same way his sarcastic rebuttals do to anyone who attempts to respond to his concerns. If he was truly seeking answers to questions that were disturbing him to such a great degree, as he consistently claims, you’d think he’d welcome a response rather than lash out with childish insults and playground taunts. And yet, responses containing answers only seem to enrage him.

If we’re speaking about someone’s “modus operandi,” to use one of his favorite terms, Jeremy’s is to treat the things of God and those who try to uphold them with open disdain. There are no genuine questions here. He’s shown clearly that he is not sincerely seeking answers, but rather, actively seeking to destroy the faith of others. He’s like Amalikiah, poisoning people with his venom by degrees until their testimonies wither and die. It’s tragic, and I can only pray that someday, he has his “Alma the Younger moment” and realizes what he’s done before it’s too late. [Read more…] about The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 35

Part 34: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section H]

by Sarah Allen

 

I am what some people on the internet commonly refer to as a “basic white girl.” Most of my preferences are mainstream and wholly unoriginal. I like Converse and Vans, the color pink, s’mores, steel water bottles, canvas messenger bags, Friends, unicorns, Harry Potter, murder mysteries, Funko Pops, Apple products, baking shows, fun nail art, and playing with makeup. I like wearing leggings and yoga pants, because at a certain point you stop caring so much about looking cute and just want to be comfortable. Even though I normally prefer listening to various subgenres of rock music, I still love boybands and other cheesy pop music. I like Fall, Halloween, pumpkin spice flavoring, and wearing sweaters and flannel shirts. And, most importantly for this week’s post, I love true crime.

I’ve loved it since well before it was popular, back when reading about serial killers and kidnapped kids as a hobby was considered strange for some reason. I said a few weeks ago how much I like stories, and that’s why I like history so much, because it’s just a giant collection of stories woven together. That’s the same reason I like true crime: because of the stories. As a storyteller myself, I’ve always found what human beings are capable of doing to one another far scarier and more interesting than any supernatural danger could ever be. True crime focuses heavily on those different stories and the real people involved in them, and to me, it’s fascinating and heartbreaking in equal measure. [Read more…] about The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 34

Part 32: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section F]

by Sarah Allen

 

Last week, we discussed the history of race in the Church up to the institution of the Priesthood restriction on black members. This week, I’d like to finish the history of the ban and discuss the shifting reasoning people came up with to justify it. I was thinking this week would wrap up the entire subject, but I don’t think it will all fit. I think we’ll probably have to extend this topic for a third week. It’s still a lot to cover, so I’m just going to dive right in.

Before I do, though, I need to remind everyone that we’re going to be discussing some extremely offensive comments today, and I’m not going sugar-coat or excuse the things being said. However, no matter how distasteful some of this may be, we need to remember that these were flawed children of God who deserve our charity rather than our judgment. It’s not always easy. I struggle with it sometimes, too. But God doesn’t call perfect people to achieve His plan. If He did, the Savior would have been the only one He ever called. The rest of us can and do make mistakes. We need mercy from Him and from each other. Let’s all try to keep that in mind, please?

And again, the first part of this history is taken chiefly from Lester Bush Jr.’s Mormon Negro Doctrine, Paul Reeve’s Religion of a Different Color, and his 2015 FAIR presentation, unless otherwise noted. When we reach President McKay’s tenure, the main source for that information is an article entitled Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood by Edward Kimball.

Throughout the bulk of Brigham Young’s tenure as president of the Church, the primary rationale for the Priesthood restriction was that black people were descended from Cain, the lineage having been preserved during the flood through Ham and his Canaanite wife, and that his curse carried on to them in the present day. Slavery was both proof of that curse and the result of it, in a fantastic piece of circular logic that makes absolutely no sense today. Brigham added that, after all of Adam’s other children have had the chance to receive the Priesthood, then would the children of Cain be allowed. He believed this would take place after the Second Coming and Millennium, because he seemed to believe that this meant that it would happen after every single person from every other race had their temple work done.

[Read more…] about The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 32

Part 31: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section E]

by Sarah Allen

 

Today and next week, I’ll be covering one of the very most controversial topics in our church’s history, the Priesthood ban on black members. I’ll say right up front that I don’t know exactly where this ban came from, but it’s a lot more complicated than just saying that “Brigham Young was racist.” However, racism—both casual and overt—was certainly a large element of the history we’re going to cover and some of the quotes I read this week made me physically sick to my stomach. I can’t even imagine thinking of other children of God like that, especially not over something as trivial as skin color. There will be some things I’ll have to quote that will be difficult to read, and I want to say clearly from the outset that I do not endorse the things being said or the language being used. Some people I love very much have African heritage, and the thought of some of these labels and attitudes being applied to them is absolutely horrifying to me. I apologize for any offense these quotes may cause. The intent is to explain the context and history, not to cause anyone pain or to defend the things that were said.

We need to remember right from the start of this, though, that these things were being said and done in a very different day than ours, and casual racism was much more common than it is in the world today. It doesn’t excuse it, but it helps explain it. We can’t view the past through today’s lens. This is called “presentism,” and it’s considered a logical fallacy. If we judge the people who lived back then by our standards today, it simply doesn’t work. Looking down on them doesn’t make us much better than the way they looked down on black people in their day. That can be a difficult thing to remember when reading some of these quotes. Believe me, I’m right there with you on that. But we have to at least try to keep in mind that some of these beliefs were held by virtually everyone in the entire Western World during the time period, and had been for centuries. Their entire culture was shaped by these beliefs. It’s easy for us to look back on it and say that we’d have been different had we lived during that time, but the truth is, we probably wouldn’t have been. It would’ve been all we’d have ever known. So, judge their words, absolutely, but try not to judge the people saying them, okay? We haven’t been in their shoes. Like Moroni says, Heavenly Father shows us the mistakes of the past so that we can learn from their example and be better than they were. [Read more…] about The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 31

Part 29: CES Letter Prophet Questions [Section C]

by Sarah Allen

 

Today, we’re going to talk about one of my favorite weird/controversial topics of Church history, Blood Atonement and the way it was so badly misconstrued. You can see a highly biased approach to the topic here for an example of what I’m talking about. It’s such a caricature of the actual teaching, I honestly thought it was facetious satire at first before I realized the author was serious. To be honest, on its own, Blood Atonement is just not that interesting or even very strange. It’s basically just exaggerated rhetoric to make a point.

In my free time, though, I like to write fiction. I love stories: watching them, reading them, writing them, imagining them. It’s one of the reasons I enjoy history so much, because it’s just a compilation of a million different stories. Because of that, I love the larger mythology of Blood Atonement and the way something so simple could become so exaggerated and ludicrous and take on a life of its own. It’s fascinating to me. This is why, later in the post, I also want to touch on the stories of the Danites and also Mountain Meadows, and how they both tie into the folklore surrounding Blood Atonement. I’m going to try to put it all into some historical context for you guys so that it all makes sense. [Read more…] about The CES Letter Rebuttal — Part 29