Don't you ever wonder if it isn't all just made up?

Put another way, do I experience crises of faith?

Yes, I do. Occasionally. But not very often.

One of the crises of faith I have experienced has to do with academic scholarship in the church. On occasion I have come across mediocre work by LDS scholars that attempted to shoehorn history in to a pro-LDS view, or to explain it away in a disingenuous manner. I remember one such work specifically; it was a text by a prominent BYU professor that set out to prove the events of the restoration using the prophetic texts of the book of Isaiah. While there can be no doubt that certain portions of the text point to events like the period we refer to as the restoration, there are some parts where he seemed to stretch some ideas pretty thinly, and twist them to the breaking point.

I do not say this to cast aspersions on BYU scholars. I think they are largely well-intentioned, and I don’t doubt that their credentials far outweigh my own. I have seen some truly well-researched and inspired defenses of our doctrine come out of the Neal A Maxwell Institute at BYU (formerly known as FARMS). But I have also seen some clunkers.

One thing that I am grateful for is that the internet has made these debates so much more accessible. Unfortunately, especially in the hands of young, untrained minds, these debates can also be dangerous. For example, when a mediocre piece of LDS scholarship is pulled apart by a well-credentialed and sometimes highly intelligent opponent, it can lead to a weakening of faith. In a broader example, popular, well-spoken cosmologists have made more than a few disciples for atheism, marching under the banner of science (or, at least, the banner of theoretical physics, which ironically borders in places on being a religion itself).

Occasionally we are accused of allowing faith to overcome that which is rational. When we cannot explain something, we file it in the mental cabinet of unexplained problems next to ‘supernatural’, and forget about it. “Blind faith”, they call it. I take issue with this. For some problems there is not enough evidence yet to make a decision. Certainly the current evidence may point us in a different direction, but unlike constitutionally-derived criminal rights, I do not believe that religion requires a ‘speedy trial’ of ideas.

F. Scott Fitzgerald said “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” In my view, opposing ideas do not have to inhibit the development of real faith. Quite the contrary; they are necessary to the process. The ability to exercise discipline, to bear a burden, to achieve a high goal, depends on our ability to withstand challenges over an extended period of time.

And then, in the case of gospel truths, we overcome all. Not only do those challenges eventually become the substance and outcome of our faith, but they become the fuel for withstanding future challenges. Remember pre-columbian horses and elephants? The church took an enormous amount of academic mocking for that claim in the Book of Mormon… and then when they were discovered the critics were more than silenced. Those who believe that today’s scientific “facts” are final and cannot be turned upside down are naïve or ignorant of history.

One example that troubled me at one time was our assertion that we believed in the “same organization that existed in the primitive church”. Not only were there titles listed in that Article of Faith that I did not believe existed in our church, my readings and understanding of the early Christian (Catholic) church seemed to not match up in many places. After struggling with it for some time, I submitted it to revelation, received a confirmation that the modern LDS church was in fact the order that Jesus Christ intended, and forgot about it. I reconciled it in my mind in part by recognizing that certain aspects of the church are programmatic and not doctrinal, and that some things do evolve; even in my own lifetime I can remember when there were Seventies ordained at the Stake level, and I can remember when Regional Representatives instead of Area Authority Seventies provided administrative leadership at the local level.

Recently, I’ve begun opening up some of those things again. Of course I haven’t solved everything (there are many things I’d like to learn and understand and reconcile in my mind). But I felt it was time to address some of these academically. Now, I have not even begun to dig deeply and I have already uncovered striking similarities that exist between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the primitive Apostolic church. Not only do they reconcile the church I know with the church that Christ established in his ministry, but they provide ample evidence that Joseph Smith was in fact working by revelation, because he did not have access to what I have today.

Access, through electronic publications and more widely, cheaply available texts, is only one of the things that has changed to make this transformation possible for me. The existence of some texts is also different; from the time of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls until the early 1990s (when I was in High School and College) those texts were not available publicly at all. The gnostic texts from the Nag Hammadi library were not available in translation until the 70s, and now scans of the actual Coptic texts are even available freely. Additionally, in the intervening years my understanding of language and history has changed. I can read a little Greek and a little Latin, and my fluency in the English and Spanish languages allows me to see the different possibilities that result from translation. And my understanding of the Church itself has changed dramatically as I have spent time much time in the Temple, served in higher callings and had access to some of the great leaders of the church, and as my reading has matured my perspective of church history.

What amazes me about this process is not that the church has been proven true. I already have a testimony – given by the Spirit and confirmed by research – of that fact. What amazes me is what the process of holding those ideas has done for me spiritually and emotionally. Holding those ideas over time has strengthened my resolve, tempered my emotions, and given me patience (a virtue that I had not ever planned on developing).

I am grateful for those things, not because they help me reconcile sterile academic questions in my mind, but because of their impact on my life. We don’t choose patient faithful endurance just so that we can determine whether or not the calling of “Evangelist” has equivalents in the primitive and modern church. We choose it so that we enjoy all of the blessings of fidelity and reap the benefits of faith and integrity in our marriages and children and work and community. My witness is that those blessings are real.

Mormons aren't Christians.

Really!?

Well, that's at least what's being argued about everywhere. One coworker mentioned it to me in an e-mail. He said "When did the Mormon Faith become non-Christian? I must have missed that day……"

I'm glad someone knows who we are.

Apparently having the words 'Church of Jesus Christ' in the church's name doesn't clarify that enough. Or the fact that never wanted to be called 'Mormons' in the first place because we think it detracts from Christ too much.  (I'd like to suggest that these 'real' Christians should stop calling themselves Baptists or Lutherans, or someone might wonder who they worship.)

The fact that Mormons claim to be Christian is not being questioned.  The problem is who gets to define what a "Christian" is.

The first argument of the protestants is that we are not 'biblical' enough to be called Christian, but when we point out our expertise in the bible (namely, that our 10-year-olds know the good book better than most protestant adults), or our considerably more devout adherence to its teachings (such as pre-marital virtue, Sabbath observance, and Tithing) they retreat to positions of doctrinal disagreements... but they choose those that they in fact even have among themselves:  Literal or figurative resurrection? Trinity or Father-Son? Grace or works? The arguments descend from major points of difficulty to the minor. Funeral potatoes or green-jello with shredded carrots on top?

I think their real problem with us is that we sometimes proselytize in their flocks (I've actually heard they accuse us of  'sheep stealing'), which means that they lose income to a church that seems to run fine without a paid ministry. Religion is a  comfortable way to make a living these days, unless you're Mormon.

If they ever saw me preach, they'd know where I stand on the question of who Christ is and what my dependence on him is.  But the non-Christian argument has reduced them to spending their time researching in the 100 year old diaries of obscure frontier mormons for snippets that they can argue with.

Is the Temple really necessary since the Temple Veil was rent at Christ's death?

This was a great question posted as a comment to the blog, and I thought I'd answer it here to give everyone the chance to read it.
Many Christians regard the rending (tearing) of the veil of the temple at Christ's death as a sign that the temple was no longer necessary. An understandable interpretation, without a context for temple worship. As the commenter shared, she believes that "God tore the Temple veil in two after Jesus died so that the common man can come to Him without ceremony". 

Simply put, I do not interpret the veil as representing the whole ceremony of the temple. I do not believe it was ceremony itself that separated us from God. I believe that the tearing of the veil symbolized Jesus overcoming the things that do separate us from God - namely, death and sin.  Without Jesus' sacrifice, we would not be able to overcome that separation.

The temple ritual was a progressive ceremony, which symbolized man's return to God.  The opening in the veil simply meant that man could now complete that journey, thanks to Jesus. If you've ever read about the ancient temple ritual, you might remember that there was a part of the temple that the Jews were generally not allowed to enter.  In my incomplete understanding, the rending of the veil ended that restriction.

Now, the protestant aversion to ceremony is understandable.  In parts of the old Catholic church, the authority to effect necessary ceremonies was abused and used to oppress at times, and the Protestant Reformation was in part a response to that abuse, for example, in charging for baptism or last rites. The protestant recognition that faith and grace, not ceremony, are what return us to God are comendable and admirable. 

I view the ordinances, the ceremonies from baptism through the temple rite, and their associated covenants (promises) as gifts from God necessary to direct us in our progress towards obtaining grace and becoming fully devoted disciples. 

Didn't you know there is scientific proof that the Book of Mormon is false?

I love science. I've taken university courses in biology, genetics, archaeology, astronomy, geology, anthropology, and so on - and enjoyed them all, despite their occasional challenges to the doctrines that I center my life on.

Unfortunately, I am not, in fact, a scientist. I don't have all of the tools to evaluate the science behind each of those arguments against my faith.  I have read many refutations by prominent LDS scientists, which are equally or even more (when viewed with faith) convincing.  But I can not claim the credentials to give a proper response to each argument.

One of those arguments, that the Book of Mormon is disproved by genetic research, is trumpeted around my town by a local Pastor (also not a scientist).  Doesn't it seem hypocritical for a person of faith to denounce another's faith on a scientific basis?

To those self-proclaimed Christians that are participating in that criticism, I would love to ask:

1. If scientific "proof" were produced by genetics, carbon dating, or archaeology that apparently undermined the Bible, would your faith be diminished? (Hint - such proof does exist, and abundantly.  Mormons aren't the only Christians being attacked by critical 'science'.)

2. If scientific "proof" were produced by genetics, carbon dating, or archaeology that supported the Book of Mormon, would it build your faith? (Hint - such proof does, once again, exist, and abundantly. There is a wealth of information that was unavailable to Joseph Smith buried in the Book of Mormon, that has now been substantiated scientifically. And it comes from additional disciplines too - astronomy, physics, linguistics, and so on.)

Ironically, many of those proofs supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon sprang from "infallible" scientific research that, just a few years before, seemed to contradict its authority.

So, my dear argumentative friend, I would be careful about trumpeting your objections too loudly, lest science - so much more fickle than faith - should turn on you.

The critic's version of science first loosens the skeptic's shoelaces as it rejects the Book of Mormon, then trips the feet of those who hoped that God still speaks to His children in modern times. Next it reduces the Biblical account to the status of mere mythology, and loosens the belt of moral authority as it repaints the prophets as fanatics. Then the whole person is laid bare. The seeming liberation from the restricting clothing of organized religion then exposes its practitioner to the elements, and no protection is offered from the shame and bitterness that plague the human condition. Finally its victim, shorn and unshod, is unable to flee from the real enemy of the soul.

Today I watched the final flight of the Space Shuttle Program, STS-135.  I can remember seeing its first flight in 1981, on a fuzzy (CRT?) television at school. I remember watching the Challenger disaster, live as it unfolded on television. There was a touch of nostalgia today as I watched, this time in High Definition over the internet, the orbiter lift one final time from Cape Canaveral. I am sad to see it end. But science will march on and evolve, and so will my love for it.

However, those things that have already withstood the test of time and criticism, those things that resonate deep within my mind and heart, those things that consistently produce the kinds of outcomes I want in my life, they will outlive science - eternal, unchanged, evermore.

Are Mormons Allowed to Wear Jewelry?

Easy: Yes.  Now, if you read only one more thing today, skip to the italicized paragraph below.

Boring Paragraph Here:
However, men are discouraged from piercing their bodies, and women from wearing more than one set of piercings.  I suggest two possible reasons: One is we try to treat our body with respect because they are a gift from God. The other is that we try to maintain a respectable appearance because the reality of things is, that our ability to influence others for good can be limited by an appearance that distracts people from our message.  Mormon or not, I recommend this to you; you can argue for the ideals of tolerance and non-judgemental-ism all you want, but in most cases a tattoo or a nose ring is still a check against you in a job interview or a new relationship.

Now, on to the bigger, more interesting issue: 
Are Mormons Allowed _____?  People like to define religion in terms of its negative space - Jehovah's Witnesses can't have a blood transfusion. Catholics can't eat beef on Fridays during Lent.  Where I grew up, the Lutherans traditionally gave something (anything) up for Lent too.  Some injunctions are specific to subsets of a religion. Catholic Priests can't marry. Moslem and Mennonite Women can't go about with their head uncovered. And so on.

So pervasive is the 'definition by exclusion' approach to understanding a theology, that pretty soon the groups do it to themselves. Ask a Mormon Teenager what their religion means, and they might say "No Smoking or Drinking". If they feel bold, they might mention prohibitions on extramarital sex, or sports on Sunday.

Shouldn't a religion be defined in terms of what it does for and to you positively?

It's no wonder that the world views religion generally (and Mormonism especially) as prohibitive.  But what do we gain for these exclusions? Is it limited to the vague and seemingly unprovable promise of escaping from Hell? Or is there more to it than the threat of spiritual death?

In my view, Mormonism is a liberal religion. It believes in widespread (not exclusive) salvation. That's why we baptize for the dead - because while we believe that baptism is required, we believe that you don't necessarily have to have been Mormon to get in to heaven.  Along with that liberal approach to salvation, we believe in good things on this earth. We believe in education: in the Doctrine and Covenants, given by revelation to Joseph Smith, we are commanded to learn history, languages. We are expected to dance, to sing. We are commanded to eat wholesome herbs, fruit, meat, grains, and to enjoy them with thanksgiving. We are expected to marry, to enjoy marital intimacy, to rear children.  Modern prophecy adds to the list: planting a garden, wholesome recreational activities, and so on.

I cannot help but feel that my life would be empty if I had followed the path the world prescribes for me; I would have missed out on the greatest things in life.  I have many beautiful children, I speak different languages, I have seen the world, I cook good food, I play piano and read good books. I have restful Sundays  and associate with many good people.

Of course we have commandments. They are designed to protect the most precious gifts in life.  They prevent us from trading the big blessings for little thrills.  You can ruin a family with infidelity.  You can ruin a college education with alcoholism. You can ruin a friendship with dishonesty. No surprises there.

But I am not defined by what I 'cannot' do.  I am the sum of the good things my religion has taught me to become.

What's with the Kolob thing?

Sigh.

The short answer is:
Kolob is another word we use (occasionally) for the place where God lives.

The long answer is
Kolob is a star that is close to God's world.  We believe that God, a glorified yet physical person, has a glorified (yet physical) home, and the star there (like our Sun) is called Kolob.

The word sounds funny because it comes from Egyptian (I think). It comes from a book that Joseph Smith translated that we call the Pearl of Great Price.  The Pearl of Great Price is special because it contains a less garbled (freshly translated) copy of Moses's account of the creation than what has been passed down to us in the Old Testament, and it has some additional information about Abraham.  But I can't recall the word Kolob ever having been used in a talk or lesson.  It appears in one hymn, which we don't sing very often.

Apparently, Abraham was a really smart guy, and it appears that God revealed to him a little more about science and math and astronomy than we typically teach in church.  That extra knowledge is briefly touched on but not expounded.  Intellectuals in the church have tried for years to unlock additional knowledge through this snippet of scripture.  Some of them have proposed some weird theories (although, who knows, they might be right).  But these do not constitute the core and accepted doctrine in the church -- any more than the mystics or super-intellectuals in your church represent the minister or the Pope.

The great teaching that I have taken away from this handful of verses is that God wants his children to learn about lots of things, and if I am sincere and obedient, God will reveal to me things that are sacred and not available to the world, just like he did for Abraham. (And God will likely tell me to keep it between Him and me, so they won't be posted on my blog. Sorry.)  The sun and moon and stars were created to bless us, and to remind us of God, and since God's knowledge is Endless, I assume there are some things that he can teach me about Math or Astronomy or how to do my job or rear my family, if He sees it as helpful to my salvation and progress.

Do you really believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

I've never heard it taught that way in church.  But I suppose that you can see it that way - sort of.  You see, we do believe that we all lived together before we came to earth, and we were one big family.  Some of Heavenly Father's children were rebellious and decided to try to lead us astray.  They became the devil and his angels.  

So the important doctrine (and the one we do teach in church) is that Jesus is our older brother.  We acknowledge the existence of the Devil (or Lucifer, or the adversary, or Satan, or whatever name you'd like), but we try not to spend a lot of time on him.

Also, since Lucifer's decision to rebel cost him his inheritance and place in the Kingdom, I think he's been effectively disowned. So I guess, technically, he is no longer our brother (Or Jesus's). 

The doctrine that Lucifer is a fallen angel is, by the way, based on the Bible.  Isaiah 14.

Now, good Christian, let me put it back to you.  Where do you believe the devil came from? Was he created by God?  Is there anything that was not created by God?  Did God create evil? 

You see, no matter how you answer this, it creates logical problems - and opportunities for me to distort your beliefs.  Which I would not do, because my focus (and the teachings of the church) are centered on a loving God who is our father, and we are his children.  Most of the complications come from this thing that Mormons call "agency" - the right to make decisions, which God gave to his children to help them.  It is where  the struggles with faith come from. You can distill this and many other questions back to this one: Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen like war and suffering? It takes an understanding of the whole plan (and believing that there is, in fact, a plan) to address the hard questions.