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 We’re talking about the Spirit, something more amorphous but equally as real as historical documents are.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