CES Letter Claims Strength List

[Devobah]

Hello!

I know I haven't been asked this on the board, but I have been asked by a few friends (I do have those in real life) what I find to be the strongest arguments in the CES Letter. Obviously an explanation of each would merit posts of their own, and I don't have the time nor the attention span to really put that together. But I am curious to see what people struggle with and what people don't when it comes to church history, policy, and doctrine.

This is my personal strength list (divided by section of the CES Letter since it seems to be the largest Anti-Mormon tract since The Godmakers) as well as a brief explanation as to why I placed this where it is. Obviously there are multiple things talked about in each section, but again, time and attention span are not on my time. Plus I have to actually be useful in my life. 

The list was made by claims of the letter, and the apologetic response.

1. The Book of Abraham

Yes the big one for a lot of people. The smoking gun, the final straw, the killing blow, is first on my list. It's the hardest one to defend for a lot of people, including me. One shouldn't need a degree in Near East Studies or Egyptology to try and defend the book. Also the Catalyst vs Missing Scroll battle hurts more than it does help.

2. Polygamy/Polyandry

The things surrounding polygamy and polyandry are things that a lot of people struggle with comprehending. Brian Hales does a great job defending the practice and giving a good glimpse into the lives of the wives of Joseph Smith, but the subsequent prophets' practice seem to leave one more confused than anything else.

3. Other Concerns/Prophets

These two sections go together because they kind of deal with the same thing: the fallibility of prophets. At what point does a man end and a prophet begin. It would seem that the visions and blessings of old seemed to have stopped by around the 1920s. 

4. Testimony and Spiritual Witnesses

It is rather fascinating to see the spiritual witnesses of other faiths (namely the Catholic one imho) and what happens when one doesn't get a spiritual witness of the Book of Mormon or the gospel? 

5. Temples and Freemasonry

A bit odd because this is the one that a lot of people struggle with. It never really bothered me too much. The similarities between Freemasonry and the Endowment cannot be denied, and the scholarship seems weak in this area.

6. Kinderhook Plates & Translator Claims

This one is placed where it is because the apologetic response is a bit of a double edged sword. The use of the GAEL leads one to believe that Joseph did attempt to translate the Book of Abraham through practical means, but it also swings the pendulum back to the Book of Abraham.

7. First Vision/Priesthood Restoration

Again, these two are together because they deal with similar things. In this case Joseph's silence about the events. Joseph didn't talk about his vision much, and didn't talk about the priesthood restoration much. Intentionally deceptive or just naive? The multiple First Vision accounts really don't do much for me, with the only one with "major" changes being the 1832 account.

8. Book of Mormon

Book of Mormon Evidence is hard to come by, and seems to be dubious and unconvincing to critics. What really drags this section down is the "names" portion. This was to the point that even Runnells himself was considering removing the section because he himself found it weak.

9. Witnesses

The strongest case for the reality of the plates, no matter the "visionary" experience. This has shifted much because now a lot of critics talk about how there were actual plates, but there was no way of  actually knowing if they were of ancient record.

10. Book of Mormon Translation

I think my unconventional view of the translation helped me a lot in this regard. The KJV sections of the Book of Mormon do raise some questions, but all in all, it just never bothered me much and I find the apologetic response to be satisfying.

THAT'S ALL FOLKS!

If you'd like me to go more in depth on my thoughts for each section, feel free to ask!

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

5-6 years ago, the letter was circulating around our youth.  Our bishopric 2nd counselor, an ER trauma surgeon, put together a combined 5th hour for everyone, and went through the thing.  Dude was pretty amazing, and I sat there and listened to him basically summarize all the apologetics in 20 minutes.  He managed to hit just about everything that I encountered in 15 years of reading FARMS and FAIR and battling in discussion forums like MDialogue.

Even quicker, now we have ldsbot.com.  

Me: "Please give me a chapter by chapter summary of the CES letter, along with a brief apologetic response for each chapter. Each chapter summary should be no longer than 3 sentences. Each apologetic response should be no longer than 3 sentences."

LDSBot.com:

Quote

Sure, I'll give you a summary of the chapters in the CES Letter and a brief apologetic response for each. Just FYI, the CES Letter is a lengthy document, so I'll keep it concise as requested.

Introduction and First Vision

Summary: Jeremy Runnells begins by detailing his faith journey and questions about the Church. He focuses on discrepancies in Joseph Smith's First Vision accounts and raises concerns about historical consistency.

Apologetic Response: The differing accounts of the First Vision highlight different aspects of the same experience, reflecting Joseph Smith's growing understanding over time. Historical documents often have variations, and the core message remains the same: Joseph Smith saw God the Father and Jesus Christ.

Book of Mormon

Summary: Runnells questions the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, citing anachronisms, DNA evidence, and the translation process using a seer stone.

Apologetic Response: Archaeological and linguistic evidence continues to support aspects of the Book of Mormon. DNA studies don’t disprove the Book of Mormon, and understanding the translation process as divine allows for the use of various methods, including the seer stone.

Book of Abraham

Summary: He claims the Book of Abraham is fraudulent, based on modern translations of the Egyptian papyri which don't correspond to Smith's translation.

Apologetic Response: The Book of Abraham can be viewed as inspired scripture that teaches significant doctrines, regardless of the papyri. Ancient documents often have different purposes, and the translation could involve broader inspiration than a literal translation.

Polygamy/Polyandry

Summary: Runnells discusses Joseph Smith’s practice of polygamy and polyandry, presenting it as morally and ethically problematic.

Apologetic Response: Polygamy was practiced within specific historical and cultural contexts, and it was a test of faith for early Saints. Modern members are not required to accept or practice polygamy, focusing instead on current teachings and living prophets.

Priesthood Restoration

Summary: The letter raises doubts about the timing and documentation of the priesthood restoration events.

Apologetic Response: The restoration of the priesthood is well-supported by multiple accounts and teachings of early Church leaders. The lack of immediate documentation is typical for personal spiritual experiences that later become foundational.

Kinderhook Plates

Summary: Runnells states that Joseph Smith was involved in translating fraudulent artifacts, namely the Kinderhook Plates.

Apologetic Response: The historical record on the Kinderhook Plates is mixed, and there's no conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith translated them. The incident can be viewed as an attempt to deceive, which was quickly abandoned.

Witnesses

Summary: He argues that the Book of Mormon witnesses' testimonies are unreliable due to their later actions and statements about seeing the plates with spiritual eyes.

Apologetic Response: The witnesses consistently reaffirmed their testimonies throughout their lives, even after leaving the Church. Spiritual experiences are valid and often described differently based on individual perceptions.

Science and DNA

Summary: Runnells claims that DNA evidence disproves the Book of Mormon’s account of Native American origins.

Apologetic Response: Genetic links could be obscured by time, migration, and intermarriage, making DNA inconclusive. The Book of Mormon does not rule out the presence of other groups in the Americas.

Translation of the Plates

Summary: Concerns are raised about the method of translation of the Book of Mormon, including the use of a seer stone in a hat.

Apologetic Response: The seer stone and other means of translation do not undermine the divine nature of the work. Understanding the translation as an inspired process allows for a broader perspective on how God communicates.

Prophets

Summary: The letter challenges the prophetic claims of Joseph Smith and subsequent Church leaders, questioning their actions and revelations.

Apologetic Response: Prophets are human and can make mistakes, but this doesn't negate their inspired guidance. The fruits of their leadership and revelations continue to bring millions closer to Christ.

Church Finances

Summary: Runnells expresses concern over transparency and the use of tithing funds by the Church.

Apologetic Response: The Church emphasizes financial responsibility and uses funds to support global humanitarian efforts, education, and growth. Accountability measures are in place, even if not all details are public.

Conclusion

Summary: Runnells concludes that the cumulative issues lead him to doubt the Church’s truth claims and suggests that others may have similar experiences.

Apologetic Response: Doubt can be a part of faith development, but it’s important to seek answers through study, prayer, and faith. Many have found powerful spiritual and intellectual confirmations of the Church's truth through continued faith and devotion.

I hope that helps! 😊 If you have more detailed questions on any specific chapter, feel free to ask!

 

Me: "Excellent! Please do the same thing, but increase the length and detail. Each summary should be at least 4 sentences long. Each Apologetic response should be at least 5 sentences long."

LDSBot: 

Quote

Of course! Let's dive a bit deeper into each chapter while addressing some of the concerns with more detailed apologetic responses.

Chapter-by-Chapter Summary of the CES Letter with Apologetic Responses

---

Introduction

Summary: Jeremy Runnells wrote the CES Letter after experiencing doubts about the Church’s truth claims. He compiled questions and concerns that he felt were not adequately addressed by Church leaders or apologists. His primary goal was to obtain answers that could either resolve his doubts or help him understand the perspective of faithful Latter-day Saints better. The letter touches on historical, doctrinal, and scientific issues.

Apologetic Response: It’s important to recognize that many members of the Church have gone through periods of doubt. The Church encourages seeking answers through study, prayer, and open discussion. One should also consider the vast amount of positive experiences and testimonies shared by faithful members over generations, focusing on the uplifting aspects of the gospel. Answers may not always come immediately, and they might require a broader perspective and context. The Church has made significant progress in addressing historical and doctrinal concerns through resources such as Gospel Topics Essays.

---

First Vision

Summary: Runnells questions the various accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision and the differences between them. He points out discrepancies in the number of personages seen and the nature of the vision. Critics argue that these inconsistencies undermine the authenticity of the vision. Runnells emphasizes the impact of these inconsistencies on Church history and doctrine.

Apologetic Response: Multiple accounts of the First Vision exist, each providing different details relevant to the audience and context in which they were given. It’s common in historical records to have variations in storytelling, especially over many years. Rather than seeing these differences as contradictions, they can be viewed as complementary, providing a fuller picture of the event. Scholars have provided extensive study on these accounts, affirming their overall consistency. Church leaders encourage members to study all the accounts to gain a richer understanding of Joseph Smith's experience.

---

Book of Mormon

Summary: The CES Letter raises questions about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, including anachronisms, geographical inconsistencies, and parallels with 19th-century literature. Runnells discusses the lack of archaeological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon narrative. Critics suggest that Joseph Smith might have drawn inspiration from contemporary sources like the View of the Hebrews. Concerns about the translation process and methodology Joseph Smith used are also highlighted.

Apologetic Response: The Book of Mormon is primarily a spiritual document, akin to the Bible, its purpose is to bring people closer to Christ. While secular evidence is valuable, the most convincing testimony comes through reading, praying, and receiving a confirmation through the Holy Ghost. Scholars have noted numerous complex and specific details in the Book of Mormon that support its authenticity. For example, chiasmus is an ancient literary form found within the Book of Mormon, which would be unlikely for Joseph Smith to fabricate. Additionally, recent archaeological and cultural studies have identified aspects that align with ancient American settings.

---

Book of Abraham

Summary: Runnells critiques the Book of Abraham, especially focusing on the issues surrounding its translation. He notes that modern Egyptologists have translated the papyri associated with the Book of Abraham and concluded that they bear no relation to Joseph Smith's translation. Additionally, the facsimiles included in the book have interpretations that differ significantly from contemporary Egyptological readings. These discrepancies are highlighted as major concerns about the credibility of Joseph Smith's work.

Apologetic Response: The translation of the Book of Abraham is a complex issue with several perspectives. Some believe Joseph Smith used the papyri as a catalyst for revelation, rather than a literal translation, similar to how he translated other scripture. The interpretation of the facsimiles and the text have symbolic and doctrinal significance, which might differ from modern academic readings. The Church acknowledges these complexities and invites members to explore different viewpoints. Faithful scholars have provided context and nuanced explanations that align the text with broader scriptural themes.

---

Polygamy/Polyandry

Summary: Runnells addresses the practice of polygamy by early Church leaders, including Joseph Smith. He points out the secrecy surrounding polygamy and the age of some of Joseph Smith's wives, as well as the practice of polyandry. Critics argue that the manner in which polygamy was practiced contradicts modern ethical standards and questions the moral integrity of Church leaders. The impact of polygamy on early Church history and current perceptions of Joseph Smith is also discussed.

Apologetic Response: Polygamy was a complex and challenging practice for early Church members. It was introduced as a commandment from God, which faithful members, including Joseph Smith, followed despite personal and societal difficulties. The context of 19th-century America, where polygamy was practiced by other religious and cultural groups, also plays a role. The practice was discontinued over a century ago, and the Church no longer condones it. Modern Church leaders openly acknowledge the difficult aspects of this history and emphasize the eternal importance of following current revelation.

---

Priesthood Restoration

Summary: Runnells expresses doubts about the accounts of the restoration of the Priesthood. He mentions that early Church documents lacked specific details about the events involving John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John. Additionally, Runnells notes discrepancies in the accounts provided by different witnesses and the timing of these events. Critics argue that the uncertainty surrounding the restoration undermines its legitimacy.

Apologetic Response: The restoration of the Priesthood is a foundational event in Church history, and it makes sense that early documents might lack detailed descriptions, given the newness of the experience. It’s essential to recognize that early Church members often shared their testimonies and experiences in personal settings, not always immediately documenting them in detail. Over time, as the Church grew, more detailed accounts and doctrines were recorded and standardized. The consistency of the overall narrative and the profound impact of the restored Priesthood witnessed in the lives of millions affirm its divine origin. Faithful members trust in the restoration through personal spiritual confirmations.

---

Kinderhook Plates

Summary: Runnells discusses the Kinderhook Plates, which were presented to Joseph Smith as an ancient artifact. Critics highlight that these plates were later confirmed to be a hoax, raising questions about Joseph Smith's ability to discern authenticity. Runnells uses this incident to argue against Joseph Smith's prophetic claims and his translation abilities. The absence of credible revelations from the Kinderhook Plates is presented as evidence against his prophetic gifts.

Apologetic Response: The Kinderhook Plates incident is indeed troubling, but it's also an example of how human aspects of Church history can be understood. Joseph Smith was a prophet but also a man who operated within his cultural and historical context. Not all details of this incident are clear, and some suggest that Joseph may not have taken the plates seriously or translated them into any significant text. The focus should be on the overwhelming body of positive revelations and spiritual experiences that Joseph delivered. His role as a prophet is affirmed through the fruits of his labors, such as the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants.

---

Witnesses

Summary: Runnells questions the credibility of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, pointing out perceived inconsistencies in their testimonies and possible motivations. He mentions that some witnesses had strained relationships with Joseph Smith and left the Church. Critics argue that these factors cast doubt on the authenticity of their testimonies. The supernatural nature of their experiences with the plates is also a point of contention.

Apologetic Response: The testimonies of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon are remarkably consistent, even as they faced personal hardships and changes in relationship with Joseph Smith. Many witnesses reaffirmed their testimonies throughout their lives, despite facing significant pressures to recant. The existence of multiple, independent testimonies strengthens the case for the Book of Mormon's authenticity. While human weaknesses and conflicts are evident, the overall consistency and integrity of their testimonies remain significant. The spiritual experiences they described align with the nature of divine revelation, often occurring through visionary means.

---

Science and DNA

Summary: Runnells discusses the lack of DNA evidence supporting the traditional narrative of the Book of Mormon, which suggests that Native Americans are descendants of Israelites. He asserts that genetic studies do not align with this claim and that no clear link has been found. Critics use these findings to argue against the Book of Mormon's historicity. The disconnection between scientific evidence and scriptural narratives is framed as a significant issue.

Apologetic Response: The current understanding of DNA evidence and migration patterns is still developing. The Book of Mormon narrative doesn't necessarily imply a direct, large-scale genetic contribution of Israelites to the entire Native American population. It’s possible that Israelite ancestry could be mingled with other genetic groups in ways that aren't easily detectable with today's technology. Furthermore, the primary purpose of the Book of Mormon is spiritual, not scientific. Faithful scholars continue to study these issues, and Latter-day Saints are encouraged to seek understanding while holding to their testimonies of the book’s spiritual truths.

---

Translation of the Plates

Summary: Runnells critiques the method Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon, particularly his use of a seer stone in a hat. He contrasts this with traditional views of translation, suggesting it undermines the legitimacy of the text. The physical handling and translation of the golden plates are also questioned. Critics argue that such a method is inconsistent with how ancient texts are typically translated.

Apologetic Response: The use of seer stones and other means of divine revelation was more common in the early 19th century than it might seem today. Joseph's translation process, while unconventional by modern standards, fit within a broader context of scriptural translation. The accuracy and spiritual power of the Book of Mormon aren’t dependent on traditional scholarly methods but on divine guidance. Witnesses to the translation process, including Emma Smith and Oliver Cowdery, affirmed its miraculous nature. The Book of Mormon's content—its doctrine, prophecies, and testimony of Christ—remains its strongest witness to its divine origin.

---

Prophets

Summary: Runnells calls into question the reliability of Church prophets, focusing on instances where their predictions or counsel appeared flawed or outdated. He highlights various statements by Church leaders that seem inconsistent or erroneous. Critics argue that these issues suggest the fallibility of the prophets and question the doctrine of continuing revelation. The credibility of modern prophetic guidance is examined in light of these historical claims.

Apologetic Response: Prophets, though inspired by God, are still human and subject to personal opinions and errors. They are not omniscient and may occasionally express thoughts or make decisions that later prove to be mistaken. The principle that guides Latter-day Saints is that the core doctrines and major directions revealed through prophets are divinely inspired. The Church’s history shows a trajectory of growth, correction, and adaptation under prophetic leadership. The consistent spiritual guidance and profound teachings that emerge from the prophetic counsel affirm their divine calling.

---

Church Finances

Summary: Runnells discusses concerns about the transparency and management of Church finances, noting the significant assets and expenditures of the Church. He questions the ethical implications of the Church's financial decisions and its use of tithes and offerings. Critics argue for more transparency and accountability in the Church's handling of funds. The comparison between the Church’s financial reserves and charitable activities is also examined.

Apologetic Response: The Church emphasizes financial responsibility and stewardship, using funds to support global humanitarian efforts, educational programs, and Church operations. While some financial details are kept confidential, this practice is common among religious and non-profit organizations to ensure responsible management. The Church’s financial reserves provide stability and the ability to respond to global crises and future needs. Significant amounts of money are spent on direct aid and support to individuals in need. Faithful members view their contributions as sacred and trust that they are used to further the work of the Lord.

---

Conclusion

Summary: In his conclusion, Runnells expresses his disbelief in the Church’s truth claims after reviewing the evidence he presented. He emphasizes the cumulative effect of his findings on his faith and questions the Church's narrative. Runnells encourages readers to examine the evidence and come to their conclusions. His overall sentiment is one of disappointment and disillusionment with the Church.

Apologetic Response: It’s natural to struggle with doubts and questions, but it’s important to remember the spiritual experiences and foundations that initially built one’s faith. The journey of faith involves continued study, prayer, and seeking confirmation through the Holy Spirit. Church leaders encourage members to address their concerns openly and seek divine guidance. The Gospel Topics Essays and other Church resources provide valuable contextual information. The Church remains a source of immense spiritual strength, community, and personal growth, and continuing in faith often leads to deeper understanding and reaffirmation of one’s testimony.

---

If you have more specific questions or need further elaboration on any of these topics, feel free to ask! 😊

 

Edited July 23, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tacenda]

I'm going to answer to each of the numbered topics if that's okay.

1. BoA: A light bulb went off when sub'g in an elementary classroom and reading a book with a few illustrations/info of Egyptian funerary practices. 

2. Polygamy/Polyandry: Joseph saying an angel with a drawn sword, the information being hid from normal LDS's sight, meaning the average non scholar. I was in my mid 40's and had only heard of BY's polygamy. And now learning BY practiced polyandry. But polygamy is the first thing that started me down a rabbit hole when something popped up on the internet about JS's many wives.

3. Other concerns about Prophets in particular: I like to believe they are close in spirit to the Divine (that's what I call it now, since I'm unsure). But still hold hope for Jesus being a real human on the earth and doing good and standing up for others that are looked on with scorn. I believe He could have healed people too. I believe He could have been hung on a cross with nails too, prayed in the garden etc. Not sure about His coming back to life or visiting America. 

4. Testimony: I have a testimony of the goodness of people whatever religion or lack of. I would bare my testimony because I was instructed to bare it even if I'm not fully sure, to help belief I guess. But I  like the lived testimony of witnessing things in my life. 

5. Temple: This was a second nearly to the polygamy problem that started my crisis of faith. Not knowing that JS used Freemasonry as a vehicle for ordinances in the temple. I hadn't ever known until right after finding out about JS's polygamy/polyandry. Dominoes kept falling. 

6. Kinderhook plates: Was also a humdinger, but it didn't make as much of a difference after seeing the other problems. 

7. First Vision and Priesthood: I guess this didn't take such a big hit because of the preceding issues being what soften the blow.

8. BoM: I actually never fully finished the book. I'd read and then forget what I had read for the several minutes because my mind would wander. I liked just looking at different scriptures randomly, like opening up the book and page then seeing if it would go a long with what I was going through and needed. And my husband and I would read almost nightly with our children. But a lot of it didn't make sense and was repetitious. 

9. Witnesses: They were all related to the Smith's in some way except Martin Harris I think. No individual signatures at the end, only one person signing their names in the BoM. But it is what it is.

10. BoM translation: Well, my bishop answered that we can compare it to a cell phone (Uchtdorf talk) when I was new in the ward and wanted to meet him because I wanted him to be aware of where I was with my testimony so he'd not call on me or my husband in a calling that we might not be able to fully serve. It was probably a bad idea because it only caused me to appear to be a doubt germ that my bishop I'm assuming thought. Therefore my callings were serving on a Christmas party planning committee, called to help with cleaning the church and one that I asked to be on was Compassionate Service (not in leadership though), and was only given the assignment to make handouts for RS ladies to use when needed and once taking dinner to someone who had a baby. They totally missed the mark in not daring, IMO, to give me people who could use my service such as someone who is in need of visits, rides to an appt or what not. Sorry for the long answer. But this is why it's been difficult to return to activity in the church. 

Edited July 23, 2024 by Tacenda

[Devobah]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm going to answer to each of the numbered topics if that's okay.

1. BoA: A light bulb went off when sub'g in an elementary classroom and reading a book with a few illustrations/info of Egyptian funerary practices. 

2. Polygamy/Polyandry: Joseph saying an angel with a drawn sword, the information being hid from normal LDS's sight, meaning the average non scholar. I was in my mid 40's and had only heard of BY's polygamy. And now learning BY practiced polyandry. But polygamy is the first thing that started me down a rabbit hole when something popped up on the internet about JS's many wives.

3. Other concerns about Prophets in particular: I like to believe they are close in spirit to the Divine (that's what I call it now, since I'm unsure). But still hold hope for Jesus being a real human on the earth and doing good and standing up for others that are looked on with scorn. I believe He could have healed people too. I believe He could have been hung on a cross with nails too, prayed in the garden etc. Not sure about His coming back to life or visiting America. 

4. Testimony: I have a testimony of the goodness of people whatever religion or lack of. I would bare my testimony because I was instructed to bare it even if I'm not fully sure, to help belief I guess. But I  like the lived testimony of witnessing things in my life. 

5. Temple: This was a second nearly to the polygamy problem that started my crisis of faith. Not knowing that JS used Freemasonry as a vehicle for ordinances in the temple. I hadn't ever known until right after finding out about JS's polygamy/polyandry. Dominoes kept falling. 

6. Kinderhook plates: Was also a humdinger, but it didn't make as much of a difference after seeing the other problems. 

7. First Vision and Priesthood: I guess this didn't take such a big hit because of the preceding issues being what soften the blow.

8. BoM: I actually never fully finished the book. I'd read and then forget what I had read for the several minutes because my mind would wander. I liked just looking at different scriptures randomly, like opening up the book and page then seeing if it would go a long with what I was going through and needed. And my husband and I would read almost nightly with our children. But a lot of it didn't make sense and was repetitious. 

9. Witnesses: They were all related to the Smith's in some way except Martin Harris I think. No individual signatures at the end, only one person signing their names in the BoM. But it is what it is.

10. BoM translation: Well, my bishop answered that we can compare it to a cell phone (Uchtdorf talk) when I was new in the ward and wanted to meet him because I wanted him to be aware of where I was with my testimony so he'd not call on me or my husband in a calling that we might not be able to fully serve. It was probably a bad idea because it only caused me to appear to be a doubt germ that my bishop I'm assuming thought. Therefore my callings were serving on a Christmas party planning committee, called to help with cleaning the church and one that I asked to be on was Compassionate Service (not in leadership though), and was only given the assignment to make handouts for RS ladies to use when needed and once taking dinner to someone who had a baby. They totally missed the mark in not daring, IMO, to give me people who could use my service such as someone who is in need of visits, rides to an appt or what not. Sorry for the long answer. But this is why it's been difficult to return to activity in the church. 

I do find faith crises fascinating. What is a bombshell for some is not for others. I don’t try to invalidate the experiences of anyone else with this list. This is my list and a very simplified response to what I have come to by looking at both sides of the argument. 
Everyone has their own journey with this. I wish you blessings and love on yours. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

28 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

8. BoM: I actually never fully finished the book. I'd read and then forget what I had read for the several minutes because my mind would wander. I liked just looking at different scriptures randomly, like opening up the book and page then seeing if it would go a long with what I was going through and needed. And my husband and I would read almost nightly with our children. But a lot of it didn't make sense and was repetitious

Your faith crisis makes sense now. There is a reason the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the Restored Gospel.

🪙🪙

[Tacenda]

24 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Your faith crisis makes sense now. There is a reason the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the Restored Gospel.

🪙🪙

But wait, I was a loyal reader of the Ensign!  I really loved the Ensign at one time. I'd get to the middle of the BoM and throughout it and trail off, didn't fully study it.  The majority of my time was spent in Primary, YW's, Den Mother in Scouts etc and then RS, still no excuse though.

Edited July 23, 2024 by Tacenda

[ZealouslyStriving]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

But wait, I was a loyal reader of the Ensign!  I really loved the Ensign at one time. I'd get to the middle of the BoM and throughout it and trail off, didn't fully study it.  The majority of my time was spent in Primary, YW's, Den Mother in Scouts etc and then RS, still no excuse though.

Thank for your service esp. among the kiddos! My Aunt was called immediately into nursery, then Sunbeams, then nursery again. I don't think she hit a Sunday School class for the first 5-6 years after we were baptized.

[Rain]

52 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Your faith crisis makes sense now. There is a reason the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the Restored Gospel.

🪙🪙

It doesn't really work that way. I've read the Book of Mormon many times, partially countless times, did different studies with it like Elder Holland and others. I've found some really good things in it. I read through it again when I was doing my deep dive studying through my faith struggles. 

Faith struggles don't make or not make sense because of the Book of Mormon. They make sense because people have different experiences and get different answers than people who don't have faith struggles.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

It doesn't really work that way. I've read the Book of Mormon many times, partially countless times, did different studies with it like Elder Holland and others. I've found some really good things in it. I read through it again when I was doing my deep dive studying through my faith struggles. 

Faith struggles don't make or not make sense because of the Book of Mormon. They make sense because people have different experiences and get different answers than people who don't have faith struggles.

OK... I'll amend my statement slightly:

One is much less likely to have a "faith crisis" if they have followed prophetic counsel to study the Book of Mormon daily and to not treat it lightly.

Edited July 23, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

OK... I'll amend my statement slightly:

One is much less likely to have a "faith crisis" if they have followed prophetic counsel to study the Book of Mormon daily and to not treat it lightly.

Perhaps. I've "met" enough people who didn't treat it lightly and had a crisis that I'm not sure if this is true or not. It could be.

By the way, from what I've read from Tacenda I don't think she took it lightly either.  Finishing it doesn't mean anything in and of itself. The fact that she read it with her family shows a sign of not taking it lightly.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 minutes ago, Rain said:

Perhaps. I've "met" enough people who didn't treat it lightly and had a crisis that I'm not sure if this is true or not. It could be.

By the way, from what I've read from Tacenda I don't think she took it lightly either.  Finishing it doesn't mean anything in and of itself. The fact that she read it with her family shows a sign of not taking it lightly.

 

Apparently, we have different ideas on what not taking lightly involves.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Apparently, we have different ideas on what not taking lightly involves.

The Book of Mormon is not in a language that resonates with Tacenda.  That is not her fault.  The Lord provides many different witnesses to reach out to his children over time, not all provided in this life even (one only has to look at all those mortals who had no awareness of Jesus even during their lifetime to realize this, imo) because he is aware of our different needs imo.

Edited July 23, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Book of Mormon is not in a language that resonates with Tacenda.  That is not her fault.  The Lord provides many different witnesses to reach out to his children over time, not all provided in this life even (one only has to look at all those mortals who had no awareness of Jesus even during their lifetime to realize this, imo) because he is aware of our different needs imo.

Healthy habits don't resonate with a lot of people, but they understand that they are good for their health and put in the effort to be healthy.

🙂

Edited July 23, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Frank11]

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

I do find faith crises fascinating. What is a bombshell for some is not for others.

This is often due to cognitive dissonance.

“We find it very difficult to believe in what we don't like!”
It is not the case that new findings automatically lead to a rethink and a new world view. Rather, the new, incriminating information is devalued, relativized and questioned if it could not be successfully avoided in advance. This makes perfect sense for one's own psyche, because if the world view and the new knowledge cannot be reconciled, cognitive dissonance and thus a psychologically stressful conflict remains.

We can now ask ourselves what evolutionary advantage this way of thinking has for humans. Wouldn't it be easier to always adapt our world view?

We humans have been group beings since time immemorial. A strong group is characterized by a unified world view. “We are the good clan, on the other side of the river is the bad one.” This attitude helps in the battle for resources. The principle of thinking accompanies us right up to the present day. All you will hear from a Putin supporter is, “The West is evil, we are the good guys and the invasion of Ukraine is justified.” And the same applies to Joseph Smith, whatever doctrine he introduced, it came from God and is good.

Our evolutionary brain, of all things, advises us not to change our world view so quickly, i.e. to stay in the church. Because it thinks much more emotionally than logically. 

If I am happy in the church, if I feel respected, if I have a calling that makes me happy, I deal with these issues very differently than if I am more or less a loner in the church. If I have a family in the church who are all enthusiastically active in the church, I don't want to know about Grant Palmer, Dan Vogel and some CES letter.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Healthy habits don't resonate with a lot of people, but they understand that they are good for their health and put in the effort to be healthy.

🙂

She described her effort and did the work.  The result wasn’t what was expected, but that doesn’t mean she did anything spiritually “unhealthy” or avoided doing the spiritually healthy things.

I exercised for years and all it got me was getting sick afterwards.  Had tons of medical tests too.  I only found out 40+ years later that though my thyroid hormone levels were normal, they were still too low for me (when I was finally put on Synthroid when my tests edged below normal, I suddenly discovered I could build muscles even with just a minuscule dose). That deficiency and my sleep disorder which meant I didn’t get enough sleep even when going to bed early and getting up early (my parents were sticklers for good, healthy habits… we ate healthy as in no processed, low sugar, high quality, well balanced foods, went to bed at 7 PM until we were in high school and then 8:30 then, got up, went for a couple of miles jog—-or in my case, a mile’s stumble— every day before school, had a healthy breakfast, brought a healthy lunch to school, I often walked home from school rather than riding the bus even though it took about an hour, when I had free time it was either reading or long bike rides).  So was it my fault that I wasn’t getting enough thyroid hormone and deep sleep to build muscles, etc and be healthy?  Or was it that my needs were simply different and it was difficult to figure out was needed?

[Calm]

On 7/23/2024 at 2:11 PM, Frank11 said:

If I have a family in the church who are all enthusiastically active in the church, I don't want to know about Grant Palmer, Dan Vogel and some CES letter.

And yet all my family was enthusiastically active in the Church when I got involved in apologetics over 20 years ago and even before that my mother and I had studied antimormon and other critical stuff way before simply because it was interesting.  Fawn Brodie’s book was on her shelf for as long as I can remember.

Two members of my immediate families out of ten individuals are nonbelievers now, though neither have been ever interested in Grant Palmer, etc at any time last I heard.  One doesn’t believe in the spirit, the other just isn’t interested.

There are some who may react as you say, but it is a stereotype and it shows a strong bias if someone assumes this is how all faithful Saints react.

Edited July 25, 2024 by Calm

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

OK... I'll amend my statement slightly:

One is much less likely to have a "faith crisis" if they have followed prophetic counsel to study the Book of Mormon daily and to not treat it lightly.

I can assure you I studied the BoM daily, having read it through from beginning to end many times, and I took my studies VERY seriously. Ultimately, I reached a very different conclusion than you regarding the truth claims of the Church. Studying the BoM is not a magic potion which cures a faith crisis.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

If I am happy in the church, if I feel respected, if I have a calling that makes me happy, I deal with these issues very differently than if I am more or less a loner in the church. If I have a family in the church who are all enthusiastically active in the church, I don't want to know about Grant Palmer, Dan Vogel and some CES letter.

I think I'm a bit of an outlier per this explanation.  I'm a loner at church.  If I can get through church with no one talking to me, the better.  I also love reading anything and everything that talks about the "skeletons in the closets."  I've been doing that since I was a teen.

Yet, I haven't found anything that truly bothers me.  There's things I'd love to know more about and there things I don't have good answers, but it just doesn't bother me.

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

She described her effort and did the work.  The result wasn’t what was expected, but that doesn’t mean she did anything spiritually “unhealthy” or avoided doing the spiritually healthy things.

I exercised for years and all it got me was getting sick afterwards.  Had tons of medical tests too.  I only found out 40+ years later that though my thyroid hormone levels were normal, they were still too low for me (when I was finally put on Synthroid when my tests edged below normal, I suddenly discovered I could build muscles even with just a minuscule dose). That deficiency and my sleep disorder which meant I didn’t get enough sleep even when going to bed early and getting up early (my parents were sticklers for good, healthy habits… we ate healthy as in no processed, low sugar, high quality, well balanced foods, went to bed at 7 PM until we were in high school and then 8:30 then, got up, went for a couple of miles jog—-or in my case, a mile’s stumble— every day before school, had a healthy breakfast, brought a healthy lunch to school, I often walked home from school rather than riding the bus even though it took about an hour, when I had free time it was either reading or long bike rides).  So was it my fault that I wasn’t getting enough thyroid hormone and deep sleep to build muscles, etc and be healthy?  Or was it that my needs were simply different and it was difficult to figure out was needed?

Nevermind 🙂

[Frank11]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

And yet all my family was enthusiastically active in the Church when I got involved in apologetics over 20 years ago and even before that my mother and I had studied antimormon and other critical stuff way before simply because it was interesting.  Fawn Brodie’s book was on her shelf for as long as I can remember.

Two members of my immediate family out of ten individuals are nonbelievers now, though neither have been ever interested in Grant Palmer, etc at any time last I heard.  One doesn’t believe in the spirit, the other just isn’t interested.

There are some who may react as you say, but it is a stereotype and it shows a strong bias if someone assumes this is how all faithful Saints react.

Now this is very surprising to me, especially since until today all the leaders of the church instructed members to only get information from pro-LDS sources. But back when I was active, there weren't even the Gospel Topic Essays. There were a few rumors that were immediately dismissed as anti-Mormon lies. Joseph Smith also had a single wife named Emma at the time and I would say here in Germany that is still the case for the majority of members.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Frank11 said:

Now this is very surprising to me, especially since until today all the leaders of the church instructed members to only get information from pro-LDS sources

Yeah, right.

[carbon dioxide]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet all my family was enthusiastically active in the Church when I got involved in apologetics over 20 years ago and even before that my mother and I had studied antimormon and other critical stuff way before simply because it was interesting.  Fawn Brodie’s book was on her shelf for as long as I can remember.

Two members of my immediate family out of ten individuals are nonbelievers now, though neither have been ever interested in Grant Palmer, etc at any time last I heard.  One doesn’t believe in the spirit, the other just isn’t interested.

There are some who may react as you say, but it is a stereotype and it shows a strong bias if someone assumes this is how all faithful Saints react.

I am with you.  If I am going to study the Church, history, and doctrine,  I much rather read anti material and study out the issue than just read articles in the Ensign.  I learn and retain information better by troubleshooting an issue.  I hold "antis" to the same standards they hold the Church and Joseph Smith.  They are always looking for errors, problems, and wrong doings to discredit the Church.  Ok, and when I see errors, problems, ect in their material, I judge them the same way.   Its hard for me to take them seriously when they are guilty of the same things they accuse the Joseph Smith and others of.  They are the pot calling the kettle black.  Since I have seen more than sufficient evidence to show they are not credible, it does not bother me reading their trash.  It can be fun.  Often a faith crisis occurs when people take these people too seriously.  They should not be taken seriously 90% of the time.

Edited July 23, 2024 by carbon dioxide

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

much rather read anti material and study out the issue than just read articles in the Ensign.

I don’t limit my reading on that basis, but on how substantive the work is.  (If something doesn’t have decent footnotes, that is a pretty good indicator I won’t be reading it for research).   Some Ensign stuff is decent, other not so worthwhile.  A lot of anti stuff is garbage.

Edited July 24, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

My approach was different- I only examined critical information written by those with testimonies of the Restoration and Book of Mormon (Fundamentalists, RLDS, etc...). I had, and have, absolutely no use for the arguments of unbelievers.

[blackstrap]

One thing I learned about translation is that there are those that can figure out the words but that is not the end of translation. The really hard part comes when one tries to convey what the words mean ie. understand what the original author wanted to present to a reader. 

 

There are many , many translations of the Bible and more than a thousand sects who see the same words and give them  varying meanings. 

 

Edited July 24, 2024 by blackstrap