I was fascinated by an article by the New York Times on an area authority from Sweden who struggles with some of the different questions regarding Church history, Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It seems like once a year there is some sort of ‘faith crisis’ article about the Church. I appreciated the tone, looking for answers, raising concerns while maintaining respect and even slight optimism for a resolution.

Personally, I put a premium on my own experience with the Church. No one can be completely unbiased in that regard. So I recognize that up front. I have had a number of experiences that, for me, solidify a basic framework for my life: that Jesus is the Christ and He called men to act in His name, organizing a Church beginning with Joseph Smith and as a I result, I have a deeper relationship with my wife and children and my fellow-man in general because of that Church and accompanying doctrine. Just as noteworthy, I also feel that over the years, I have been able to develop a personal relationship with God and His beloved Son. So as a ‘card-carrying’ Mormon (who, in full disclosure, is employed by Church-owned corporation) you can discount the rest accordingly…

Initial Reactions

I don’t find much difference between the name-calling and accusations launched at Joseph Smith and the Savior himself. Sorcerer, hypocrite, possessed, liar. He performed miracles that large numbers of people witnessed, but still there were those who found reason to object, and followed no more after Him. After a particular dissension, Christ turned to His closest disciples and asked honestly, ‘will you also turn away?’

To which Peter responded, ‘Whither shall we go? You have the words of Eternal life.”

It was this same Peter who had his own struggles with faith, doubt and fear. He denied the Savior, began to sink after walking on water, couldn’t perform a healing, and so on.

One particular passage stands out given the topic:

From Matthew:

¶And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute?

He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?

Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free.

Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Peter got in trouble when he stepped out in front of the Savior. It was a completely natural instinct to respond and speak in a way to appease these men and their questions. But as well-intentioned as it might have been, it wasn’t his place. As unpopular as it might have been the truth was somewhat controversial. Even so, the Lord respected Peter and allowed for him to learn from the experience. The Lord miraculously provided the tribute for Peter to pay.

Perhaps that could be compared to how Church history has been portrayed over the years. Perhaps as individuals, as a Church culture and somewhat institutionally there has been a natural desire to accentuate the positive while downplaying the humanity involved in trying to prepare for the Second Coming of the Great Jehovah himself. And like Peter, those individuals and as a Church culture perhaps some have stepped out too far in overly apologizing or interpreting the actions of individuals history, or stalling all together in having a crucial conversation about certain aspects of Church History.

Just as you don’t lead a first date with your mistakes, weaknesses and regrets, any individual or organization has a vested interest in telling their story on their own terms and perhaps some of that is at play here.

Having the Crucial Conversation

I remember when that conversation came with my future wife where it came time to talk about the past, regrets or mistakes (to her credit, I did most of the talking in that conversation). That comes at different stages for different people, but it comes and because we’re humans, we’re not perfect, it’s not always a comfortable conversation. It takes faith on the part of both sides to trust the process. The questioner must show faith by being patient, not jumping to conclusions prematurely and taking the other at their word. The respondent must trust that the other person won’t mock or ridicule or judge them.

I’m eternally grateful that Elizabeth didn’t prematurely end the conversation and heard me out. She was able to put those admissions from my past in context and more importantly see my true identity, my potential and what my hopes were for our future together.

That certainly doesn’t mean some of my past logic, choices, even current bad habits make any sense to her even now. There’s no attempt to excuse it, other than to demonstrate how I have grown and developed since that time. Gratefully, she has paid the price to know where my heart is and what direction I want to go, and together we’re making progress.

Applying this to Mormon Faith and Doubts

I think both the Church and the world at large are getting to a point where we can have this crucial conversation, where both sides have the faith and mutual respect necessary to start having these discussions on a larger scale. It’s here as a natural extension of the Mormon Moment and I’m confident that Church Public Affairs, Church History Department as well as the Brethren themselves recognize that this is an opportunity. But for this conversation to continue there is a shared responsibility by both parties to be honest about their own motives, as well as be patient and trusting of the other party throughout the process.

And if it isn’t too honest, my hope would be that as part of that conversation, misunderstandings will give way to more light, trust can be established, and that more individuals can find greater peace and happiness by living the fullness of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ represented by the LDS Faith.

As For Me and My House

I don’t pretend to know all the facts about the Mountain Meadows or Joseph Smith’s seer stone or polygamy or DNA evidence of the Book of Mormon … but it has never really been about the dwelling on the past for me, except as a point of reference to determine progress. It is about my future, and my family’s future. It is about applying the atonement of Jesus Christ, learning from the past and plotting a course for eternal life.

And for me, that means I identify the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as establishing a framework that will eventually become the Kingdom of God on Earth that Christ himself can come to and accept as His own. We’re not there yet, but I trust that is where the Church is headed and that is something I want to be a part of.

Thanks for reading.

I am solely responsible for this content. My remarks are not an attempt to express or infer the position of the Church in any way.