Why I Stay

Introduction

My imagined audience for this is, first and foremost, me. I wrote this for myself. Secondarily, this may be useful for members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that are thinking deeply about their faith. If that doesn't describe you I recommend skipping: this will likely bore or trigger you (and it might do both at the same time). And now that I've said that, I know many of you outside my target audience will read on (if not only to disobey me, you naughty little trouble-makers). That's fine, but if you find yourself defensive or annoyed, just know this wasn't written for you.

Over the last 15 years I've had a front row seat to many of my closest friends and family leaving our faith and our church (and they remain some of my closest friends and family). I have examined and continue to carefully examine many of their thoughtful objections and my own questions as I consider my faith.

Notwithstanding the many sincere questions, concerns, and objections I have considered, I firmly stand as a believer in God and Jesus Christ and an optimistic member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I haven't already shared my journey of that years-long examination of my faith partly because I feel my pursuit of truth will last beyond my lifetime (and therefore I never have a big 'arrival' to share), and partly because I don't want to come across as directly apologetic/argumentative to dear friends and family that do not believe like I do for fear of offending them.

But perhaps I can share some of what I have learned, what I feel, and what I think with you who are reading this (hi, mom!), because I would have liked to read something like this 10 years ago, and maybe it will provide you greater joy or clarity in some way.

Is Belief in God Justified?

At about 21 years old, after a trusted, respected, highly educated role model of mine shared their conclusion that there was no God, I was (without even really knowing it at first) reeling and searching for anything that could provide me reasons to believe. In those early years of my faith journey I encountered a growing number of potential doubts in my faith. I faced what felt like an impossible choice: choose to believe in logic, hard evidence, and scientific reason or ignore those things and instead choose to believe in God and spiritual things - I thought the two were mutually exclusive and incompatible (tally a point for The New Atheism movement of the early 21st century). What I have come to learn since: that is a false dichotomy; faith, logic, and scientific reason can absolutely coexist. In fact, for me it goes far beyond coexistence; they are profoundly interwoven and confirmatory.

Evolution is a great illustrative example. On its surface, it seems to contradict a religious belief in a Creator, especially if I am inflexible in my belief of how that Creator went about creating. There is overwhelming evidence of slow and natural changes from one species to the next through time as recorded in fossils and even observed today. However, there are also inexplicable leaps in evolution (not the least of which are non-life to life and one-cell to multi-cell). There is reasonable evidence that the basic theory of evolution by natural selection may be incomplete.

Indeed, one theory of creation accounts for both evolution and unexplained 'leaps': The Intelligent Design Theory. This theory suggests a super-intelligent 'interference' in the long history of our world and the evolution of its life. The theory of Theistic Evolution is another similar approach to understanding human creation. From a scientific point of view these theories are, of course, not testable nor are they the only hypotheses for human creation (there are many that do not rely on divine or super-intelligent interference), but they do highlight the rational co-existence of faith and reason. The fact remains: we exist in all of our complexity, consciousness, and agency and that alone is reason to wonder about the possibility of divine intervention.

Other examples of where reason may reach its limits include: the infinite nature of matter, energy, and space; the Fermi Paradox; dark matter and the invisible forces forming solar systems, galaxies, and our universe; our own self-awareness; and (maybe) even the controversial evidence of near-death experiences, to name a few.

Again, I am not suggesting any proof there is a God, but this was my great realization: Not only does the science or evidence (as revealed in the theories above) feel compatible or even confirmatory of belief in God, but if you do not accept a God-based explanation, you are choosing to believe an alternate theory. Heck, even if you claim to be agnostic you are implicitly asserting a belief that truth is unknowable. There is, therefore, an unavoidable predicament of belief. Belief in God is no more unreasonable than belief in an emergence of human consciousness with nothing more than natural selection and good luck. Belief in God is completely justified even (especially?) when viewed through the lens of science. There is no high ground that allows you to avoid belief entirely. I have deep respect for anyone that sincerely pursues truth and does their best to live according to the truth they’ve discovered, even when it is different from my conclusions.

My own pursuit of truth, informed by my intuition, my best logical and scientific reasoning, experiences of others I trust, my own observations over time of the ‘fruits’ of my choices, the evidence from scripture and history, and many small yet personally significant experiences with prayer, scripture, church, talks from leaders, feelings, and unexpected (dare I say miraculous) outcomes, all combine to powerfully point me to this: There is a God.

Why Do Bad Things Happen?

As a 19 year-old I remember meeting a woman who pleaded for us to help her escape her abusive husband with her new baby. She wailed in pain as we drove her to a hospital. It was horrific and the first time I had been so close to such visceral suffering. Faced with her pain, I could see why some ask if God exists, why doesn’t use his infinite power and love to prevent our languishing in terrible, horrific, messy mortal circumstances. They might argue that war, famine, rape, abuse, prejudice, and many more atrocities are all allowed by this supposed God. And I can relate to their experience… I have asked myself how there is a God with unimaginable power (but not enough to be able to prevent suffering) and with unimaginable love (but not enough to want to prevent suffering).

One of the reasons I choose to stay in this faith is a unique insight from the gospel taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: we are eternal beings in both directions. We’ve existed before coming to Earth and we’ll continue to exist after death. Our experience in life is a blink of an eye when compared to our eternal existence. Zooming out with that ‘eternal perspective’ allows us to consider that suffering in all of its forms in mortality may be instructive to us on an eternal scale. The Book of Mormon (I’m looking at you, 2 Nephi 2) helps us see that opposition is necessary to reveal both ends of the spectrum of experience and create an environment where true agency can be exercised. In that way, suffering enables an understanding and appreciation of peace and joy in ways that unlock eternal flourishing that simply isn’t possible without those experiences. Elder Bednar said it beautifully:

Our physical bodies make possible a breadth, a depth, and an intensity of experience that simply could not be obtained in our premortal existence. Thus, our relationships…, our capacity to … act …[on] truth, and our ability to obey… are amplified through our physical bodies. In the school of mortality, we experience tenderness, love, kindness, happiness, sorrow, disappointment, pain, and even the challenges of physical limitations in ways that prepare us for eternity. Simply stated, there are lessons we must learn and experiences we must have, as the scriptures describe, “according to the flesh”.

And if classic literature is more your speed, you, like me, might be inspired by some of the final words in the classic, The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas where the Count is reflecting in a letter on the life of profound grief that has led him to the life he now hopes for,

There is neither happiness nor misery in the world; there is only the comparison of one state with another, nothing more. He who has felt the deepest grief is best able to experience supreme happiness. We must have felt what it is to die… that we may appreciate the enjoyments of living. …until the day when God shall deign to reveal the future to man, all human wisdom is summed up in these two words,—’Wait and hope.’

While it isn’t a perfect analogy, thinking of this life as similar to a simulation or virtual reality can be helpful. In some ways death is just like putting down the controller or headset or waking up from a dream. One does not, after experiencing a particularly terrible nightmare, wake to bemoan the awful suffering and pain caused by the dream; rather we shake our heads and wonder at how a pain that felt so real in the moment was essentially inconsequential.

I want to be careful not to get too attached to the analogy, though, because the suffering we experience is real here (and the decisions we make matter). That pain is necessary because (somewhat paradoxically) we have to, as Dumas’ “The Count” suggests, actually feel the despair of suffering to appreciate the learning benefits we realize from it later on. If we did not have real consequences to our actions, would we have real agency? And if we didn’t have the opportunity to exercise true agency, could we actually learn through our experience? And if we were unable to learn through our experience, could we actually become like God? And if we couldn’t become like God, could we experience the highest level of joy, fulfillment, and thriving in our existence?

Despite our suffering, then, perhaps we can joy in the hope that comes from understanding suffering is temporary, and, because of a master plan of God with Jesus Christ our Redeemer at the center, it can be eventually enabling, empowering, and ennobling. Understanding that God can “work all things to our good” can help us endure life’s hard times well. God can love us perfectly and have infinite power and knowledge and it is because of those attributes He lets us suffer in our mortal probation, not in spite of them.

Can I Trust My Spiritual Experiences?

One of my earliest memories of feeling something that seemed like the Spirit came when I was a boy, only about 10 years old. My dad broke his ribs; I could see he was in terrible pain, and he couldn’t move. As the paramedics arrived at our house, I went to my room and knelt to say a simple 10-year-old-boy prayer to help my dad feel comfort and to protect him. I felt something in my body as I prayed. I could call it a warmth, a wash of calm, peace, or a sensation of tenderness and love, but those words only approximate the sensation. Later I would wonder if those feelings came from me or from outside me.

Senses like sight, touch, taste, smell, and hearing are easy to explain and identify. Understanding and articulating the sensation of feeling the Spirit, which is often described in terms of our other senses, on the other hand, is quite difficult.

Meanwhile, in the last 20 years, there has been research done at universities like Yale, Columbia, and the University of Utah that have explored the brain's role in spiritual experiences. Perhaps one of the most interesting cases, as recorded in the NPR story Are Spiritual Encounters All In Your Head? : NPR, was that of a researcher who created a "God helmet", which essentially stimulated the brain in ways that evoked strong spiritual sensations or visions. The idea that the feelings of "The Spirit" could be manipulated has the power to leave the foundations of a testimony on shaky ground; for example, we might ask ourselves: when I heeded Moroni's invitation and prayed to know the truth of the words in Book of Mormon, or when I read or listen to conference or attend church and feel spiritual feelings, are those inventions of my brain? (as discussed here: This is your brain on God).

I don’t think this is the stake through the heart of spiritual-experience-based faith it at first seems to be. It’s possible there is an actual, physical interface and connection point in our brain to our spirit. If we are spiritual beings having a mortal experience in physical bodies, it would make sense to have less-than-perfect or multi-use receptors or interpreters for spiritual communication. Perhaps those physical receptors can be triggered by things other than spiritual communication, and maybe they aren’t even intended to be spiritual receptors but are co-incidental with spiritual communications. For example, sometimes I cry or get goosebumps when I am having a spiritual experience, but I also cry or get goosebumps when I am not having a spiritual experience.

What’s more: that warm, good, peaceful feeling is just one way people experience divinity. Some have related getting specific, stark warnings or directions (like to move out of the way or do something for a friend), others have described overwhelming clarity of thought, and still others have even reported actually hearing a voice, seeing angels, or even God. My own experiences have also been varied: an unexpected, overwhelming sense of love for the human family; a sudden, sharp clarity of thought accompanied by a sort of warm radiance in my body; a spike of deep emotion and gratitude; a ‘clearing’ of mental mist and thoughts that seem to come from outside me that I turn into words. I have these experiences regularly, and while they often happen to me alone, I’ve also had many experiences where I sense the same Spiritual direction as many others in a group. I relate to the way that Elder Bednar describes inspiration: occasionally a ‘lightswitch moment’ (stark, sudden inspiration), but more commonly a ‘sunrise moment’ (imperceptible increase in light and understanding).

My firm belief is that everyone has access to divine communication if they are willing to tune in. Indeed, the radio is perhaps one of the best metaphors (illustrated in this beautiful video: Voice of the Spirit) for our ability to receive divine guidance as a radio must be tuned to the correct frequency and there must be a clear enough path for the signal to reach the antennae. Revelation (personal, direct, divine guidance) is available to each of us to help us answer the questions of our soul and provide direction just as the signal for a specific radio station is ever-present. Tuning ourselves to receive the signal requires humility, intent, and sometimes the hard work of wrestling with questions, researching, and going down 'wrong roads' (another beautiful video: Wrong Roads). That said, sometimes what we want to know would frustrate part of the carefully designed experience we are having. In other words, it is a feature, not a bug, of this mortal experience that we cannot know everything all at once - it creates experiences for us that are educational in ways that no other experiences can be.

I was impressed as I read a non-religious book called “An Immense World”, which explores the idea of an umwelt (a German word for the combination of senses, perceptions, and interpretations that make up our paradigm and perspective). In the book, the author describes an immense world in many ways hidden from our view because of our limited umwelt, but apparent through the umwelts of animals (the way dogs experience smell, moles experience touch, hummingbirds experience visual ultraviolet light, bats experience sonar, etc.). It made me wonder about a spiritual umwelt. It is equally impossible for me to describe what it ‘feels’ like to have the Spirit communicate with me as it would be for a hummingbird to describe (assuming hummingbirds could talk to us - go with me here) what ultraviolet light ‘looks’ like. But just because we cannot clearly articulate it doesn’t invalidate our spiritual umwelt. To me those spiritual experiences and senses are at least as real and relevant as sight, hearing, and touch.

So I rely on the best words I have from scripture to help me know what to look for, like what we read in Galatians 5:22-23 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance…" and Doctrine and Covenants 9:8 "[The Lord] will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right," or Doctrine and Covenants 8:2 "I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart," or finally how Isaiah 30:21 describes, “"And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it…" Then I pay attention to my own response to spiritual communication and I refine my ability to understand it and develop my spiritual umwelt.

Do My Beliefs Condemn Most People to Hell?

I think I was about 30 years old when I sat down to do the math. There have been no more than 30 million members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since 1830 and likely fewer than that number of Jews or new Christians from the beginning of civilization to after Christ’s death and the death of his apostles, totaling no more than 60 million who have had access to God’s authority and associated covenants and ordinances. That 60 million as a percent of the 100 billion humans that have ever lived represents half of a percent of all humans. From the outside looking in, some might reason that ‘those Mormons’ believe that a maximum of only half of a percent of all humans will be saved?

Then I turned my astounding math skills to Christianity more generally. About one third of humans are Christian today, but looking backwards in time that ratio shrinks to more like 10%. 10% is better than .5%, but a God who condemns any portion of his children to hell without their knowing ‘the rules of the game’ is not a God I am interested in worshiping.

Which brings me to the unique (as in, no other mainstream Christian belief teaches it) and powerful insight from the restored gospel of Jesus Christ that I value so highly and hold so dear: all humans will have an opportunity to accept Christ and his ordinances and covenants, if not in this life then in the next (D&C 137:7-9). In this life, our responsibility is to do the most with what we are given (physical, mental, financial, intellectual, spiritual, and social talents or the lack thereof).

Mortality, all by itself, is not the plan. It is part of the plan. It is the second act of (at least) a three-act play. The broader plan includes many things we don't know that much about (the learning and experiences we gained before coming to Earth, the exact nature of what happens after death including learning, growth, and repentance in the Spirit world, the Millennium, judgment, and eternal progression). With that deeper, clearer, more expansive understanding we have confidence that God will redeem essentially all of his children in some way; not half a percent, or 10%, or even 50%.

President Dallin H. Oaks left little room for misunderstanding when he articulated it this way:

A common misunderstanding… is that good people go to a place called heaven and bad people go to an everlasting place called hell. This erroneous assumption of only two ultimate destinations implies that those who cannot keep all the commandments required for heaven will necessarily be forever destined for hell. A loving Heavenly Father has a better plan for His children. The revealed doctrine of the restored Church of Jesus Christ teaches that all the children of God—with exceptions too limited to consider here—will finally wind up in a kingdom of glory. “In my Father’s house are many mansions,” Jesus taught (in John 14) [bold added]

For those (relatively) few of us who've had an opportunity to make and keep covenants under the authority of Christ and His priesthood, we get to learn through doing while still on Earth many of the practices (like sacrifice, commitment, discipline, piety, dedication, meditation, service, etc.) that are eternally beneficial. These essential covenants and the growth and joy that comes from them will be available to all people during the time between death and final judgement. What we do while here on Earth matters (a lot), but we won’t be condemned by a law we don’t know about, don’t understand, or don’t have the ability to follow. This is what I think of when I think of the ‘good news’ of the gospel! I can choose to yoke myself in relationship with Christ and be both saved from physical and spiritual death as well as enabled to reach my divine potential, and so can every. other. human. being. at some point, no matter their ‘starting point’ in mortality.

Why is Shame So Prevalent Among Us?

Despite the hope of the good news of the Gospel, sometimes all those warm fuzzy feelings we’re told will come through The Spirit are swallowed up by the crushing weight of expectation to perform and the shame that comes with never measuring up. I felt some of that shame when, as a young man of only 10 or 11, I followed some older friends to a back dumpster and found some x-rated magazines. Despite knowing what was in them and knowing it was against ‘the rules’, I chose to look! I kept it hidden in shame for years. I didn’t want my parents, my friends, my church leaders to know that I had chosen to do something that I knew was against God’s will. I didn’t want to reveal myself to be that kind of person. If I had known then what I know now, I would not have let myself sit in that shame.

It is true that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints invites us, its members, on a journey of discipleship to Christ (which sometimes looks like rules), the other side of which we believe will develop people ready to live with God and inherit all He has through the grace of Christ. That path of discipleship we try to walk can at times feel like an immense weight of expectation and an impossible, insurmountable series of tasks. As such, it can be a breeding ground for embarrassment, shame, and self-loathing.

People who don’t go on missions, who don’t marry on expected timelines or at all (including LGBTQ+ members), who struggle in marriages that end in divorce (or long-lasting, contentious marriages), who don’t feel studied enough to participate in Sunday school conversations or give talks, who have a secret vice (like my 11-year-old experience), who can’t fulfill high-activity callings, who have children that don’t stay active in church… the list goes on… are people at high risk (and by the way, that’s most of us). If we let them, these things can drive us to feel profound shame like I did in my youth. My favorite definition of shame comes from Dr. Brene Brown: “the intensely painful feeling or experience of [1] believing that we are flawed and [2] therefore unworthy of love and belonging,” [numbers added by me].

Shame is toxic to our life, corrosive to our soul, and detrimental to our development. Our instinct to avoid shame is good, but it is how we choose to avoid it that can be self-destructive. Because we can never measure up to all the expectations of the “law” of God and the path of discipleship (or the covenant path), it is inevitable that we will be exposed to our own flaws and believe (correctly) that we are flawed (the first part of Dr. Brown’s definition of shame). Where we get in trouble is believing the second part, the “and therefore”, in Dr. Brown’s definition of shame: that we are unworthy of love and belonging because we are flawed.

Being flawed is a precondition of mortal life. It is by design and from inception that we’re broken. Ironically we as believers seem more susceptible to shame, yet as believers of and in Jesus Christ and His Plan for our Salvation, we should understand better than anyone the essential role the grace afforded by Jesus Christ plays in pardoning our flaws, allowing us to grow from our brokenness, and affirming our infinite worthiness of love and belonging in eternal relationship with God.

Rejecting the expectations God has for us in an effort to not feel flawed is not a good solution to the shame problem. It is good and healthy to recognize our flaws: feeling flawed for a moment is guilt, and it leads us to want to make a change. It is productive. Guilt is like the pain we feel when we touch a hot stove: unpleasant but ultimately useful in helping us protect ourselves from further pain. We would be foolish to turn off the sensation of pain in our bodies because we’d hurt ourselves, even kill ourselves, never recognizing the damage we had done until it was too late. There is a similar spiritual consequence to rejecting God’s expectations to avoid feeling flawed.

On the other hand, shame is like the infection that develops from not treating that burn wound properly - it will turn a minor wound into a major health problem, and it will kill us if we let it. Jesus Christ is our healing balm - our alcohol pad, neosporin, and a band aid. Because of Jesus Christ and our yoke and relationship with him we can work towards obedience to the Savior’s many invitations (some of which come through the Church) to walk the (covenant) path of discipleship with the confidence that it’s okay when our flaws are obvious, when we don’t do it right, or when we can’t do it all. Corrosive, debilitating shame, therefore, is not part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ nor need it be prevalent among us.

Is Church History Too Weird to Believe?

As a 19-year-old missionary I remember stopping by our local church building in North Carolina to make some calls while we were out on our bikes, far from our apartment. Not long after we had entered the building, the phone rang. I decided I’d answer it, and the person on the other end asked for the most senior person in the building. That was me, because we were the only people in the building! They launched into a well-rehearsed, thoroughly prepared anti-Mormon rant. I listened for some time before I realized the caller didn’t intend to have a conversation, but rather to deliver a message. And deliver the message he did! I hung up, head spinning from the onslaught. Most everything the caller talked about was directed toward the (weird) history of the Church, and it was the first time my views had been attacked so thoroughly and intelligently. I was shook. Was the history of my church and beliefs just too weird to justify belief?

The early stage of the Church's formation has been a major challenge to the faith of many. And I can relate: my experience made me wonder if the fantastical, miraculous story of Joseph Smith and his Gold Plates could really be true, especially because there is a good amount of weirdness surrounding Joseph Smith and his early followers, and I’m not just talking about being the only ones at happy hour drinking club soda. And yet as I've continued to study the early history of the Church and wrestled with some of the “weirdness”, I've also come to appreciate the complexity of the truth and in it I have found a deepened strength of faith. Indeed, I relate to something another member of the Church and explorer of history, Gregory Smith, has said, "The sole 'danger' which historical information poses to members or sincere investigators occurs only if they stop their research too soon."

There are far too many topics to cover in this essay, but the most popular consolidated source of 'weirdness' among disaffected members of the Church is the CES Letter. If you are curious on this topic as I have been, I would encourage you to read "A Faithful Reply to the CES Letter". It includes not only a word-for-word reproduction of the CES letter, but also a point-by-point response. The author of the response can take a bit of a snarky tone, which I could do without, but I am extremely grateful for his painstaking work to demystify something that has been a troubling source of doubt for many. An even more thorough, and equally faithful exploration (and minus the snark) of the topics in the CES letter was powerfully presented by Reddit user dice1899 (Sarah Allen) and can be found here (but doesn’t include the original CES letter text). You may also consider the robust Light and Truth Letter as a resource, which indirectly addresses the CES letter (critical claims).

One of my biggest take-aways is this: much of what is supported by those antagonistic to the Church is not only non-obvious but often overtly misleading. If church history is what you crave, I think you are better off reading some of the works of history from diligent historians: books like Saints and Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling or even the gospel topics essays. After studying these and other resources, I can comfortably and confidently say that church history is not too weird to believe - rather it is just weird enough to believe 🙂.

So let’s discuss a few of the “weird” things from our early church history that have caused me to ask questions:

Did Joseph Lie About the First Vision?

One of the pivotal moments in the history of the church is the first vision of Joseph Smith. He claimed to have seen God and Jesus Christ (embodied and distinct - come at me, Nicean Christians! 🙂), and that they gave him some instruction (which was the beginning of his prophetic call). It was his “burning bush” or “road to Damascus” moment. It kicked off the entire restoration of the New-Testament Church of Jesus Christ. And given the miraculous claims, it was a source of controversy and criticism from the very get go.

Joseph’s most well-published account of his first vision from 1838 is canonized as scripture, but that wasn’t the only time he told his story, and it wasn’t the first (the scripture account was 18 years after his vision, and the first time his experience was written down was 12 years after he had his vision). A description of his vision was also captured in 1835 (a scribe wrote down what Joseph shared with a visiting minister) and 1842 (a letter to the newspaper).

With the four vision accounts, there are some differences. He is 14 in one and 16 in another. He describes only Jesus in one and both Jesus and God in others. He is worried about his sins in one and about which church to join in another. At first the differences may seem to be evidence that Joseph was lying, but on closer inspection, none of the differences are significant when considering the time elapsed, the context of the telling, and the scribe. In fact, an overly-rehearsed lie seems like the probable approach for a con-man resulting in an overly-consistent story in detail and recitation, and what we have instead is exactly what we’d expect to see from someone telling the truth: a story consistent in nature with differences relevant to the context and time of their telling. I am confident Joseph saw what he said he saw.

What's With the Stone in the Hat?

In high school a friend of mine told me how hilarious the South Park episode on Mormons was, so I looked it up, and the theme was obvious: those Mormons are weird. And in the writers’ defense (who are, by the way, former members of the Church), there are a lot of things that do seem weird, not the least of which is Joseph Smith purportedly using a “magic rock in a hat” (to put it irreverently) for translating the Book of Mormon. He’d put a seer stone into his hat and cover his face with the hat (ostensibly to get a clearer view of the translation on the stone). This was the imagery that South Park leaned into heavily, and setting aside the overt attacks and dismissive attitude towards my faith, the depiction is not historically inaccurate as far as we can tell. And at first that definitely weirded me out.

However, as I came to learn more, my perception of the weirdness faded significantly. Regardless of the method of translation (others reported Joseph using interpreters he said he found with the plates, known as the Urim and Thummim - like ancient glasses) Joseph would dictate in a near steady stream as a scribe wrote what he said. Even after long breaks he would reportedly pick up where he left off without prompting and he’d rarely go back to correct or rephrase. It was by this process he produced a text over 500 pages long in a matter of months. That is astounding when you consider the complexity, intricacy, and self-consistency of the Book of Mormon (something we’ll talk about later).

I’ve come to understand that my perception of weird doesn’t necessarily mean wrong. For example, Joseph may have needed the ‘crutch’ of the seer stone (something he was familiar with from his youth - we’ll talk about his treasure seeking next) to enable his prophetic gift. The bible has several examples of physical artifacts being used for divine purposes (Moses’ staff, Paul's handkerchiefs, the mud Jesus put on the blind man) and even references an Urim and Thummim several times (Exodus 28, Leviticus 8, Ezra 2, Nehemiah 7).

While a bit strange to me at first, Joseph’s translation method is not completely unprecedented, and it doesn’t interfere with the strength of my belief in this incredible faith. In fact, him covering his face with a hat while still being able to produce the text in the Book of Mormon (in a matter of months), without rehashing, reviewing, planning, or strategizing makes a secular, naturalist explanation for the Book of Mormon even more difficult to justify. Joseph’s method of translation does not change what he produced.

Is Treasure Hunting the Basis for Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon Story?

Joseph’s character is often the focus of critical sources, and when I came across some highlighting Joseph’s ‘obsession’ with treasure hunting it made me wonder. Those accusations were levied perhaps even more by Joseph's contemporaries, claiming that he would sell his 'money digger' services: accepting payment in return for the use of magic or magical artifacts in the uncovering of treasure. They were not entirely wrong, either. Joseph did, indeed, record in his official history that he had been hired for that purpose by Josiah Stowell in 1825 (Joseph would have been 19 or 20). Further, Joseph was reputed by some to have a special gift as a "seer", someone who could use special objects (like a stone) to see hidden or lost items. These things were somewhat common part of folk culture of the time, and Joseph's family accepted these familiar practices like many around them.

However, it is unclear to what extent Joseph participated in this money digging cultural norm. According to Richard Bushman, "I think there is substantial evidence of his reluctance [to participate in treasure hunting], and, in my opinion, the evidence for extensive involvement is tenuous. But this is a matter of degree. No one denies that magic was there, especially in the mid 1820s. Smith never repudiated folk traditions; he continued to use the seer stone until late in life and used it in the translation process. It certainly had an influence on his outlook, but it was peripheral--not central. Biblical Christianity was the overwhelming influence in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Folk magic was in the mix but was not the basic ingredient." - Rough Stone Rolling

So did Joseph make up finding a gold book in a hill because he was involved in some weirdy 1800s treasure-hunting mumbo jumbo? That explanation doesn’t hold up from my point of view (and this pithy video is a solid representation of my point of view). As Bushman said, treasure hunting was there, but it wasn’t central. What’s more, that doesn’t explain the actual text from the Book of Mormon translation (I talk about the Book of Mormon later). Understanding Joseph’s (even misguided) hobbies helps me to feel I know the man who would become God’s instrument for restoring precious truths, and it strengthens my faith in a living, involved Father in Heaven and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Were The Witnesses of the Book of Mormon Actually Eye Witnesses?

I have been casually reading the introduction to the Book of Mormon any time I read the Book of Mormon through for years - I had probably read it more than 10 times before gaining a profound appreciation for the testimony of the witnesses in my mid 30s. The witnesses to the Book of Mormon signed a statement saying they had either seen and 'hefted' the plates (in the case of the 8 witnesses), or they had seen an angel testify of the truthfulness of the plates (in the case of the 3 witnesses). Some antagonistic to the Church or doubtful of the validity of their experience have attempted to discredit the witnesses' testimony by citing sources suggesting they only saw with "spiritual eyes", which, these antagonists say, is akin to imagination. It is true that some of the witnesses may have reported seeing things with spiritual eyes (which believers understand to mean they were changed to see things beyond the veil of mortality), but they also reported touching, hefting, and/or seeing the plates and the translation process in actuality.

My newfound appreciation for the witnesses is in part thanks to learning more about how many of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates, including all of the Three Witnesses, were, at some point in their lives, deeply disaffected with the Prophet Joseph Smith and the church. Yet all remained true to their testimonies, even though they had significant incentive to expose Joseph’s “fraud.” Their testimonies have been under attack for nearly two centuries, and yet they still hold up. There are over 50 firsthand accounts by these witnesses that describe the physical reality of the gold plates, and they do so without the kind of “spiritual eye” language that is included in all of the second-hand accounts, many of which were written decades after the fact by people who did not know any of the witnesses personally. The overwhelming majority of contemporaneous reports assert that the witnesses did not have only a half-valid imagined experience, not the least of which is the report published at the beginning of every edition of the Book of Mormon – i.e. the Testimony of the Three Witnesses. And while that testimony is the best known report that directly contradicts these claims in every respect, it is far from the only one.

Martin Harris, in the last years of his life, had this to say: “The Prophet Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer and myself, went into a little grove to pray to obtain a promise that we should behold it with our eyes natural eyes, that we could testify of it to the world” (EMD 2:375). [strikethrough in original.] Deliberate use of the phrase “natural eyes” is in direct contradiction to the premise of “second sight” or “eyes of our understanding.”

The evidence is abundant: the signed witnesses did, in fact, attest to interacting with the gold plates through their physical senses AND in some cases their spiritual senses. Their testimonies strengthen my choice in this faith, and I so appreciate their consistency and willingness to stay true despite the immense pressure and incentive to deviate from their testimonies. For more on the evidence of their testimonies, I’d recommend watching these really great videos: Did the 8 Witnesses Actually See and Handle the Gold Plates?, Were the Book of Mormon Witnesses Lying, Tricked, or Telling the Truth?, What Did the "Unofficial" Witnesses of the Book of Mormon Plates Experience?.

Did Joseph Rip Off Freemasonry?

In my mid-20s I bumped into the “scary” side of the internet: anti-mormon Reddit. I think it was there I remember reading someone scoffing at our temple rituals, suggesting the whole thing was derivative of freemasonry. They correctly claimed that Joseph Smith became a Mason in March 1842. Shortly after, he introduced the temple endowment. And for me at first the similarities between the two seemed to suggest that the temple endowment was derivative, rather than revealed. Indeed, there are many similarities - from the gospel topics essay on masonry, "Freemasons (or Masons) meet in lodges, where they ritually reenact a story based on the brief biblical account of a man named Hiram, whom Solomon commissioned to work on the temple in Jerusalem. During the reenactment, Masons advance by degrees, using handgrips, key words, and special clothing. In Masonic rituals, Masons commit to be worthy of trust and to be loyal to their Masonic brothers."

However, In the temple endowment men and women covenant with God to obey His laws in order to gain exaltation through Jesus Christ. Masonry, on the other hand, promotes self-improvement and brotherhood. Yes, there are similarities (stage by stage instruction, dramatization, special clothing, symbolic gestures), however, the content is significantly different. To me it matters very little whether Joseph and/or the Lord 'borrowed' Masonic rites to teach eternal truths or whether those Masonic rites have common 'ancestry' with ancient temple rites - ultimately it is the covenants that yoke me more deeply in relationship with Christ and the insight into an eternal perspective that make the temple personally meaningful, and those elements are wholly unique. So no, the temple ceremonies are not a direct ripoff of Freemasonry.

Is Polygamy the One Thing in Church History That is Just Too Weird to Believe?

One of the most challenging epochs of early church history for many (including me!) to understand was during the 60ish years when polygamy was taught and practiced (around 1840-1900). Of course, even in the face of my unease I have to also recognize that my existence is dependent on that early practice (thanks great, great grandpa and grandma, I guess?). That said, I am disturbed by the mere idea of it and I have been troubled by some of the reports of abandoned wives, secret marriages, and abuse that came out of that time (even if they were exceptions to the norm).

As difficult as it is for me to understand, however, I do not believe polygamy in early church history exposes the Church or its leaders as a hoax. Were polygamy to have been an invention of a dominating sexual deviant, it would be clear that sexuality was the driving motivation behind plural marriages. The reality is that sexual relations seems to be the least of Joseph’s many motivations.

After he reported receiving the commandment he “held off for two or three years before marrying Fanny Alger, and then after [that] unsuccessful attempt, waited another five years.” (Rough Stone Rolling, pg. 437). By the end of 1843 Joseph had married around 30 wives. Despite having ~30 wives, however, Joseph only had children with Emma, his first wife, and together they had 9 children. There are no confirmed children from Joseph’s other wives. The few parentage claims that have been made are tenuous. What’s more, some of Joseph’s other wives were married to other husbands after Joseph’s martyrdom and had children with their new husbands at once (Did Plural Marriages Include Sexual Relations?). To me it seems obvious that Joseph was not in these marriages primarily for the sex. That said, I’d be shocked if lust was never a complicating factor throughout the ~60 years polygamy was taught and practiced, but I don’t think evidence supports that it was the driving motivation for the command.

Some argue that polygamy was never directed from God even though Joseph Smith was a prophet. I cannot quite get there. While I think prophets, including Joseph Smith, were and are at times left by the Lord to their own (sometimes incomplete) wisdom in their words and decisions, that is not the same as a prophet repeatedly affirming strongly that the Lord spoke to them directly and gave them specific direction. Joseph was adamant and consistent about the revealed nature of the commandment for polygamy. I’m convinced, for that reason, that polygamy was actually commanded by God. I hypothesize that it fulfilled God’s purpose for commanding it: helping jump start the multiplication and replenishment of the earth by a covenant-keeping people, and establishing a faithful foundation of latter-day saints upon which to build Christ’s restored church.

Despite the ~60 years polygamy was practiced, for the last 120+ years it has been explicitly forbidden by the church. There are several unambiguous statements from prophets about polygamy ending, but somewhat ironically the strongest scriptural injunction against polygamy I have found is in the Book of Mormon (which Joseph obviously translated before introducing polygamy):

…for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms, because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son. Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

What’s more, in the Church’s modern publication of Gospel Topics Essays they clarify that, “The Bible and the Book of Mormon teach that the marriage of one man to one woman is God’s standard, except at specific periods when He has declared otherwise."

That said, there is also scriptural precedent for polygamy, which, again, somewhat ironically comes from the Bible rather than the Book of Mormon: Abraham had several wives including Sarai, Hagar, and Keturah. Jacob also had multiple wives (Rachel, Leah, and Bilhah). The book of Samuel mentions the Lord giving ‘wives’ to David before he unrighteously, lustfully went after Bathsheba. And as if to reiterate the point, 1 Kings 15:5 says David did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord (except for the matter of Uriah who was Bathsheba’s husband).

So in summary: in our early church history I see a blossoming, immature church - one that had just received revelation about the eternal nature of our human family and the connections shared through temple sealings; a people that God was letting develop without micromanagement - trying to follow the macromanagement they were getting from God. I see imperfect men and women stumbling through the best they could (and some were probably crashing through the worst they could).

The Lord commanded the practice [of polygamy], but he didn't micromanage its execution any more than he instructed the Brother of Jared from the Book of Mormon regarding the best manner to provide light in the barges built to convey his people across the sea.

- Brian and Laura Hales, Joseph Smith's Polygamy

Ultimately I think God’s purpose was accomplished: a covenant-making, faithful people were established and thrived in an otherwise inhospitable time and place. Polygamy, when commanded on a case-by-case basis, is consistent with God’s pattern in scripture and its practice does not erode my choice of faith in God’s restored gospel as taught and administered in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Was the Early Church Racist? Is it Still?

I’m sensitive to the fact that I’m white, and therefore I do not have the same personal connection or grievance that someone of color might. I’m against racism, and it hurts my heart to think about the ubiquity of racism only a couple hundred years ago. To understand the history of racism in the Church, we have to understand a little bit about the broader US environment related to racism during the early 1800s. By the mid 1800s there were about 25 million people in the US, about 3.5 million were of African descent, and most of them (almost 90%) were slaves. Slaves were considered non-human property, essentially. They could not seek any justice for any wrongdoing against them by a white person. They were often abused, raped, and regularly sold and traded (like other asset-class property). While there was an emerging abolitionist movement in the North (think Abraham Lincoln), even those relative progressives usually supported the common heavy discrimination against free black people. The Christian consensus at the time was not progressive: it held that black people were inheritors of the Curse of Ham, and justifiably enslavable.

Enter The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph was teaching and baptising some black people and eventually ran for president with a stance of gradual emancipation. In other words, Joseph was a racial progressive for the time, and was not only against slavery but for more equality (views that could be arguably more progressive than Abraham Lincoln). However, after his death the saints made their way to Utah. There were several compounding factors at that time: 1) Brigham Young was the president of the Church and apparently carried the generally accepted racist beliefs of his time, 2) Utah was fighting for statehood and navigating the political landmines associated with slavery, 3) recent converts were coming together from both North (free) and South (slavery) regions and figuring out how to live together.

In navigating those complexities, Brigham Young, acting in a political capacity (although being the president of the Church at the time), opposed slavery directly in the budding Utah state (matching some of Joseph’s views). However, in almost the same breath he posited that mixing race would bring the destruction of the Church, and he referred to the 'seed of Cain' to describe dark-skinned people, and justified withholding voting rights and the priesthood from them. I would characterize Brigham as a racial moderate of his time - not pro-slavery, but also outspokenly racist.

Notably, Orson Pratt, an Apostle at the time, directly contradicted and argued with Brigham’s claims in defense of black people. There were strong emotions on both sides that may have amplified inflammatory rhetoric, but it is clear that racism was alive and well in the early church, with the president of the Church making his opinions abundantly clear.

Despite Orson Pratt’s arguments against withholding the priesthood from African Americans and even with no revelation that we know about to church leadership to institute the practice, it became the practice of the Church to withhold priesthood authority and temple ordinances from black members of the Church. As time went on, other church leaders seeking understanding inferred that it was God’s will in saying things like “the Lord could change his policy”. The practice didn't end until 1978, when a direct revelation to the prophet of the Church (Spencer W. Kimball) unequivocally ended the 'ban'.

I don’t know why it took so long to undo the priesthood ban instituted more than 100 years earlier. If God wanted to, He could have intervened sooner. But the reasons why He didn’t are speculative at best - maybe the support of the Southern State emigrants to Utah was the only thing that kept Utah from being taken away from the Church and the collapse of the Church as an organization, or maybe the covenant people at the time were just too racist to handle such a (relatively) progressive view, and that would have caused the Church to collapse, or maybe God was letting church leaders exercise agency and make a mistake, or maybe something else entirely. It may be that the Lord is more interested in allowing us as individuals and even us as a group of covenant-making people to learn from our mistakes than He is in making sure we make right choices. Indeed, the Plan of Salvation is dependent on agency for all. I don't believe God ever condoned or inspired racism. In fact we have abundant, unmistakeable, recent revealed statements from church leaders that racism is wrong and race has no bearing on worthiness, worth, or eternal and divine potential. Here are a couple:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks are or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

"The Creator of us all calls on each of us to abandon attitudes of prejudice… Any of us who has prejudice toward another race needs to repent!... Let us be clear. We are brothers and sisters, each of us the child of a loving Father in Heaven. His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, invites all to come unto Him—“black and white, bond and free, male and female,” (2 Nephi 26:33).

God loves people of all skin colors in the exact same way and with the exact same intensity and His church is trying to reflect that love. That is consistent with the gospel (including right in the Book of Mormon in 2 Nephi 26:33) and has been repeated by our current priesthood leaders many times. Unfortunately, racist attitudes in early church history hurt our brothers and sisters of color, and unfortunately there are doubtless racist attitudes that persist today amongst church members, although now without the support of church leaders.

Could The Book of Mormon Have Been Created by Joseph Smith?

I vividly remember praying in my early 20s that God would reveal whatever was true to me. That in or out of my current beliefs I could find actual ground truth and build a foundation of faith on genuine truth, from whatever source it might come. For that reason, I am grateful for the challenges to my faith and the "thorny" issues of the Church. Because of them I have developed a more nuanced understanding of my own faith, and they have also driven me to consider and weigh thoughtfully the tangible artifacts of the restoration, the first and greatest of which is the Book of Mormon. I love the Book of Mormon.

Believing and unbelieving scholars agree that the Book of Mormon came by way of Joseph Smith; they do not agree on how he produced it. Believers assert it is a divinely revealed book, a translation of an ancient text from prophets who lived in the Americas as contemporaries of Bible prophets; and non-believers suggest that Joseph produced a work of fiction, perhaps with help from a few of his friends and some plagiarism from other books.

For me the Book of Mormon contains the most compelling physical evidences of our truth claims. The powerful evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon’s authenticity opens wide the door to wholehearted, intellectually honest faith that it is a divinely inspired book. As a tangible artifact of someone claiming to be a prophet of God, it has stood strong against a two-century-long assault from antagonists to the Church. And while the academic evidences are compelling and fascinating, I love even more what the Book of Mormon has taught me about Jesus Christ and His relationship to me, about faith and repentance, about God’s love, about our mortal journey, about our relationships with each other; and I love how those teachings have influenced not only me but the culture of my family. I love that they confirm and enrich what we learn in the Bible. In exploring what the Book of Mormon means and some of the evidences in greater depth, we have to keep in mind we are only scratching the surface here:

Can the Powerful Sermons and Doctrine Have Been Invented?

The power of a sermon or a doctrine is in the eye of the beholder, so this section is unapologetically self-indulgent (as opposed to the rest of this essay, which is apologetically self-indulgent?). That said, the power of Christian scripture is in its ability to change my heart and turn me towards Jesus Christ and His Gospel. I had this experience as I read the New Testament from front to back as a 19 year-old, reading about Jesus’ incredible example of grace, love, and powerful teaching. The Book of Mormon has been especially powerful in my life to that end. Despite the interesting academic evidences that we will discuss in a bit, what I personally learn and what that motivates me to become is the most powerful evidence I have of the Book of Mormon. I think a few specific sermons are worth calling out:

• Alma 32: A Beautiful Cultivation Analogy for Faith in Christ
• Jacob 5: A Complex Olive-Orchard Allegory of God’s Work with His Children
• 2 Nephi 2: A Masterful Exploration of Agency, the Fall, and Opposition
• 3 Nephi 11: The Inspiring Account of Christ’s Visit to the Americas
• Ether 12: An Insightful Discussion of Faith and Weakness
• 2 Nephi 28: A Compelling Warning Against Satan’s Tactics
• Alma 5: A Motivational Spiritual Self-Assessment
• 1 Nephi 8: An Intricate Vision of Our Mortal Journey
• Mosiah 2-5: A Captivating Sermon on Our Reliance on Christ
• Moroni 7: A Profound Exploration of the Pure Love of Christ (Charity)
• Alma 36: A Powerful, Poetic Highlight of Christ’s Ability to Save

If I were to read just one of these powerful sermons, I think I’d have to seriously consider the possibility that its source was inspired. When I take them together, along with the other dozens that are powerful, combined with the Spiritual confirmation I get as I read the Book of Mormon, I am overwhelmed with a sense of awe and reverence for this Book and the Work of Restoration it is part of. I especially appreciate how my understanding and appreciation of Jesus Christ as my Savior is deepened, and how I am invited to ‘zoom’ out to see how He works not only with me as an individual, but with the human family; how our mortal experience provides a unique opportunity for choices, learning, and becoming; and how we can build faith in Him.

The truths in the Book of Mormon have made a meaningful difference to me. I just can’t look at all of these incredible, powerful, complex, intricate sermons, doctrines, and stories together and believe that a 20 something farm boy in 1830 invented it. I believe the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be: the writings of ancient prophets translated by a simple but inspired young man (yep, even by way of a rock in a hat). These truths in the Book of Mormon are a major reason why I choose this faith.

What Do Literary Analysis and Stylometry Reveal about the Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon claims to be a compilation of prophetic writing with 3 primary authors (Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni) and a few other authors. It turns out, with ‘ze science’, we can determine if the actual words, paragraphs, pages, and chapters of the Book of Mormon “sound” (statistically) like they came from the same author - they call that science “stylometry”. Using that approach, we can compare the voices within the Book of Mormon to each other and we can compare those to Joseph Smith’s non-Book-of-Mormon writing and the alleged books he plagiarized. If the Book of Mormon is authentic, we would expect such a study to reveal unique voices for each author (although we might also expect to see some similarities due to Joseph’s 1800s King-James-Bible vocabulary).

I think you know where this is going. Even with the switching of authors there are consistently distinct voice ‘signatures’ (like how they refer to God, the names they use for Jesus, the use of words like soul, spirit and wound, emphasis on baptism, etc.). The best secular explanation for these distinct voices is that Joseph was essentially a genius-level oral storyteller. Even Charles Dickens, a contemporary of Joseph and professional author (considered to be one of the best of his time), was not able to produce the same statistical distinction of voice in his works.

As nifty as the stylometry is, I am more impressed with some of the literary beauty in the Book of Mormon. Throughout the Book of Mormon, for example, the authors reference each other dozens of times, like what happens when Alma the Younger is teaching his son using Abinidi’s words (which come 130 pages earlier) - it’s cool that there is the beautiful allusion to a former prophet and demonstrates the literary complexity in the book, but it is even cooler to learn from Alma’s example of studying the words of the prophets until they become a part of you.

As another example of literary beauty and complexity, consider what Grant Hardy coined as “Moroni’s Curtain Call”. Moroni, in some of his final words at the end of the Book of Mormon, weaves in the final words of the prophets who had written before (Nephi, Jacob, Lehi, Mormon, Isaiah). No attention is called to the epic final words in the Book of Mormon itself, and it wasn’t even recognized or discussed until recently despite being there for 200 years.

The examples of the text being self-consistent, beautiful, and complex are overwhelming and we’ve only addressed a couple. Stylometry and literary analysis both confirm the plausibility of Joseph’s truth claims, and strengthen my faith in Jesus Christ, of whom the Book of Mormon relentlessly testifies, and His gospel.

Is Chiasmus an Evidence of Hebrew Roots?

Given the Book of Mormon claims to come from a people that brought some of both Hebrew and Egyptian cultural artifacts and practices from the old world, we might expect to see evidence of some of those traditions and languages. On the other hand, if Joseph Smith lied and created this book, it would be nearly impossible for him to include evidence of these cultural artifacts given the level of his education and his access to relevant information, not to mention yet-to-be-discovered elements of Egyptian and Hebrew culture. It also helps to remember that Joseph Smith produced (I would say translated by the power of God) the 531-page Book of Mormon in a matter of months.

I’ve already alluded to this but it bears repeating: despite what I believe to be compelling evidence for plausibility, this is not proof. There are ways to believe around these evidences and come out thinking that Joseph was a very lucky, genius-level con-man. You don’t have to spend much time on Reddit to find that in abundance. But belief is justified in the face of all the scientific, historical data we have. There is room to choose faith.

Chiasms are a form of Hebrew poetry and are found, unsurprisingly, in the bible. They have a boomerang structure: ABCDE - EDCBA. They are also found in the Book of Mormon. In fact, there may be as many as 900 chiastic structures in the Book of Mormon. Critics are quick to claim that chiasms are not special in the Book of Mormon because they can and do show up by accident. And they are right. A letter Joseph Smith wrote to Emma had chiasmus. The Doctrine and Covenants has chiasmus. Even Green Eggs and Ham has chiasmus. Thankfully, a few clever researchers devised a way to determine how likely it is that chiasmus shows up by accident. For example, there is only a 30% chance that the chiasm in Green Eggs and Ham is there intentionally, and only a 50% chance that the chiasm in the Doctrine and Covenants was intentional. However, Leviticus 24:13-23 has a 98% chance of being there intentionally, as do three of the most powerful chiasms in the Book of Mormon Mosiah 5:10-12, Helaman 6:9-11, Mosiah 3:18-19. The most complex chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, Alma 36, has a 99.998% likelihood of being there intentionally.

Chiasmus is not accidental in the Book of Mormon and Joseph and his contemporaries simply didn’t know enough about it to reliably produce how it shows up in the Book of Mormon. Chiasmus wasn’t even discussed as evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon until 100 years after it was written. If Joseph was translating an ancient text based in Hebrew traditions as he said he was, however, then the Chiasmus fits right into place where it should.

Most importantly, though, Chiasmus was used to emphasize a central message (an emphasis on something so important that you need more than words, you want the structure of the writing itself to proclaim it). In Alma 36 that central message emphasizes Christ’s power and willingness to save, and it is that message that actually makes a difference in my life and the life of my family.

Do Other Hebrew And Egyptian Traditions and Languages Show Up?

The fun doesn’t stop with Chiasmus, though. The Book of Mormon has 337 names in it. 188 of those had never been heard, read, or written by anyone living in the early 1800s as far as we know. That alone is amazing, but I’m about to turn it up to an eleven: many of those unknown names turned out to have unique Hebrew or Egyptian roots or associations.

It wasn’t uncommon for Hebrew names to have meaning associated with the person; like in the Bible, for example: Jacob (supplanter), Esau (hairy), Israel (one who prevails), ZeSinai (of God), and Nabal (fool). These names with meaning also show up In the Book of Mormon:

• A ‘land of inheritance’ is given the name “Jershon”, which in Hebrew means place of inheritance.
• The name Nephi might be related to the Egyptian NFR, which means goodly. Nephi’s first line in the Book of Mormon is “I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents”.
• A tall place for offering prayers is called a “Rameumptom”; in Hebrew Ram and Ramma are words for a high place.
• Zeezrom is an especially unusual name given to a money-hungry lawyer; it comes up in the text just before a complex monetary system is explained (including a denomination of money called an ‘ezrom’) and could be similar to the ZeSinai in Judges 5. Basically the author of that part of the Book of Mormon was calling him ‘Mr. money lover’ or as I would translate it ‘Mr. all about them dolla dolla bills’.

Here’s a good video overview: Why You Should Pay Attention to Names in the Bible and Book of Mormon

What’s more, and not to steal too much thunder from the anachronisms section, several names were assumed to be anachronistic and later confirmed to be authentic Hebrew or Egyptian matches; here’s a few: Aha (Egyptian Pharaoh and common word for ‘warrior’), Ammon (basically like ‘Bob’ in Egyptian culture), Korihor (priest who seized the throne of Egypt), Paanchi, Pahoran, and Pacumeni (all Egyptian nobleman), and a long list of Hebrew names not found in the bible: Sariah, Alma (particularly interesting as this one was at first thought to be only a woman’s name until we found abundant evidence much later that it was used for men as well), Abish, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, and Sam.

A few other fun little nuggets: given Jerusalem’s “Holy City” status, ancient Israelites would say “go up” to the city and “go down” from the city, which is expressed accurately in the Book of Mormon. Alma 7:10 says Jesus was born in the Land of Jerusalem, which was seen as anachronistic (because Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Jerusalem), until it was later discovered that the term “Land of Jerusalem” in Hebrew would apply to both the city proper and its suburbs (including Bethlehem). Finally, the Law of Moses is practiced in the Book of Mormon and in violating the law, the infractions are surprisingly detailed and consistent with the law of Moses: (indulged sorceries, drank blood of beasts and ate beasts of prey, shaved their heads, etc.). Here’s a nice video recap: Jewish-isms in the Book of Mormon - Saints Unscripted.

I’m really only scratching the surface here so if you are interested I hope you’ll check out the linked resources throughout.

How Do Weights and Measures Support Book of Mormon Truth Claims?

Not straying too far from Egyptian cultural artifacts… in Alma 11 a monetary conversion system is laid out in detail. A series of scriptures that have been for me what we call in the business, ‘a total snooze fest’. And it is true that at first it seems relatively nonsensical (this is not something my business degree prepared me to appreciate on its face, I guess): equating various denominations of gold and silver and also bringing in barley and other measures of grain. However, it turns out that the system described in the Book of Mormon looks quite similar to the laws of Eshnunna from ancient Mesopotamia (unknown during Joseph’s time), which begins with a list of ‘exchange equivalencies’ that have important similarities to the system described in Alma.

And what’s more, the system described in Alma 11 is more efficient than American coinage (fewer measures required for various sums). What was a “snooze fest” has become a fascinating nugget of powerful evidence of Joseph’s authenticity, and believing Joseph’s authentic prophetic calling means me and my family have greater clarity, faith, and understanding of Christ and His Plan for us.

But What About Archeological Evidence and Anachronisms?

My wife loves to share her experience visiting Mesoamerica in her early 20s. She went with a few BYU professors and a group of her classmates. She was amazed at the incredible structures, cities, and relics of civilization she saw there, dating back 1000s of years. But she also loves to share how her professors taught that for every archeological ‘evidence’ they showed them in favor of the Book of Mormon, there was a compelling counter-argument. Her professors were channeling, I think, Elder Maxwell who said:

…the Book of Mormon, will remain in the realm of faith. Science will not be able to prove or disprove holy writ. However, enough plausible evidence will come forth to prevent scoffers from having a field day, but not enough to remove the requirement of faith. Believers must be patient during such unfolding.

-Niel A. Maxwell

I tend to agree. For there to be an opposition in all things, there must be room for doubt and faith. Nowhere is this clearer to me than when discussing archaeological evidence and anachronisms within the Book of Mormon. There is enough evidence to keep the door open for belief, but enough unknown to require someone to exercise faith. A couple things to keep in mind:

• The Book of Mormon takes place primarily in the ‘New World’, but we don’t know where, so we don’t have a starting point, although ancient Mesoamerica is a popular theory.
• While early church scholars assumed the Book of Mormon geography spread across the entirety of North and South America, self-contained geographic models suggest it may have only been an area of land less than 20,000 square miles (or a bit smaller than the country of Panama).
• Only ~1% of ancient Mesoamerican cities have been found and only 10% of those known cities have been excavated. In other words, we only have visibility to about .1% of what was, and that .1% is more focused on classical (after 100 BC) time period rather than pre-classical (2000-100 BC.
• The Book of Mormon ends with the destruction of the Nephite people, and the degeneration of the Lamanite people into constant war and destruction in a series of civil wars. Many archeological evidences may have been destroyed.
• There is some evidence that the family that came from the old world came into an already populated new world, and mixed with them culturally and physically.
• Archeology cannot support the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, which doesn’t have some of the same challenges as Book of Mormon archeology.
• Absence of evidence is not, and cannot, be confounded with evidence of absence.

With those principles in mind, let’s start with old world archeology. The Book of Mormon actually starts in Jerusalem and follows a family’s exodus South, and then East until they come to a land they call ‘Bountiful’ because it is lush. There they build a boat and cross the ocean to the New World. On their trek out of Jerusalem they name valleys and rivers and most notably, they come to a place that is already called Nahom. In trying to recreate their journey, not only is it consistent with the Frankincense Trail which would have been in use at the time, but there is a confirmed region called NHM (Nahom) that fits perfectly with their journey. Bountiful also used to be called out as an anachronism (no one thought lush lands of fruit and honey were anywhere on the Arabian Peninsula), but there is also a matching place in current day Oman for such an environment, which would also be exactly where we’d expect to find it based on the description of the family’s journey!

When the Book of Mormon was written, it was harshly criticized for being full of anachronisms (things that cannot be there given the time and place the story takes place): armor, old-world steel, large armies and warfare, metal money, writing on metal, names like Sam, Josh, Rameumptum, and many more. Since that time, it has received even more scrutiny and additional anachronisms have been cited: additional animals, weapons, war tactics, locations, cultural practices, names, grains, and more. The Book of Mormon critics have called out 205 anachronisms over the last nearly 200 years. But as time moves forward and additional discoveries are made, anachronisms are resolved. Of the 205 that have been levied, 140 have been fully resolved, and an additional 25 are trending towards resolution, leaving only 38 (or about 20%) that have not been resolved.

Keep in mind that about 100 of those 140 resolutions have come in the last 50 years. We found evidence of steel swords in the old world, we found Israelite writing on metal plates, we found evidence of many names in both Hebrew and Egyptian cultures (like Alma, Nephi, Shazer, Jarom), we found evidence of several foods and grains in the new world (like barley, corn, grapes, salt), we found evidence of Jews writing in Egyptian, and on and on. All of these things would have been considered silly for Joseph Smith to put into his historical Book of Mormon at the time of writing it. The ‘lucky genius con-man’ theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon starts to look shaky under the weight of all these lucky guesses. And we didn’t even talk about Mulek.

Another challenging anachronism is the Deutero-Isaiah theory, which suggests that latter portions of the book of Isaiah were written after 5th century BC (after Lehi’s family left Jerusalem), which leads some to believe the only way those Isaiah chapters could show up in the Book of Mormon is if Joseph Smith was just copying from the King James Bible. This is, of course, not the only possible explanation. It is possible, for example, that the bible scholars claiming multiple authors in Isaiah are wrong and it actually was all written pre 6th century BC (their biggest complaint is that Isaiah is prophetic which feels a bit like a red flag to me). It could also be that the Deutero-Isaiah theory is accurate, but that a Book of Mormon prophet that was writing in the plates received it by revelation and Joseph accurately translated it directly. Or it could even be that Joseph’s Smith’s translation, which we know was not an academic translation in a strict sense, was inspired to include the later Isaiah chapters to reflect the meaning and purpose God intended to convey with those ancient records.

So while it is true that we don’t have perfect answers to all questions of archeology and anachronisms (like we still haven’t found evidence of new world steel, or donkeys, or pre-columbian christianity or hebrew language or city names or Israelite DNA or dozens of other alleged anachronisms), we have seen quite a bit of evidence, and a firm belief in a historical and divinely inspired Book of Mormon is justifiable.

Does The Book of Abraham Hold Up to Scrutiny?

Like the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price is a (much shorter) collection of additional revealed translations from Joseph Smith as part of his divine calling as a prophet, seer, revelator and initiator of the restoration of the Christ's church on the Earth. What has become challenging for some (including me at one time) is The Book of Abraham, a book in the Pearl of Great Price. Joseph said the book was translated from papyri that he purchased in 1835. Included in the current version of the Book of Abraham are images from that papyri that don't seem to match the translation text (what we have today seem to be related to Egyptian funerary texts, not the story of Abraham). This, of course, has made me wonder: did Joseph just make up the translation of the Book of Abraham? If so, doesn't that pretty much guarantee he did the same for the Book of Mormon?

In my search for answers to that question I’ve leaned on PhD Egyptologist and faithful member of the Church, Kerry Muhlestein, who has published articles and written a book on this very topic, Let's Talk About the Book of Abraham: Kerry Muhlestein. There is also a wonderful gospel topic essay that explores the topic: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham). There are a few important points I’ll reiterate here (but you should really read his book if you are curious):

• We don’t know how Joseph used the actual papyri in translation. Other than our confidence that the translation came through the power of God, we don’t know if he may have used artifacts like the Urim and Thummim or his seer stone. It isn't clear if he was translating directly from the papyri, like what he did with the golden plates of the Book of Mormon, or if he was translating with the papyri as inspiration (kind of like what he did with the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible), or if there was a combination of these two methods, or even something else entirely. While he made some statements that suggest he thought he was translating directly, I also think it is entirely possible that he was not entirely clear what the Lord was doing through him.
• We only have a small portion of the papyri Joseph translated, and the missing pieces could have held a direct translation. If Joseph did translate the papyri directly, we still don't know if the few fragments of papyri we have are the source material for the translation, or if that was burned up when the majority of the papyri was consumed in the Great Chicago Fire.
• The papyri we do have actually do have ties to stories of Abraham and Moses. With the fragments we have, we know their origin is from a priest named Hor that was part of a group of Egyptian priests in Thebes about 200 BC. We also know there was a group of Egyptian priests in Thebes from around the same timeframe that were interested in the story of Abraham and Moses (they were essentially integrating religious tradition into their own spells/religion).
• Some aspects of Joseph’s translation are actually correct according to modern translations. While the interpretation of the facsimiles we have in the Book of Abraham don't seem to match modern Egyptological interpretations, there are actually aspects of Joseph Smith’s interpretations that match what modern Egyptologists say they mean. Some aspects are quite compelling, especially for Facsimile 1. Even so, they don't match broadly. That said, however, we don't know if Joseph Smith was giving us an interpretation that ancient Egyptians would have held, or one that only a small group of priests interested in Abraham would have held, or one that a group of ancient Jews in Egypt would have held, or something else. While there is a pretty good case for the idea that some Egyptians could have viewed Facsimile 1 the way Joseph Smith presents it, we just don’t know enough about what Joseph Smith was doing to be sure about any possible comparisons, or lack thereof.
• Joseph’s translation actually names historically accurate places and names. The Book of Abraham speaks of Jershon, and names it as lying along a route where an ancient city now known as Jerash lies. The likelihood that Joseph Smith would make up a name with a linguistic match in exactly the right place is pretty small. Similarly, the text speaks of an Olishem. Other ancient texts have since revealed the name of a place called “Ulishem” that existed during Abraham’s day. Ulishem and its geographic location works very well with the story told in the text of the Book of Abraham. Again, the chances that Joseph Smith could make up the right name in the right place are very small, but doing it twice is even less likely.
• The Book of Abraham contains some incredible doctrine and teachings. Perhaps most importantly, the Book of Abraham teaches and reiterates important truths about the Lord’s covenant to Abraham, about the importance of covenants, about the nature of God and his relationship to us, about our eternal nature and pre-existence, about the creation, and more. It is an additional source of truth and inspiration for many, alongside the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

I come away not just feeling comfortable that the Book of Abraham can survive critical scrutiny but excited about the new insight it provides in a complex and beautiful religious tapestry. My confidence in Joseph’s prophetic ability grows with my deeper study of the Book of Abraham.

How Does Enoch in Joseph’s Bible Translation Support Truth Claims?

As a final evidence of Joseph’s divine calling through his ‘translations’, I want to call out Joseph’s translation of the bible found in Moses chapter 6 and 7, right next to the Book of Abraham we just discussed. In these chapters, the story of Enoch, a biblical prophet only briefly mentioned in the bible (Genesis 5:21-24, Hebrews 11:5, and Jude 1:14-15) is expounded on.

At the time of Joseph’s writing, the 6th and 7th chapters of Moses would have been, to a critic, another unnoteworthy entry on a long list of wild ramblings of a religious con-man. In the critics’ view he was making up stories based on a little seed he pulled from the bible (very similar, in fact, to how critics describe the Book of Abraham today). That was the case until much later there were discoveries of the ‘books of Enoch’, including in the mid 1900s among the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Now the Books of Enoch are not canonized scripture, but if they are telling the same story (even if they have lower fidelity and spiritual truth), we would expect to find some similarities between what Joseph translated and the books that were discovered after Moses 6 and 7 were written. And we do. There are details in common that Joseph could not have known nor have had access to in the 1800s. For example, both books refer to Enoch as a ‘lad’, both refer to a person named Mahijah/Mahaway (an extremely unique name) and in both that character comes to Enoch to ask about dreams, and several story-line similarities like Enoch’s calling, secret oaths, calls to repentance, messianic teachings, Enoch being clothed in glory, battle to defeat the wicked and gather repentant, Enoch taken to heaven, etc.

To me the evidence is compelling, but the doctrinal insight is even better. Enoch’s story in Moses 6-7 reveals that the patriarchs, God’s ‘church leaders’, knew about the coming of the Messiah and His atoning sacrifice. In Joseph’s translation Christ and his atonement are at the center of the story, further strengthening the role and testimony of Jesus Christ as Savior throughout history and countering anti-Christian claims that Christ was no more than a man.

Joseph’s translation of Enoch’s story captured in Moses 6-7 strongly supports the truth-claims of the Church. When holding the evidences of the Books of Moses (Enoch), Abraham, and Mormon with their complexities, beauty, historical accuracies, resolved anachronisms, and doctrinal insights it seems at least as hard to believe the “Joseph as Lucky Genius” theory as it is to believe the “Joseph as Inspired Prophet” theory to explain them all.

Do Current Church Leaders Really Lead With God’s Authority?

I remember listening to Gordon B. Hinckley, the prophet leading the Church during my teenage years, and feeling like he was guiding me, personally, through my teenage years. He warned me about the dangers of pornography, he pleaded with me to cultivate a forgiving nature, and he urged me to stand a little taller. He even advised me to avoid gambling.

When our church leaders speak to us in general conference I am inspired. I feel those fruits of the Spirit that act like a little alarm bell, alerting me to the presence and influence of the Holy Ghost. I am energized and motivated to make changes for good in my own life and in my family. I’ve been listening to general conference for ~30 years, 2 conferences a year, 30-35 talks per conference. That’s almost 2000 talks, not to mention the amazing talks I’ve listened to from the past. So it is impossible for me to share every personally meaningful experience, but the summation of my experience has left me convinced that current church leaders really do lead with God’s authority for my benefit. Here’s just a few stand-out talks for me:

• President Nelson Introduces Home-Centered Church: Just before a global pandemic forced most of us home, the Prophet introduced us to this prophetic shift in programs.
• Sister Browning Teaches Us To Focus On Christ: An urging not to let religious performance get in the way of a relationship with Jesus Christ:
• Elder Whiting Warns Against the Second Temptation: A warning against the shame that follows a poor choice.
• Elder Oaks Teaches Good, Better, Best: An invitation to elevate our choices and choose what is best, not just whatever is good.
• Elder McConkie Bears His Final Testimony: A powerful testimony of the reality of Christ just days before Elder McConkie’s death.
• Elder Holland’s Broken Things to Mend: An affirmation of Christ’s ability to lift us out of our despair and brokenness.
• Elder Wirthlin Reminds Us Sunday Will Come: A declaration of hope that because Jesus overcame Death and Sin, our own dark Fridays will eventually turn to Sundays in Christ
• Sister Runia Emphasizes That Our Repentance is a Joy to Christ: A reminder that repentance is not offensive to Christ, it is joyful and our worth is constant.
• Elder Scott Instructs us Where to Find Truth: An exploration of usefulness and limitations of scientific and spiritual truth. This one is personally very meaningful - I felt it in my bones at the beginning of my journey through faith complexity.
• Elder Oaks Challenges Us to Become: A reframing of our goal in mortality to be about becoming like Christ rather than knowing something or demonstrating obedience.
• Elder Bednar Clarifies How We Might Experience Revelation: an assurance and instruction that often revelation comes like the rising of the sun, not a light switch
• There are so many others. But if Not, Tender Mercies, End From the Beginning, Let us Be Men, Infuriating Unfairness, BoM Witness, Music of the Gospel, Like a Broken Vessel, Pillars and Rays, and on and on.

Skeptics might argue that there is nothing particularly dazzling about these talks. No specific prophecy that was proven to come true or insight that changed the world in an instant. But prophets, ancient and present, have never been called to dazzle us. They have been called and given authority to point people to Christ and away from the corrosive influence of sin. The prophets in the scriptures have done that for me, as have the living prophets and church leaders in my life.

When Church Leaders Do Terrible Things, How Can I Believe?

It wasn’t until I was 18 years old that I heard for the first time of someone who was profoundly offended by the way one of their church leaders handled an issue. Since then I’ve seen many examples of family, friends, and others that have witnessed personally or publicly the failures of local and regional church leaders. They've suffered or witnessed suffering at the hands of these men or women: everything from rather innocuous personally offensive words and behaviors (like bemoaning yet another Jell-O salad at the ward picnic within earshot of brother so-and-so who brought the Jell-O salad), to unsatisfactory handling of challenges or complaints, to more insidious and deeply disturbing misdeeds like embezzlement, explicit hypocrisy, sexual abuse, and other abuses of power. And whether it was a party invitation withheld or an unspeakable abuse, these offenses lead some to question the validity of the gospel and church which we declare to be "true".

I do not stand in support of abusers. I reject abuse. And I reject it as representative of my faith, the gospel I believe, and the Church I attend. Offenses of all types, however, are an unavoidable reality of any organization (church or otherwise) on this Earth. There are tens of millions of church members (mere mortals), tens of thousands of bishops (also mortals), thousands of stake presidents, and hundreds of mission presidents and general authorities (again, still mortal) that are interacting with each other, making decisions, and exercising their agency every. single. week. I did some quick 'napkin' math, and it adds up to millions of exchanges every week, and perhaps billions of exchanges even in the last 20 years of the Church's existence. Given the fallen nature of our mortality and the frequent allure of inappropriate behavior from small to large (to get power, to satisfy lust, etc.), it is expected that there will be some extremely sad choices made - yes, even by those who say they are trying to follow Jesus and aren’t and those who are trying to follow Jesus and coming up short.

Could God prevent people from making those sad choices, or at least the people in the higher church leadership positions? Yes. He could. And I believe he does sometimes… but not usually. In fact, part of our unique faith is a belief that God custom-designed this mortal experience as a laboratory of agency, giving every human the freedom to choose whatever we will, whether it is good or evil. He will not suspend or frustrate that ultimate plan to protect us from heartache or hurt because He understands that our experience, even the hard and sad experience that may come at the hand of another, will ultimately do us FAR more good and bring us FAR more peace and joy because of and through the power of the atonement of Jesus Christ than protecting us now. Indeed, there is strong precedent for God allowing those who he calls and inspires to lead to make mistakes big and small (think of Nephi correcting Lehi, Moses being chastised for a lack of faith, David pursuing Bathsheba, etc.).

What’s more, Joseph Smith said it was the “nature… of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, to exercise unrighteous dominion”. So, in short, we can keep believing even when our leaders do terrible things because we know it is part of God’s grand plan for our eternal development to place us in an environment where true agency can be exercised by all of us, even our church leaders.

How Should LGBTQ+ Engage with the Church?

I was about 25 years old when I learned that one of the people closest to me, a hero of mine, was gay. They were active, covenant-making church members at the time, and continued to be for years after. When I was about 30 they left the Church. I was and still am heartbroken for them and many others in my life with similar challenges because I can see the pain they’ve endured trying to make sense of their identity. More difficult still is that some feel their pain was unnecessary, and was caused because of the Church’s doctrine related to gender and relationships. Some feel they suffered needlessly (and I observe that suffering is often exacerbated by imperfect church members and leaders). Some feel that the Church is like an abuser to them.

There is a lot I do not know about how people in the LGBTQ+ community fit into God's grand plan for His children. I want to know. I’ve consumed dozens of online discussions, blog posts, podcasts, and books from members and former members of the Church to try and learn more. I feel confident in a few things:

• God loves his children. All of them.
• No predispositions qualify or disqualify us from God’s eternal love for His children. That love is ever-present. All are alike unto God (2 Nephi 26:33).
• God judges justly, and He is merciful.
• God's expectations of us are directly proportional to the light and knowledge we have. The parable of the servants in Luke 12:47-48 is a powerful illustration.
• God values sincerity and integrity over performance.
• If we do our best to figure out what is right and do it, even if we misjudge, God loves our sincerity and the exercise of our agency more than numb compliance. Saul who became Paul comes to mind (Acts 9:17-21) as does the parable of the publican and Pharisee (Luke 18:9-14).
• God provided a mortal experience for us because He knows we have divine potential.
• Innate, divine gifts like being a peacemaker, finding reasons to be joyful, showing compassion, noticing overlooked people, giving sincere compliments, helping others know they belong, etc. should be valued, nurtured and developed. (Matthew 5:16; Doctrine and Covenants 46:8-11)
• God’s church on earth is still undergoing its restoration.
• “There is much more to come… wait until next year… eat your vitamin pills” - President Russel M. Nelson. I’m faithfully waiting for more light and knowledge.
• God has ordained the nuclear family.
• There is something divinely special about a family with a loving mother and father. It is incomparably good for individuals, communities, and societies. That truth seems confirmed by scientific research (like here, here, or in this article in The Atlantic). Therefore, seeking to (through political policy, entertainment, and societal norms) erase the unique role of mother and father working in sacred partnership will hurt us all.
• God has made it clear: sexual promiscuity does not lead to happiness.
• Sex is beautiful and profound… and it is sacred. Promiscuity cashes in on temporary pleasure at the expense of long-term joy. Alma encouraged us all to bridle our passions (Alma 38:12).
• God has set a pattern of providing deferred explanations to clear direction
• Maybe to maximize the benefits of an uncertain mortality God often provides explanations long after setting clear expectations for us. Even from the beginning: Adam and Eve admitted they didn't know why they were offering sacrifices in Moses 5:6.

Despite these comforting truths, if I were a member of the LGBTQ+ community I’d still have a burning question: what do I do about it right now? For me, a heterosexual male, it is comparatively easy to wait for answers, but for many in the LGBTQ+ community it can feel like life or death, and leaving the Church may feel like the only viable option.

I don’t know what the right answer is for what to do about it right now. In studying dozens of experiences of members and former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I’ve found that some in the LGBTQ+ community find immense satisfaction and joy in staying and fully participating in the Church, finding peace in a celibate life focused on profound, non-sexual relationships, while others discover joy in a mixed-orientation marriage relationship. Still others participate to the fullest extent possible in the Church while they are in gay relationships, and many others (I don’t have the numbers but I assume it is the majority) leave the Church behind, at least for a while.

While I believe that the maximum peace and joy is found in following Christ no matter our predispositions and I want everyone to get along, hold hands, and sing kumbaya, I understand the need some feel to step away from the Church, and as they do so in sincere pursuit of truth I give them all my grace and love and trust God does the same as they exercise their agency to do what they feel is best. My prayer is that their pursuit of truth ultimately yields more understanding and joy for them, and my view of this life and the afterlife, informed by this church and religion I love and enabled by Jesus Christ, affords me the freedom to assume that these very complex challenges can be set right (even if not right now).

Are Women Set Up For Success in the Church?

My daughters a few years ago started making observations like, ‘why do only boys pass the sacrament?’. As a young man in the Church, I think it was easy for me to not think about the fact that the Church's governance system is primarily male-led. Offices in the governance of the Church (priesthood offices) have been assigned to only men since the restoration. Only men are authorized to perform priesthood blessing and most ordinances. Because of that stark contrast in roles and responsibilities and the Church's reiteration of differences between men and women, many women have been left feeling disrespected, diminished, controlled, and undervalued. And what's worse, there are men in leadership positions who subscribe to a (false) belief that their responsibilities in church governance underline a truth that women are not capable of contributing meaningfully to leading. Many of these even well-meaning men paradoxically revere women on the one hand and ignore them on the other.

There are, to be fair, many leadership positions for women in the Church including leading primary, young women, and relief society at the ward, stake, and global church levels. Most recently apostles have reiterated the necessity for leading through councils, which elevates the input of women leaders, and there has been what to me seems to be a conscious effort to balance the male/female roles in the ward leadership council (for example, they have removed the high priest group leader, the young men's president, and the ward mission leader from those councils). Furthermore, some language and practices within the Church have altered the verbiage used to describe women's roles to be more inclusive and empowering, and in a talk given by Dallin H. Oaks in 2014 General Conference he said, "We are not accustomed to speaking of women having the authority of the priesthood in their Church callings, but what other authority can it be?"

But those changes and assurances do not erase many of the challenges some women feel, and I can sympathize with that, especially where imperfect people are exacerbating an already tender area of concern. So we have to be better as members of the Church, especially us men.

If you want (far more valid) opinions from powerful, faithful women, here are a few that I really respect:

• The Church prioritizes and honors Women. (Jasmin Rappleye)
• What Do LDS Women Get (Sherri Dew)
• The Vision of Divine Potential for Women (Shima Baughman)
• Women in the Church (Barbara Morgan Gardener - she wrote a book, too)

Each of these women share their experience in the Church in an overwhelmingly positive light. And why not? In our church communities women experience less abuse and sexual violence, lower poverty, less divorce, longer lives, and higher reported well-being. They are taught they’ll become rulers and queens. They are taught that Eve was a hero. We are far from perfect, but even imperfect it is working beautifully for many women who are not only set up for success, but thriving and flourishing in the environment of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including my wife and my mom (although you should ask them, not me). Like with some of my questions about LGBTQ+ community, I will continue to trust what I know as I wait for more inspired direction.

But Why Do I Stay, Actually?

Up to this point, I could have titled most of this essay “Why I Don’t Leave”. And that is not trivial! The way the restored gospel, its historical roots, and the people involved throughout hold up to scrutiny over time is impressive and prevents the door to faith from slamming shut in my face. But it isn’t necessarily why I optimistically choose to walk through that door every day. It isn’t really why I stay.

So why do I stay? For the last two decades I have pursued a parallel path, simultaneous to the investigations and explorations of my questions that I’ve shared earlier here. It is this parallel path, the other side of my exploration, the experimentation upon the words of Christ as taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the careful observation of the fruits of those experiments, that have laid a foundation for my ongoing faithful participation in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In other words - I stay because I have lived it and I really like what I’ve got. I’ve experimented dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of times with study, prayer, meetings, testimonies, meditations, lessons, temple attendance, conversations, parenting, and more that were influenced and informed by the teachings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. In those experiments I have found peace and joy... Not as the world giveth, but as Christ giveth.

As an example of that peace and joy I wish I could somehow share with you… transfer your consciousness into my body for a moment or record a feeling and play it in your mind, or somehow show you what it feels like in our family when we want to follow Jesus and strive to exercise faith, repent, and strengthen our relationship with Jesus by walking a covenant path; when we behave like we know where we came from and why we’re on Earth; when we participate fully, willingly, and joyfully in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… when we are all sat around our dinner table on a Thursday evening sharing, as part of a Come Follow Me discussion, a profound feeling of belief or discussing God’s plan for us or understanding how to do His will concerning us.

It is that feeling of peace, wrapped in comfort, gratitude, and enlightenment, and supported by wholehearted love that is almost overwhelmingly joyous. It is the almost ever-present, subconscious unity and purpose our family feels day in and day out... those are feelings I’d share with you in answer to the question: why do I stay? When the profound and unique truths of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ come together with the practical practices of His organized church on Earth (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) it is clear to me that the fruit of discipleship to Christ and His Restored Gospel and Church is good. Said another way, this is the most fulfilling, joyful, peaceful, light-and-truth-filled existence I can imagine and I cannot find or conceive of anything better anywhere on Earth.

I am amazed by the truths that are wholly unique to our restored faith: I lived before I was born. I have Heavenly Parents who I can aspire to become like, and they are actual embodied beings that are personal - they weep with me. This life I’m living on Earth is part of a grand plan from those all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving parents that has been custom-designed for my benefit and development. Those loving parents, in partnership with a loving Savior (Jesus Christ), have a plan that is so merciful, so expansive, so complete, and so inclusive that it can “save” even those who are ignorant of it or unable to embrace it in this life without frustrating God’s justice or law. That saving can include living with my family - my wife and kids, my parents and siblings - together forever as we learn to become like our Heavenly Parents. The heavens are open still, and while I can learn much from ancient scripture, I have modern day leaders who are God’s mouthpiece: modern day Moseses and Noahs and Peters. The heavens are also open to me personally and I am invited to seek personal revelation through the Holy Spirit. Christ invites me to follow Him and develop a covenant relationship with him through authorized priesthood covenants in holy temples and then to extend access to those covenants to all those who have ever lived. I have an extended canon of scripture that includes the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. And the list goes on. I’m convinced there is no belief system as complete, profound, revelatory, self-consistent, logical, hopeful, or illuminating on the planet… Nothing even close.

I want to share my reasons for staying because I want others to feel what I feel. Preventing the door to faith from slamming shut on people who might be thrown off by secular explanations for our existence, or the suffering of mortality, or shame, or perceived weirdness in church history, or the Church’s position on LGBTQ+, or the role of women in the Church, or any other number of doubts is worthwhile! And keeping the door to faith propped open by recognizing the intellectual evidences from the Book of Mormon and the ennobling doctrines taught in revealed scripture and through modern prophets and sharing those experiences that build faith is important to me!

So What Happens Next?

We each make a choice. We might choose to ignore our questions or their answers. We might choose to scoff at things that seem silly to our 21st century sensibilities. We might choose to refute or argue or even rage. Or we may choose to nurture a desire (or re-nurture a forgotten or fading desire - or continue to nurture a mature faith) to know that this is all true: We may choose to read, study, and pray about the Book of Mormon and other revealed scripture as well as more modern prophetic counsel; We may choose to incorporate what we learn in our lives and the lives of our families; We may choose to engage more deeply with church programs, callings, service, and invitations; We may choose to go more frequently to the temple; We may choose to follow the prophet’s counsel more closely; and we may choose to pay attention to the fruit that effort bears in contrast to what we are getting now.

Some of us, after considering all the evidences and counter evidences might think, "The mental gymnastics here are exhausting! Isn't it easier to just say it was all a bunch of weird-y 1800s religious fervor that really means nothing at all and move on with our day (maybe with a fresh cup of coffee, some short shorts, and a swear word to get us going)?" To that I would say, hold your horses, buckaroos. One thing my process of posing tough questions and seeking answers has taught me is that a sincere seeker of truth is in for mental gymnastics to believe the Church isn’t true and requires just as much flexibility as the seeker who believes it is true. That's right, we're all going to have to become mental gymnasts, so we better slip on our mental yoga pants and start stretching, because while truth is simple, finding truth can be complex.

And speaking of yoga, the critical claims against the Church are an ever-shifting, changing landscape. I did not intend for this essay to address all of the potential accusations (I mean, we didn’t talk about Jaredites and the tower of Babel, why we can’t find the box that held the plates, the Strangite Apostasy, changes to the D&C, being saved ‘after all we can do’, church finances, etc.), nor did it highlight all of the potential evidences (we could have spent time on Joseph’s education and speed of his translation, Joseph’s families’ reflections on the type of person he was, parallelisms/gradation in the Book of Mormon, beautiful poetry in Nephi’s psalm, the internal fulfillment of Book of Mormon prophecy, etc.). But in addressing both the critical claims and the evidences that we did, I hope it is apparent that the door to belief is WIDE open if we choose to walk through it by faith.

And as one who came out the other side of this search for truth as a believer, I like to remind myself that my non-believing or former-believing friends and family have every right and deserve every grace and all the love from me in giving them their space (perhaps notwithstanding our occasional, inspired, gentle, loving invitations) to exercise their agency and sincerely choose based on their conscience and understanding of what is true. My hope is they will put at least as much thought and scrutiny into believing whatever they choose as they do into not believing. And, ultimately, we can have the confidence that God will make it right in the end through Jesus Christ, our Savior, and by way of His eternal plan for all of us.

What Are Some Faithful Resources for Tough Issues?

There are hundreds of faithful resources articulating the beauty of the gospel and defending The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ truth claims. I don’t believe any of them can prove “the Church is true”. But I do think they can clarify truth and/or defend against anti-church claims of proof the Church is not true and therefore hold open a space for faith. I’ve included the resources that have resonated most with me below. Most of them include references to even more resources.

Resources to Better Understand and Appreciate the Restored Gospel:

• The God Who Weeps - a book that explores the unique beauty of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. This gave me new appreciation for what is special about our theology. Highly recommend the audiobook - Sister Fiona Givens has an incredible voice/accent!
• The Continuous Atonement - A reminder of the good news of the gospel - the hope we have! I especially was drawn in by chapters 6 and 7 that explore the role of our own effort and the justice of God
• Believing Christ - A re-examination of what it means to believe Christ’s promises to us in the context of the restored gospel. A message of hope and beauty.
• Follow Him Podcast - Each week’s “Come Follow Me” curriculum discussed by Hank Smith, John Bytheway, and a guest
• Church History Matters Podcast - A series of deep discussions of the church’s history during the early years of the restoration, part of Scripture Central.
• Come Back Podcast - A series of interviews of returning members of the church. Some were away because of addiction, shame, church history concerns, interest in mysticism, unmet expectations, and more, but all share one thing in common: they’ve come back into the church. A few highlighted episodes: Kelsea's New Age Theology; Austin’s 10 Year Faith Crisis and Light and Truth Letter ; Church Historian Don Returns After Having Records Removed

Resources for Approaching and Answering A Variety of Tough Questions:

• Gospel Topics Essays (churchofjesuschrist.org) - you’ve probably heard of these published by the Church. They are really pretty good, but they don’t cover everything and they aren’t as detailed as some would like.
• Faith Is Not Blind: Book by Elder and Sister Hafen (see also devotional) about choosing to believe to push through the “simplicity > complexity > simplicity” paradox.
• Faith and Beliefs Archives - Saints Unscripted which eventually became Beliefs Archives - Keystone (keystonelds.com) - this is a nice collection of explorations into challenges that are in a short-form video format for people with short attention spans (like me!). I find they are really good, though, and funny, too, sometimes 🙂
• Mormonr - A vast catalog of responses to tricky issues. They focus on primary source data and clear, unambiguous responses. Really well done for the most part - although the directness and simplicity of their answers has a tradeoff with lacking nuance and can feel a bit harsh.
• Evidence Central - part of the Scripture Central website, this is a collection of (mostly) Book of Mormon evidences that are amazing. Sometimes it is in response to criticisms but it also has a bunch of evidences that critics don’t talk about (because what critic wants to talk about amazing evidences)
• FAIR – Faithful Answers to Criticisms of The Church of Jesus Christ (fairlatterdaysaints.org) - a collection of scholars and hobbyists replying to tough church questions. Some of the responses are amazing and thorough, others don’t resonate as much with me, but I’ve found tons of good stuff here.
• Letter to a Doubter | The Interpreter Foundation - a short(ish) letter from a faithful scholar to those doubting. It’s heartfelt and gives some important assurances to those wondering if their faith is fading.
• The Interpreter Foundation - another broad resource for a collection of faithful responses to tough questions and collection of faith-inspiring scholarship

Resources Specific to a Doubt:

• The CES Letter
• A CES Letter Reply: Faithful Answers For Those Who Doubt | Book of Mormon Central - I don’t always love the tone of the author of this (he gets a bit flippant), but I love that he reproduces the content of the CES letter line by line. It is amazing how overtly biased and intentionally misleading the CES letter is - not honest questions but intentional faith attacks.
• dice1899's CES Rebuttal: undefined (reddit.com) - Even better (I appreciate the tone far more) and more thorough than the reference above, but not as easy to see the full content of the early edition of the letter directly which I really appreciate about the one above.
• Light and Truth Letter - I think this has the most content. Lots of great additional points. Some I’m not sure this letter nails perfectly but a ton of great resources linked and referenced and lots of thorough work.
• Dubious 'Mormon' Stories (interpreterfoundation.org) - an analysis of Mormon Stories podcast (which has been a powerful faith-destroying tool for many). Spoiler: it isn’t just honest stories from faithful members, it was for a long time cleverly and slyly anti-church and anti-faith, now it is more overt and less sly about it.
• Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Richard L. Bushman | Goodreads - A faithful yet unflinching history of the prophet Joseph Smith.
• Home - Joseph Smith's Polygamy (josephsmithspolygamy.org) - in my view the most accurate faithful exploration of polygamy. It doesn’t pull punches (i.e, it talks about all the craziness), but it also provides a faithful perspective. I read the book but this is a link to a website with some of the same content.
• Let's Talk About the Book of Abraham: Kerry Muhlestein. - a book from an amazing BYU scholar and Egyptologist on the Book of Abraham - the funny thing is I went from wondering if the book of Abraham was an invention of Joseph Smith’s mind because of the critics claims that the figures don’t match the translations to having a stronger testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet because of the stunning historical accuracies in the Book of Abraham.
• LGBTQ+
• That We May Be One: A Gay Mormon’s Perspective on Faith and Family - by Christofferson, Tom. - a book from Elder Todd Christofferson’s brother Tom, who has lived a gay lifestyle for most of his life and decided to come back into church and live single. There are no easy answers from this book, but I appreciated its optimistic tone and general affirmation of faith.
• Todd takes us through his story of same-gender attraction, addiction, self harm, and faith - A podcast conversation with Todd, a returning gay member
• A Walk in My Shoes: Questions I’m Often Asked as a Gay Latter-day Saint - a book from Ben Schilaty seeking to help others understand what it is to be a gay Latter-day Saint.
• A gay Latter-day Saint’s reason for staying in the Church - Ben on a podcast expressing his point of view
• Without the Mask: Coming Out and Coming Into God’s Light - a book from Charlie Bird describing the experience of a gay Latter-day Saint and the lessons learned through that experience.
• Christ transformed Julio's heart as he struggled with same gender attraction in the LDS church. - A podcast conversation with Julio, a member in a mixed-orientation marriage
• Faithful Anyway (Sit Down with Sky) - Youtube channel from a faithful member of the Church in a mixed orientation marriage discussing, among other things, how to help LGBTQ+ community in church from his perspective.