CES response

The conversation discusses the CES letter, a collection of criticisms and questions about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They explore controversies surrounding the Book of Mormon, including allegations of plagiarism and the book's geography. The respondent argues that the book's language and sources demonstrate a complex process of translation. They also address criticisms regarding the Book of Abraham, suggesting that the papyri may have contained multiple layers of meaning. The conversation touches on the topic of polygamy, emphasizing the distinction between sealings and traditional marriages. They discuss the fallibility of prophets and scriptures within the LDS Church and how it impacts faith and authority. The conversation ends with the acknowledgement that they have only scratched the surface of these topics. Welcome to the deep dive looks like we're going deep on this one, huh? excerpts from the cef letter And a response to it. Someone's really digging into the history and doctrines of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints Controversies and all we've got personal stories linguistic analysis. This is going to be fascinating You know what strikes me is the dialogue format. It's like we're witnessing a conversation between a skeptic and a believer It gets really personal which you don't see that often. Oh for sure and the person responding to the letter He's not holding back on the personal stuff either He even mentions how people he's close to have left the church because of these very arguments that's heavy It shows how impactful these questions can be on relationships on families on people's lives So before we get into the specifics, maybe we should take a step back What exactly is the ces letter and why is it such a big deal? Okay, so the ces letter It's basically a list of questions and criticisms about the elias church Written by a guy named jeremy runnels. He left the church and wanted to explain why He calls it a collection of personal notes But the person responding argues that a lot of it was actually developed online with other people Ah that changes things a bit doesn't it? It's not just one man's struggle It suggests these doubts are shared by many And a lot of those doubts seem to revolve around the book of mormon, right the book of mormon We could do a whole deep dive on that alone But one of the big accusations here is plagiarism The ces letter claims that joseph smith, you know, the founder of the church just copied parts of it from the king james bible Yeah, that's a common critique. The argument is that similar language means he couldn't have translated it from ancient records Must have been lifting from something familiar But get this the respondent has a really interesting take on it. He compares it to google translate. Hold on google translate How does that even relate to ancient religious texts think about it? You put in a phrase and google translate spits out a verse in another language But the phrasing often sounds a little off right like too familiar too modern The respondent's point is that maybe joseph smith was doing something similar Using language that felt natural to him while still conveying the original message So not word for word copying but capturing the meaning in a way that resonates with his language and culture exactly And he backs this up by showing how the book of mormon actually deviates from the king james language in tons of places Especially in the sections that quote from isaiah. He even gives a specific example to nephi 12.16 He shows how that verse combines elements from the king james and the septuagint You know that greek translation of the hebrew bible in a way that's unique to the book of mormon So he's saying joseph smith was working with multiple sources Weaving them together in a complex way that goes way beyond simple plagiarism That's the argument. It suggests a sophisticated process of translation and interpretation not just copy and paste And that brings us to another big criticism about the book of mormon geography The ces letter questions whether the places it describes actually exist and whether the archaeological evidence supports its claims Yeah, this is where it gets tricky. We're dealing with ancient history Our understanding is constantly evolving. That's right. Exactly archaeology is like a giant puzzle. We keep finding new pieces The respondent argues that we shouldn't dismiss the book of mormon's geography just because we haven't found conclusive proof yet He even brings up a recent discovery that he believes supports it They found a burial ground in yemen called nhm Which seems to match a location in the book of mormon called nehom? The site has both egyptian and non-egyptian graves Which according to the respondent aligns with the book of mormon's description? So he's basically saying hold on new evidence is coming to light all the time Uh It could change how we understand the book of mormon's historicity That's one way to put it. He sees it as something that becomes more plausible with time Which is an interesting perspective for sure Now before we move on to other criticisms There's something crucial to understand about how latter-day saints view prophets and scriptures. They don't believe in infallibility Wait, so they're saying their prophets and scriptures can be wrong in a way. Yes They believe everyone is human even prophets capable of making mistakes the respondent even says that they Do not believe in anything produced by mortals that cannot be mistaken. Wow That's a pretty bold statement. Does that mean they don't fully trust their own scriptures? Not exactly. They believe in ongoing revelation that god works through imperfect people. They see the book of mormon as sacred but They don't worship it as a perfect inerrant document So they acknowledge there might be imperfections Inconsistencies even things they don't fully understand yet precisely and this idea of human fallibility is key to understanding their approach to a lot of the ces letters criticisms It means they're not afraid to wrestle with tough questions And acknowledge that their understanding can evolve. Okay, that's helpful to keep in mind. So with this in mind, let's tackle another controversial scripture the book of abraham This one seems especially tricky because the whole ancient egyptian papyri thing, right? The ces letter criticizes the book of abraham on a couple of fronts First it claims that joseph smith's translation doesn't match what modern egyptologists say the papyri actually say Second it claims that some of the images on the papyri are of pagan gods not seen from the life of abraham Okay, so how does the respondent handle this? Does he just brush it off? Not at all He actually dives deep into egyptian symbolism drawing a lot from the work of hugh nibbly a prominent latter-day saint scholar who specialized in ancient texts Nibbly argued that egyptian symbols often had multiple layers of meaning and that modern interpretations might not fully capture the nuances So maybe there's more to the papyri than we see at first glance That today's interpretations might not be the only valid ones exactly and he takes it a step further He proposes a really interesting hypothesis that the papyri joseph smith worked with might have contained both Genuine ancient material and later additions or embellishments. Whoa Okay, so like layers of history with each layer adding to or changing the meaning that's fascinating So, how does that impact joseph smith's translation? the respondent suggests that maybe joseph smith through revelation was able to see the original message amidst the later additions kind of Like sifting through the layers to get to the core truth. It's a bold claim But it definitely adds another dimension to this whole discussion. It reminds us that we're dealing with ancient texts Passed down through centuries and our understanding of them is always evolving Speaking of complex and potentially controversial We have to address the elephant in the room Polygamy, this is a big one and a ces letter doesn't shy away from it You're right and the respondent's perspective here is particularly interesting he makes a big distinction between ceilings and traditional marriages He argues that many of joseph smith's relationships with women were not marriages in the typical sense He even says that most of them didn't involve sexual relationships. Okay, hold on. I already lost What's the difference between a ceiling and a marriage? So in latter-day saint theology a ceiling is a ritual it creates an eternal bond between two people It can be done for living people or those who have passed away And there are different types of ceilings Some are for time and eternity meaning they apply in this life and the next while others are for eternity only The respondent claims that most of joseph smith's feelings were eternity only Focused on spiritual connections in the afterlife rather than establishing traditional marriages in this life So he's saying these relationships weren't about romance or sex But about spiritual bonds for the afterlife that's his argument He also suggests that joseph smith didn't take polygamy lightly. He describes it as an abrahamic test Comparing it to the israelites demanding a king even though god advised against it. That's where it gets really interesting He's saying that even prophets can struggle with tough commandments That their choices might not make sense from our modern perspective But god can work through those choices even the ones that seem flawed or confusing exactly it raises questions about agency obedience How god operates within the complexities of human choices? And it reminds us that when looking at historical figures, we need to consider the context of their time And the challenges they faced we've already covered so much and these are just the excerpts It's clear that the ces letter and its response touch on some sensitive stuff We just scratched the surface, but i'm already fascinated by the respondent's perspective. It's nuanced thought provoking It's making me rethink some of my assumptions about the church It's definitely a deep dive and we're just getting started. What stands out to you so far? What are you finding intriguing? Maybe even challenging honestly this whole idea that the church acknowledges the fallibility of its prophets and scriptures That's really striking to me It seems so different from other religious traditions and it makes me wonder How does that impact the relationship with faith and authority? That's a great question and one we can definitely explore further as we continue our deep dive We'll get into more specifics about the ces letters criticisms And the respondents answers and we'll see how this idea of fallibility plays out in their interpretations of history doctrine and personal experience One thing that keeps coming up in the response is this idea of personal revelation That people can receive direct communication from god confirming the truth of the church and its teachings It seems central to his faith. You're right. He talks about how it's more than just an intellectual thing It's this deep personal conviction that comes through spiritual experiences There's even a story about his father who was battling cancer But felt strongly that he needed to stay alive to give a talk about the book of mormon They call it a fireside in the church Oh, yeah firesides So those are pretty common gatherings people share their testimonies their personal experiences related to their faith Good way to build community and strengthen belief So his father had this overwhelming feeling that he had to share his testimony of the book of mormon, even though he was really sick What happened? Well, he ended up giving the fireside And the very next day he had a stroke and passed away soon after The respondent sees this as a powerful confirmation That his father was in tune with god's will That he received divine guidance to share his testimony even facing death. Wow That's incredibly powerful Must have been a profound experience for the respondent and his family. It really shows how much weight personal revelation carries for believers But I also see that the respondent acknowledges that not all spiritual experiences are necessarily from god. He talks about discernment Recognizing that true revelation is more like a still small voice than a forceful command That's important. He's recognizing that people can misinterpret their feelings or even be deceived true revelation for him is gentle Peaceful it leads to greater love and understanding and this ties directly into one of the main criticisms in the ces letter That testimonies are just a product of social pressure Yeah, the ces letter seems to suggest that people especially those raised in the church are conditioned to have these spiritual experiences It's about fitting in that genuine communication with god, right and the respondent pushes back on that He argues that while social influences can play a role They don't explain the depth and sincerity of many latter-day saint testimonies He talks about his own experiences and the examples of people who face serious challenges to their beliefs But they still hold on to their testimonies people who've lost loved ones experienced terrible suffering or encountered information that shook their faith But through it all they felt a bedrock of spiritual convictions something that couldn't be explained away by social pressure He even brings up the different accounts of joseph smith's first vision the foundational event of the church Where joseph claimed to have seen god the father and jesus christ, right? And the ces letter uses those different accounts to argue that joseph smith was making things up that his story changed over time Yeah, but the respondent points out that having multiple accounts doesn't mean they contradict each other He uses the simple analogy imagine visiting your parents house You could tell one friend that you saw your mom and another friend that you saw your dad Both statements are true, even though they don't mention both parents at the same time So different accounts can focus on different aspects of the same event without necessarily Invalidating each other exactly and he goes on to explain that joseph smith didn't write down his first vision experience right away At the time he was a young uneducated farm boy Not exactly in the habit of journaling It wasn't until years later as he matured and became a better writer that he started recording his experiences in more detail That makes sense. We forget the historical context. Sometimes we expect instant documentation and perfect consistency But things didn't work that way back then that's true for the book of abraham, too The respondent goes point by point through the ces letters criticisms about the translation and interpretation of the papyri He relies heavily on hugh nibley again emphasizing that egyptian symbols could have multiple meanings And that we might not be getting all the nuances today He also addresses the critique that the book of abraham talks about the universe in ways that seem outdated from a scientific perspective This is where I start to get lost The ces letter points out things like the book of abraham talking about the eternity of matter Which seems to clash with the big bang theory, right? But the respondent dives deep into the concept of the eternity of matter and how it might actually align with certain scientific theories Even though the book of abraham uses older language He talks about how some physicists think matter might have existed before the big bang And that the universe could be cyclical expanding and contracting over huge spans of time So he's not rejecting scientific discoveries. He's trying to reconcile them with his beliefs exactly He's looking for connections even if it takes some creative interpretation. He's pushing for a more nuanced view Recognizing that both science and religion can contribute to our understanding of the universe Even if they don't always agree on the details, that's it And this brings us back to a recurring theme the humanity of prophets He keeps coming back to that that prophets aren't infallible that they're human beings who make mistakes. Yes He even says the church has made mistakes in the past He brings up the restriction on black men holding the priesthood which the church has since acknowledged as wrong That's a big admission But he seems to see it as a strength not a weakness exactly He argues that owning up to past errors actually makes the church more credible in the long run He points to the gospel topics essays those online articles the church published they address difficult issues in church history Openly and honestly things like polygamy race and the priesthood the translation of scriptures They present a more nuanced and transparent view of the past So it's about admitting mistakes learning from them and trying to do better It's like he's saying we're not perfect But we're working on it and that idea of growth and development seems to be everywhere in his response He compares the church to a living organism Constantly evolving and adapting. It's a dynamic process not a rigid set of beliefs I like that analogy now one thing that stood out to me in the cef letter was the criticism of unofficial apologists groups like fair mormon or the neil a maxwell institute of Independent organizations that defend the church The cef letter seems to suggest that they're just making excuses. Yeah, remember that what does the respondent say about them? He admits that sometimes they can go too far in their defense He even points out some examples of what he considers bad arguments or misleading interpretations But overall he sees them as a valuable resource For people struggling with their faith, so he's not saying they're always right Or that they speak for the church, but he recognizes that they can offer helpful perspectives Exactly. He sees them as a kind of support system offering alternative interpretations Deeper analyses things you might not find in official church publications He encourages members to engage with different voices to think critically And come to their own conclusions. Okay, so he's promoting intellectual independence Even when it comes to tough questions about the church, that's right And that leads us to another topic the cef letter focuses on joseph smith's early life Specifically his treasure hunting the cef letter portrays this as proof that he was a con man Always looking for a quick buck. I remember reading about that the cef letter talks about his seer stone Digging for treasure it paints a pretty negative picture and the respondent again pushes back He argues that joseph's treasure hunting was normal for the time He points out that lots of people in 19th century america believed in buried treasure Lost mines ancient artifacts. It was a thing so historical context matters Absolutely, and he goes even further suggesting that justice treasure hunting might have prepared him for his role as a translator Wait, seriously He says that the skills joseph developed while treasure hunting like noticing clues interpreting symbols connecting with spiritual forces Those skills might have helped him access and translate the spiritual messages in the gold plates That's an interesting way to look at it instead of something that discredits joseph smith It becomes a necessary part of his development, right? It reframes how we understand his early life and it ties into a broader theme That our assumptions can limit our understanding that we need to challenge those assumptions and see things from new perspectives. He calls this sophisticated thinking Considering multiple viewpoints weighing the evidence being open to the possibility that we might be wrong Sophisticated thinking like that speaking of which the ces letter brings up freemasonry And its influence on the temple endowment ceremony. This one seems pretty complex secret rituals historical connections It's definitely a fascinating topic and one that's caused a lot of debate The ces letter points out similarities between masonic rituals and the endowment suggesting that justice smith copied from the masons That's what I thought too from the excerpts, but i'm guessing the respondent has a different take he does He acknowledges some similarities, but he says the connection is more complicated than just copying He points out that lots of religious traditions borrow from each other and at the temple endowment While sharing some surface level similarities with masonic rituals Is ultimately unique in its purpose and meaning So he's not denying the connection, but he's saying there's more to the story, right? He emphasizes the eternal nature of the covenants made in the temple. They're about connecting with god establishing eternal families These covenants he argues go beyond any earthly rituals or organizations Their meaning is deeper than just imitation He also points out that the church has changed the endowment ceremony over time Removing elements that seemed outdated or offensive another example of the church adapting and evolving Exactly. He sees this as a good thing. It shows sensitivity to the members and a commitment to refining sacred practices Okay, we're nearing the end of our deep dive But there are a couple more things I want to touch on one was the claim that the church spends more on for-profit ventures than on humanitarian aid That's a pretty serious accusation. It is and the respondent addresses it directly He disagrees strongly. He argues that the 1.4 billion dollar figure from the ces letter Only represents a small part of the church's charitable giving so he's saying the church does a lot more than just write checks That there are donated resources Volunteer hours community programs things that aren't reflected in that dollar amount. Yes He emphasizes that the church's welfare program is about helping people become self-reliant not just handouts But education job training community support He also challenges the idea that for-profit ventures are somehow against humanitarian efforts He suggests that they can actually contribute to the church's mission creating jobs stimulating the economy Providing resources that can be used for good. It's about interconnectedness, right? The church's financial activities when you look at the big picture are aligned with its values and its efforts to help the world Exactly, and he gives specific examples The church's farms and ranches that produce food for the hungry. It's investment properties that generate income to support education and humanitarian aid He wants to show that it's not just about profit. It's about building a better future It's a different perspective than you usually see in the media. They tend to focus on the church's wealth Without showing the whole picture of its charitable work, you're right It's easy to oversimplify to miss the nuances But the respondent's response encourages us to think critically to look at all sides to realize that things are rarely black and white Wow, this deep dive has been intense ancient languages modern cosmology personal experiences Institutional history. It's amazing how it's all connected. I know from scriptures to prophets controversial practices faith and reason personal revelation It's a lot to take in i'm still processing it all. Yeah, but throughout this whole discussion I've been impressed by the respondent's passion his honesty his willingness to tackle tough questions head-on He clearly believes deeply but he's not afraid to acknowledge The complexities that's what makes his response. So interesting. He's not giving easy answers or dismissing valid concerns He's inviting us into a deeper conversation about faith history He's challenging us to think critically to question our assumptions to be open to new understanding That's a powerful message. No matter what your beliefs are. Absolutely This deep dive reminds us that learning is a lifelong process Even when we think we have it figured out. There's always more to discover more to understand more to ponder And sometimes the most important truths come from wrestling with doubt From engaging with different views from letting our beliefs be tested and refined You know one thing that stuck with me is the respondent's emphasis on the limitations of human understanding Especially when it comes to spiritual things he keeps saying we shouldn't expect god to fit into our limited human boxes Yeah, he even compares god to the concept of infinity saying our finite minds can't fully grasp god's infinite nature And he challenges the idea that god needs to explain everything to us He suggests that sometimes the deepest truths are the ones we experience through faith through personal revelation He's saying it's okay to have questions That mystery is part of the journey that we don't need all the answers to believe And he even suggests that our struggles with faith can actually make our understanding stronger lead to greater spiritual growth It's empowering Doubt becomes an opportunity to learn not a weakness. It's about the wrestling the questioning the searching That's where the real insights are found. It's a beautiful way to approach faith With humility curiosity and a willingness to embrace the unknown, you know, we keep coming back to those plagiarism accusations The cef letter throws some pretty wild claims out there saying joseph smith took material from View of the hebrews the first book of napoleon even children's books. Yeah, it gets pretty specific And the respondent doesn't hold back. He goes through each claim comparing the supposed sources to the book of mormon He's really calling out the cef letter for what he sees as bad research and twisting the facts He even points out contradictions Where the cef letter uses different and incompatible sources as proof of plagiarism like pick a lane, right? You can't use everything and the kitchen sink to discredit the book of mormon Exactly, and he argues that the book of mormon is just too complex and original too many intricate storylines Unique ideas complex characters and a consistent writing style It doesn't make sense for it to be cobbled together from random sources Like saying shakespeare just copied and pasted his plays from random scraps of paper, right? It just doesn't add up and then there's the issue of historical anachronisms things like steel chariots Things that seem out of place in ancient america. Yeah, that one always gets me thinking. How does he explain those? He focuses on how much we don't know about ancient america Archaeology is always changing new discoveries all the time Just a few decades ago. Most people thought the americas were sparkly populated before europeans arrived Now we're realizing these civilizations were much more advanced than we thought so our knowledge is incomplete There might be more to the story exactly He even suggests that some of those anachronisms might be evidence of advanced technologies or practices that we haven't figured out yet Like remember the antiphara mechanism that ancient greek astronomical calculator way ahead of its time We shouldn't underestimate what ancient people could do makes you wonder what else is out there waiting to be discovered, huh? But what about the kinderhook plates weren't those supposedly ancient records that joseph smith tried to translate and then they turned out to be a hoax Ah the kinderhook plates. It's a great example of how stories get twisted over time The ces letter uses this to say joseph smith was a fraud caught in a lie But the respondent digs deeper. He looks at the historical records and it turns out it's not so clear-cut So he's not just taking the common narrative at face value Nope, he's going back to the sources and what he finds is that the evidence is actually pretty murky Some accounts say joseph smith tried to translate the plates But there's no proof he ever finished a translation or that he was convinced they were real So there's more to the story than the ces letter lets on there always is The respondent thinks that later embellishments and misinterpretations created a false narrative one that doesn't match the actual evidence And he raises an important point Even if joseph smith was fooled by the kinderhook plates, it doesn't disprove everything else he did It just means he was human capable of making mistakes like all of us It's a good reminder not to judge historical figures based on just one event or on incomplete information. Absolutely It's way too easy to cherry pick evidence to fit a narrative and that brings us to one of the biggest takeaways from this whole deep dive the need for context for multiple perspectives For challenging our assumptions whether it's ancient scriptures historical figures or religious beliefs We need to approach these things with humility with honesty with a real desire to understand It's been quite the deep dive hasn't it from ancient languages to modern cosmology? personal experiences to institutional history All because you our listener wanted to understand the history and doctrines Of the church of jesus christ of latter-day saints the controversies the complexities the whole shebang and we've seen the respondent fiercely defend his faith While acknowledging the difficult parts of latter-day saint history. He didn't shy away from the tough questions He gave us a perspective that makes you think whether you agree with him or not He showed us how to talk about these things with respect with honesty with a desire to really understand He reminded us that faith isn't about blind acceptance or following blindly It's a journey Of searching questioning growing. It's about wrestling with doubt accepting complexity And finding your own connection to the divine and that journey is different for everyone. What matters is that we're on the path Seeking truth wherever it leads this deep dive has given me a lot to think about and i'm sure you're feeling the same way It's shown me the power of real dialogue Of listening to different perspectives of searching for truth with an open mind and an open heart It's been a pleasure exploring this with you as you continue your own journey Remember to be curious be humble be willing to listen and learn and never be afraid to ask questions To seek answers to have real conversations even with people who see things differently That's where we find the real insights. Absolutely. Thanks for joining us on this deep dive Until next time keep seeking keep questioning keep diving deep and keep an open mind