Nobody liked Jeremiah when he warned them that Jerusalem was going to be destroyed, but it still happened. Likewise, those who don’t want to listen to today’s true prophets are going to be a little surprised when the warning voice they’ve been ignoring suddenly goes silent … and the Second Coming is upon them.

So much for all those who feel superior to the Lord’s authority. Where will be their middle ground then?

Thanks for your reply. I have read the BofM many times, and have been moved by its message. I believe JS was much more intelligent and articulate than the apologist would have us believe (it furthers their cause if he was ‘backwards”) His mother, in her biography, tells about JS as a young boy entertaining the family by telling them “stories” about the native Americans. She said they were very detailed.

As we have learned about his manner of translating, he did not even need the plates to do the translating. This is also backed up by the BofA “translation”. It appears that JS could “channel” the word of God, and was not really translating in the true sense of the word.
Did God let him make up the story of the plates, knowing that he would give him the words he needed to write the BofM? Did God overlook his imperfections, up to and including the story of the plates, but used that as a means to deliver his word? While this seems out of character of God, so does chopping off the head of Laban, killing kids because they made fun of a prophet’s bald head (my personal favorite!), or having a father just about kill his son to prove his faithfulness. So I do not put it past God to use whatever method needed to deliver his word.

There is much good in the church. You are part of that good. The internet has provided me the opportunity to share my doubts and concerns with other like me. As I’m sure you read many times, I too though I was the only one with these concerns. Now on several internet lists I’m on, I find other just like me , with the same concerns as me. And they are continuing on in the church just like I do. It gives me great strength to know that others feel as I do.

Thanks again for letting me vent on your Blog. If I can get it all out during the week, them I’m much more likely to behave in HPG during the lesson, and not make my snide comments!

Closet Doubter

Let’s see – historicity means based on fact, not myth or legend, right? Well, we know the book is real in that it is something tangible that we can handle and see. It came from somewhere, even if you don’t believe that Joseph produced it the way he said he did. Because all other theoretical sources have been debunked, you must believe that it was fabricated through his imagination.

Probably the most re-read section of Richard Bushman’s book for me is the part that deals with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. On page 58 he says, “For most modern readers, the plates are beyond belief, a phantasm, yet the Mormon sources accept them as fact.” Do you place yourself in that category – holding the story of the plates as being totally non-existent?

If so, then you must be amazed at the incredible imagination of Joseph Smith. How could he have come up with all that detail describing a world, a society and a thousand years of history all within a few short months of work? Joseph could barely put sentences together. If he wasn’t dictating under the spirit of inspiration to Oliver then he must have been incredibly gifted.

Well, actually, he was incredibly gifted. The Lord said so himself. The Book of Mormon came forth by the gift and power of God. Joseph’s ability to see the transcription of the text in the stones was God-given. It was something to which he was foreordained. We all have different gifts and talents. Joseph was a seer. He could see things in those stones with that special gift.

And I don’t care if they were seer stones that he found at the bottom of a well or if they were the stones in the Urim and Thummim that he showed to his mother shortly after receiving them. It just doesn’t matter to me what means he used to obtain the text of the Book of Mormon. We know that oftentimes he didn’t even have the plates open when he dictated the text to Oliver.

What matters is that we have that text and that we can read it and decide for ourselves based on the content if we believe that it is the word of God. That’s the real test. Apparently God wanted it to be a test of our faith – thus no original source material to which we could compare what we now have in the Book of Mormon. It’s just going to have to stand on its own exactly as it is.

It is sad and unfortunate that your priesthood leader did not want to know what is in Rough Stone Rolling. Don’t hold that against him. It’s not a requirement of his calling to know the details of the early history of our church. Seriously! He will be released in a few short years and another will be called in his place. Perhaps the next priesthood leader will be more open to this stuff.

I can tell you that there are thousands and thousands of priesthood leaders that do know all about this stuff and yet have no problem remaining faithful. Likewise, there are many thousands who have no clue, or if they do know about it, they don’t understand why it is such a big deal for some people. And as we know, even General Authorities fall into this category of uninformed.

From my experience it really is a small percentage of the church – I would say less than one percent – who really know or care about our history one way or the other. Most members are more concerned about trying to live the gospel on a daily basis. Like me, they love the emphasis we place on the atonement of Jesus Christ as being to key to our successful walk in this life.

To answer your final question, think about how far back you started having doubts about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. When the Lord called you as a Bishop, didn’t he already know what you were going through? I think that answers your question. God uses imperfect men to fulfill his purposes in this world. That’s why I still believe that Joseph was a prophet.

My Priesthood Leader (and I’m being intentionally vague about who he is) Told me that he did not want to know those negative things about JS. So who can I go to with concerns about my testimony if the person I’m suppose to go to has refused to even investigate my concerns?

I have no doubt that if you were my bishop, I could tell you everything, all my concerns, and still keep my TR, still hold my teaching calling, and still function in the ward. But you are the exception, not the rule (as the example above shows). Most bishops would not know how to handle somebody like me if I was out of the closet.

I once spoke to a friend who was a Stake President. I told him about my concerns with the historicity of the BofM. He told me that it was not a question in the Temple Recommend, and that I should not let it keep me from my calling. Again, I believe my friend is the exception. Do you know many Bishops or SP that would call a person to a leadership position who doubted the historicity of the BofM?

Closet Doubter

I think the “no middle ground” only refers to core elements of our faith like the claims of divine and angelic visits. That’s all President Hinckley was saying, in my opinion. I don’t think we should take the black and white test beyond the basics of the First Vision, the visit of the Angel Moroni, John the Baptist, Peter, James and John and the keys delivered in the Kirtland temple.

And yes, we’re all cafeteria Mormons to some extent. I had not considered the view that the correlation committee makes the Brethren cafeteria Mormons, but I suppose it makes some sense. I am positive that they know about these issues, they just don’t see any benefit in promoting them in the curriculum. They’re not choosing to disbelieve them, just not teach them.

I wouldn’t make such a big deal about priesthood leaders not wanting to read Rough Stone Rolling. I know a lot of people in the church, including priesthood leaders, who are just not interested in the history of the church. That doesn’t make them bad leaders. Maybe he just didn’t like Bushman’s style or just didn’t want to wade through all the detail in the book.

Yeah, that’s not cool that you feel the need to have to be anonymous on the Internet but I can understand why. I know some of my essays have been ‘edgy’ because I like to tackle all the hard issues head on. Like John Dehlin, I have often felt a concern that some young person, not well established in the faith, might be shocked at some of the things they discover on my blog.

The Internet has changed the way we share the message of the restoration. I was amazed that my friend Fred didn’t bring up more of the issues I have blogged about when he was investigating the church a few years back. When he was preparing to go to the temple for the first time, I assumed that he had researched and read the whole ceremony on the Internet first. He hadn’t.

He said he was aware that it was out there but he didn’t want to read it there first. He wanted to go and learn about it from personal experience. I don’t know if he has read about it online now but I admire him for his approach. In some ways, that makes him a cafeteria Mormon because he chose to get his first impression from the experience instead of reading what others said.

Tell me more about why it is that you feel we don’t cater to all of God’s children. I’m not sure I understand. Are you referring to the claims of exclusivity in that we impose requirements upon our membership to meet certain qualifications for baptism, priesthood and temple ordinances? Or is it because you feel you would be disciplined for your rejection of some of the core doctrines?

I have had many wonderful meals in this cafeteria of a church, and I plan on having many more, choosing what I like (just like my priesthood leaders do) and rejecting what I don’t like.

And to a “A Well Behaved Mormon Woman”, the reason I have to be anonymous is because some “less than well behaved Mormon woman” would no doubt run to my bishop saying “you should see what brother Closet Doubter is saying on the internet” if I used my real name. I don’t need that kind of trouble. And in fact this whole all or nothing stance forces Crusty, Hawkgrrrl, and myself to remain anonymous. If we truly were a church that catered (a cafeteria pun there!) to all of Gods children, then we would not have to hide.

Closet Doubter

If we do find ourselves using that phrase out of habit, as I know I do when I share my testimony, perhaps it would be helpful to add, “…by that I mean…” In my case, I would say something like, “…meaning that God appeared to Joseph Smith and called him as a prophet. Moroni came to Joseph Smith and led him to the gold plates, containing the source for the Book of Mormon.”

I think I would especially focus on the idea of divine and angelic visitations. That’s something that doesn’t happen every day, or least it doesn’t happen to me. There’s nothing like bringing up angels to get people interested in what we have to say. That’s always an amazing claim that needs clarification. That’s what a good testimony should do – invite us to ponder the claims.

And although you didn’t point it out, another example of why it’s important to qualify our claim that the church is true is because of our knowledge of the mistakes that the imperfect people who lead the church have made over the years. I think particularly of the terrible tragedy of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the subsequent denial interpreted as a cover-up by many.

But since the purpose of bearing testimony is to affirm to others that we know certain things and that we know them by revelation, we usually don’t bring up MMM or any of the other dozens of things that we not too keen on as an institution or a people about our history – some things like polyandry or post-manifesto plural marriages or the Kinderhook plates or the peepstone in a hat.

I can imagine the shock that would be to a congregation if someone got up and rattled off all those difficult subjects and said, “In spite of all these things, I know that the church is true.” Yes, that would definitely require some explanation. There is a time and a place for discussion of those things, and it’s not when we’re standing at the pulpit trying to encourage faithfulness.

Is that disingenuous? No, we’re not trying to deceive. We know about all these things. We just see no reason to bring them up, especially since our mission is to declare the events of the restoration as we have been commanded by the Lord in the Doctrine and Covenants. Those events are the ones for which we need divine assistance to be able to bear witness that we know they happened.

The more I think about it the more I am persuaded that it can cause problems for some people to not clarify what we mean when we say that the church is true. As you have asked in a couple of comments here on this blog, “what does that really mean?” Perhaps the statement has already produced the desired result – it got you thinking and wondering what he really meant by that.

So, to summarize for me, I thank you Crusty, for getting me thinking about the problems that it can cause to hear someone declare that the church is true without explaining what that means. And let’s throw out the idea that the church leaders are trying to get the people to never question the things that they say or do. I agree that such an attitude is not healthy or productive.

I think you have probably read many times the statement of Brigham Young in which he said that the people should never blindly agree with what he or any other leader said without proving it from their own studying. If you’ll recall, Brigham did not join the church right away when it was presented to him. He took several years to study it out and watch the new church grow.

Do you mind if we put off a discussion of your last point about eternal progression? I agree that we do not want to be vindictive and judgmental about people who don’t join the church or those who leave the church, but I do not believe that we will have infinite chances to progress. There are some things that we must decide to embrace in this lifetime, if we have been taught clearly.