Dealing with the fallout

A lot of time has passed since my previous post, and a huge range of emotions. I'll try to keep it succinct, but I think if I take time to write more frequently I might find it helpful.


The last week in January, Jack's sister called a meeting to bring our situation out into the open, with the hope that it would eliminate questions and gossip sneaking around the family. His parents were out of town, but all of the (7) children came, along with 3 spouses, I being one of them. 


Jack read a statement he'd written so he could be clear, stating that we'd basically lost our ability to believe in the church, but that we love our children and our family and hope they can respect our decision. That took about 2 minutes at the most. 


The next part is really a blur for me. We were there for at least another half hour, if not longer, and they started asking a few questions. The very first question was, "Do you wear garments anymore?" What a stupid question. They asked if we were still going to church, and if I was still primary president. When I said yes, and that I wasn't ready to step down yet, things got really hairy. There was a lot of yelling, a lot of me crying that made no difference to their ability to yell in my face, and me somehow saying something one of my sisters-in-law found offensive, or maybe she did. I wasn't sure.  


Frankly, I can't remember anything between the first question and leaving besides about 3 sentences and the memory of my family (that I married into) shouting at me while I was breaking down. It's probably for the best that I've forgotten it.


___________________________


I wasn't actually ever going to post about that meeting, since it's really best if we just move on, but since my blog is really just for me, and I don't expect any of my in-laws to read it, I opted to post it because it's caused some serious long-lasting anxiety for me. This is the first bit of fallout I'm mentioning: anxiety.


It wasn't just that one incident that's been a nice catalyst. There have been a few emails or phone calls or whatever that furthered it along. There have been good moments with family along the way, too, and I'll post those as well, since they're important and precious to me. But it's the absolutely heartless comments that I can't understand that seem to find a permanent place in my subconscious, though I tend to consider myself a pretty forgiving person.


I know Jack is from a pretty passionate family. He, himself, is quite passionate. He doesn't really get angry with me, though he did from time to time our first few years of marriage, but he's mellowed out. When Jack's stressed, he's a little more prone to anger. When I'm stressed, I'm prone to internal self-degradation. It's a bad combination, so we try to be aware of the issue and only let one of us stress at a time, or do things to alleviate that stress. We actually do a pretty good job. And we get along splendidly.


Enter our present sphere. He's stressed, I'm stressed. Something stupid goes wrong and he's angry. And I'm withdrawn. And I can't deal with him being angry like I have been able to for the last 10 years because all I can think about is how I felt that miserable night a month and a half ago. I'm reliving it in my mind. They must hate me to treat me that way. How could they hate me? What have I done so wrong? 


And, actually, I have a lot more anxiety on a daily basis than anytime in the last 10 years.


This is pretty big fallout for me. I realize I need to get this under control, since it's self-destructive. It's not so out of control that it's affecting how I treat my family or that I'm depressed or anything serious like that. But it's enough that it hurts on a daily basis now.


I've started yoga, and I think I'm going to spend a little time each morning with that. It seems to help quite a bit.
___________________________


The next bit of fallout is my inner peace and spirituality. I lost my path, and now I have to make one all from scratch. I'm not really interested in someone else's dogma at this point, since that's what got me here in the first place, but setting everything up on your own is a daunting task for me. There are pieces I've learned from church over the last 35 years that I want to keep, pieces I want to lose. 


The thing is, this is very tied back into the whole anxiety thing. I know if I can maintain that peace (I'm not without it, but I'm not doing enough on a regular basis to keep it constantly), I can lose a lot, and certainly enough, of the anxiety. 


But where do I start? Prayer works for me. Some who have come to this point the way I did are agnostic or atheist and may think prayer is silly, but my thought is that if it has always brought me peace in the past, then why should it not bring me peace now, whether I have answers to questions about the nature of God or not? And it does, but I'm not always sure what to pray for anymore. I don't have the same set of beliefs as before, and I'm not even sure what exactly I do believe now. Not to mention my lack of trust in anyone telling me what I should believe. It's just something I have to work through, and it, unfortunately, takes more time than I'd like.


__________________________


This next bit is obvious: family relations. (I'm just talking about Jack's family in this post, because mine will get its own mention another time, as the situation is different and more unresolved right now.) Jack's parents are still out of town, but his mom has made it clear she loves him but doesn't really... I don't know. Doesn't like him, maybe? Jack has worked through some things with some siblings, and I had one send me a very nice email that I'll always remember late in the night after the family meeting. But I feel estranged, and even though I shouldn't care what anyone thinks, I wish I knew more decisively what they do think. 


Jack has two brothers that have been the exception: one goes to church sporadically, the other hasn't been in 12 years. The one that hasn't been in ages is married to a lovely woman who isn't LDS and has been a very supportive and dear friend these last couple of months. Well, much longer than that, but this has deepened that relationship.


Again, this is something that only time can fix. And people wanting to do the right thing, which I think we all do.

Thoughts on Polygamy

Last night I had a hard time falling and staying asleep. After writing yesterday's post, I was too disturbed from going over in my head everything I've learned about polygamy in the early Church. I hadn't even mentioned everything I knew.


For example, John Taylor, the third president of the Church, received a revelation in 1886 stating that the principle would, essentially, be in force for good now that it had been returned to earth. Also that too many people were neglecting to practice it. He doesn't use the precise term polygamy or plural wives in the revelation, though, so LDS scholars debate the importance of this revelation as pertains to polygamy. LDS Fundamentalists see it, however, as a declaration that polygamy will never go out of style again, not so long as man wants to enter into the highest degree of glory in the Kingdom of God.


Remember how I said one of the few things I had learned previously about the history of polygamy was that Joseph Smith was reluctant to practice the principle until an angel came with a sword and threatened to ruin him and the church if he didn't get going on it? Well, that's actually what he told several women when he introduced them to polygamy, that unless they married him his soul and the restored gospel was at stake. (I don't know if the angel said you have to marry 30 women or it's not enough, otherwise I would think telling one girl and getting one extra wife would be satisfactory. Seriously, how many wives do you need?) Anyhow, quite the pickup line. So apparently the angel visited him and told him the same thing before he approached each future wife.


At one point, Heber C. Kimball reprimanded missionaries for going away, converting, and choosing wives before they ever made the trip to Utah. Apparently this was an unfair advantage, as they could choose the prettiest for themselves before introducing the new converts to the church as a whole. I would pray for ugliness.


What's really haunting, though, are the stories. These aren't the pioneer stories we hear at church, and, in fact, I've read very few of them. The ones I have read, though, break my heart. Women disgusted with a system where close relatives marry, or young girls marry old men. Women who hated their husbands for what they'd turned their lives into, but had no way out.


Wives whose husbands died weren't given a choice what to do afterwards if Brigham Young decided they were to marry him, as in the case of Zina D. H. J. S. Young, who was married to a husband when Joseph Smith married her, then told she was to be married to Brigham Young after Joseph Smith died. Not only did she not get a say (though she was very devout and maybe willing to go along with it all), but her original husband loved her and mourned for her all his life.  This is what she said of polygamy:


Polygamist women "expect too much attention from the husband and . . . become sullen and morose. . . ." She explained that "a successful polygamous wife must regard her husband with indifference, and with no other feeling than that of reverence, for love we regard as a false sentiment; a feeling which should have no existence in polygamy."


I know. Sign me up. Who wouldn't want eternity with a perfect situation like that? I also found this story (page 147 if the link doesn't take you there). Clearly things weren't peaches and cream, and I should never have assumed they were. 


Somewhere in the back of my brain all these years I'd had this notion that sister wives shared work and children and learned to get along, since that was the way things were, and loved their husbands as well. And that their husbands were generally their same age. These stones I'd turned over told a different story, a very sad story that kept me up at night. Faithful, devout women willingly followed their leaders down unchangeable paths to lonely lives.


We're supposed to remember our legacy of faith in the Church. We're taught our history from Joseph Smith's birth until the saints reached Utah, and then more about other converts making the journey. We're taught about when Joseph Fielding Smith told us to have family home evening and Lorenzo Snow told us to pay our tithing. Heber J. Grant told us to work hard and keep the Word of Wisdom. And then we talk about today. But we always skip over those ugly polygamy years. We never hear those stories. I never did, anyhow. It's all so sad to me.


One last thing. Everything in the Gospel that has made me a better person has always inspired feelings of the Spirit within me. This was what I called my testimony. My belief now is that anything that brings you closer to God, within or without the Church, will inspire those feelings. But I never, never felt anything remotely sweet about polygamy. I didn't grow up hating it or thinking it was the worst thing on earth, but if it was such an important part of the eternal Gospel, I should have felt something good about it. The question is: who has?

Digging Deep: Seer Stones and Polygamy

At this point, I knew I'd reached the end of believing in most LDS doctrine. Here's the logical fallout:


If Joseph Smith didn't translate the Book of Abraham from the papyri, which he specifically stated he did, even kind of closely, he was not a prophet. Right? If he was not a prophet, then none of the restored gospel was actually a restored gospel, just one man's views on what a correct religion should be. Which means, especially, no priesthood, no doctrinal theology exclusive to Mormons (like the Word of Wisdom), and no temple ordinances. For days and weeks I looked for a good argument around that. Could he have been a prophet and just made a mistake? 


I really didn't want to make an error here and ruin my eternal salvation. I needed to investigate the prophet of the restoration in an objective way. In my digging, I decided to look at Joseph Smith's character based on his actions and words that were recorded by people who believed in him. Again, I chose careful sources to read. Documented, not embittered sources who stated facts that could be found in multiple places. 


First, the seer stone issue. There is not a single source that testifies Joseph Smith ever used the gold plates in the translation process. Sometimes there was a curtain drawn between him and the scribe, sometimes not, but no gold plates were ever stated to be in the room. Sometimes they were stated to definitely not be in the room. Instead, Joseph Smith used a seer stone, usually placed in a hat, to view the translated text. He said that he would see a segment of the Reformed Egyptian and then the translation in English next to it. 


Let's examine the issues I have with this.


1. If this is the case, why aren't we taught this history? Is it something to hide? It's clearly a more mystic method than just the thought of God giving him the light in his mind to understand the symbols, and we're taught that anything mystic is of the devil, so that's a bit of a conundrum and a good possible reason to hide this truth. Should we believe in mysticism, then, as good Latter-day Saints? Or only if it's from our prophet? That's how Joseph Smith started into this work. And, by the way, the LDS Church apparently still has this seer stone in their possession (see here, footnote 20, JFS). I guess it's what made Joseph a seer?


2. Apparently he didn't use the Urim and Thummim for translating the majority of the time, which can also be called seer stones of sorts. He used them for a while, but then returned to a stone he found in a well long before he got the plates because it worked better for him. And no, I'm not documenting all of this as I go along because that's not the point of this blog and you can do your own research. It's all over the place. But just comment if you need to know where I got any information. 


3. This seer stone he used for translating the Book of Mormon was the same one he used on several occasions to help others try to locate buried treasure to dig up, a common practice at the time because of old stories passed around. He was never successful. (There are court records stating he was a glass-looker, from when he was charged for falsely claiming he could find treasure. Somewhere between 1826-1830.) So if the seer stone works for revelations, why wasn't he able to get any treasure? If it doesn't, why did he use it to write the Book of Mormon. Confusing? Yes. A little infuriating, actually. Still, not grounds for dismissal by itself.


Next I decided to enter into the unpleasant research of polygamy in the Church. I've never cared for this doctrine, along with many other members, but had just chosen to ignore it, so I didn't know the full history. This is the whole of what I'd been taught: Joseph Smith had been given a revelation that said he needed to teach and practice polygamy, but he was reluctant (out of his love for Emma, most likely). He neglected this practice until an angel came with a sword and threatened to destroy him and take the church from his hands or the earth unless he started practicing it. Also, some women were sealed to him after he died.


So, to test my knowledge, I began reading. I'd accidentally stumbled upon this gem of a story in my early searching, but it seemed not only sensational but too unreliable to trust, so I hadn't weighed it in my earlier evidence against Joseph Smith. It's probably that article that got me thinking I should return to the topic. (By the way, there is insufficient evidence to absolutely state that Lucinda Morgan Harris was one of Joseph Smith's plural wives.)


Here's some of what I discovered:


1. Joseph Smith was married to between 28 and 53 women while he was alive (depending on the source), Emma Smith being one of them. There are records of marriages and sealings on the Church temple records, as well as affidavits by early members of the Church. Emma denied to her dying day (including on her deathbed) that Joseph Smith was engaged in polygamy, and stated, 

No such thing as polygamy, or spiritual wifery, was taught, publicly or privately, before my husband's death, that I have now, or ever had any knowledge of...He had no other wife but me; nor did he to my knowledge ever have.

She said she learned about it from Orson Pratt's 1853 book The Seer, 9 years after her prophet-husband had died.


2. The reason Emma Smith could possibly have been justified in saying this is that polygamy was only practiced in secret during Joseph Smith's lifetime, and by very few, and Joseph Smith publicly declared it to be a false doctrine several times to the general public. This statement was published in the Times and Seasons in October of 1842:

All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church, should be held sacred and fulfilled. Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again.

3. Some of Joseph Smith's plural wives were already married to other men when he told them he'd been commanded by God to marry them. By some, I mean at least 5. He also "tested" some of the Twelve by commanding them to let him marry their wives. When they finally agreed, he would tell them he didn't need to, but he'd needed to see where their loyalty was. (I always wondered why Brigham Young was known for doing things like this later and always found it despicable.)


4. Many of Joseph Smith's wives were teenagers when he married them, the youngest being Helen Mar Kimball, who was told she was ensuring the exaltation of all of her family. She was 14 and Joseph Smith was 37 at the time. Several other wives were 16 or 17 when they were married to him. Some were much older.


5. Some of Joseph Smith's plural wives were married to Brigham Young or other leaders in the Church once they traveled to Utah.


6. The general membership of the church was unaware of any revelation on polygamy until Brigham Young announced it at a general priesthood meeting in August of 1852. He said he had a copy of the 1843 revelation declaring the principle, but that the original had been burnt by Emma Smith, who he said was against the practice. 


7. Some LDS historians believe the revelation was actually given in 1831, which more comfortably precedes any polygamist actions by at least two and maybe seven years. However, this controversial (and as yet, to my ability, unsubstantiated) revelation declares that the leaders of the church ought to be marrying the descendants of the Nephites and Lamanites through the use of polygamy.


So, did Joseph Smith actually declare a revelation or write one down somewhere, or did Brigham Young pull one out of his hat to continue the practice that had begun? Why were so many 16 year olds the ones chosen of the Lord to be given to Joseph Smith? Why did he keep them all secret from Emma, especially when the 1843 revelation states that the first wife has to accept them (but also states her soul is damned if she doesn't)? Why did they all have to be secret when the members had already proven they would follow Joseph Smith and his teachings through anything? There's one story of Emma catching Joseph Smith "in the act" in the barn, and another letter of Joseph's (that was supposed to get destroyed) to one of his other wives, telling her to come over secretly that night if Emma was gone. Debatable evidence, but believable with the picture as a whole.


It was allegations of polygamy that led to Joseph Smith's death at Carthage. Someone had printed it, Joseph ordered that printing press to be destroyed, then Joseph Smith was arrested. 


Between the seer stones and the ugly mess of polygamy, Joseph Smith's character was obvious to me. He was obviously a religious man, raised in a family that believed strongly in God and in the Bible, but he got carried away with his own mysticism and power until it destroyed him and many lives around him.


I didn't wonder if there was a way for him to have messed up with the Book of Abraham anymore. That argument never made sense to me in the first place, but I felt the need to cover my bases. It's very emotional to decide against all you've ever been taught: temple sealings for eternal families, a prophet that speaks for God and guides us (nothing against the good, humble men who lead the Church today... most of them are just teaching us to be nice to each other and love God anyhow), an extra book that teaches us about Christ's ministry in the Americas, the comfort of knowing some of what was in store when we reach heaven, and what's going on there now. 


I was willing to give it up because I'm a firm believer in knowing the truth, but it was like being cut in half. Emotionally, that's what it felt like. So I dug deep. And I cried. And Jack and I talked a lot. And it was okay, even if it still hurt.

Grant Palmer

Christmas, honestly, was difficult. I'd just finished questioning my belief in God the Father and concluded that I still had deep faith in Him. The love I've felt from Him my whole life may be explained away by an atheist as an evolutionary good feeling designed to give us peace, but there was too much feeling on my part to believe that.

As further evidence, and because I've had siblings die that I've been sealed to in the temple (which was not something I could validate any longer), I started reading about near-death experiences. There are several doctors who have done serious studies on the matter, and some pretty indisputable experiences by the experiencers, witnessing things out of their body they couldn't have seen otherwise, learning things in the next sphere they had never known here on earth but were verified later. As sensational as looking to those experiences may seem, they brought me great comfort, and were certainly no more sensational than looking into a 14-year old boy having visions.


One thing I noticed in many lengthy NDE's was that the patient was met by family who had already died. This made sense, of course, that they would be with their loved ones in the next life. With or without a temple ceremony.


As far as our research goes, the next step we took was to borrow a copy of Grant Palmer's book, An Insider's Guide to Mormon Origins, from the library. He was the initiator of the speculative "Golden Pot" theory, and I wanted to check his sources on some things, which I knew could be found in his book. Palmer also seemed very anxious to continue going to church, having a lot of respect and love for its teachings. That sounded like me.


The first chapter in his book, which was in no way ever inflammatory but calmly written and very carefully documented, explained how the papyri Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham, part of the Pearl of Great Price, had been found in nearly its entirety and translated by modern Egyptologists in 1968. The translation can in no way be matched to Joseph Smith's translation. It is completely different, and the papyri are, in fact, funeral texts for Hor or Horus, who was presumably the mummy the papyri were originally discovered with. Apologists have little to offer as possible explanations, especially as Joseph Smith was so specific about labeling the three facsimiles, and also because Joseph Smith stated that the papyri were the written by the hand of Abraham. The papyri were determined (within and without the LDS church) to have come from a time period 1500-2000 years after the time of Abraham.


While the rest of the book is excellent reading, especially all of Palmer's well-researched ideas on how the Book of Mormon was written, the first chapter was the complete deal-breaker for me. I'd had questions to that point, serious doubts that probably would have been enough, but this was fact. I'm a logical being. Faith is important, but it doesn't contradict science, which is what would have been required here. (At least my faith doesn't, but I don't require God to have created the earth in 144 hours in order to believe in Him.) In essence, my testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet, and any possibility of it ever returning, was gone for good.


By the way, this book is easy to find at a lot of libraries, Amazon, my house, and (for the first two years of its published life) Deseret Book.

By Study, Part 2: Swedenborg and Recycling Stories

While my testimony and heart seemed to be cracking in two, I continued to read. Truth had to be the most important thing. Joseph Smith taught that we should seek learning by study and also by faith, which I was doing. I devoted so much time to studying from what I felt were well-documented, reliable sources, and prayed fervently that somehow all of these things could be reconciled and the Gospel as I'd been taught it could still be true.

The next thing I looked into was the possibility of Joseph Smith borrowing material from other sources. Clearly this was more speculative research, since anything I discovered would not be provable, but the purpose of this was to see if there were strong similarities between Joseph Smith's writing and the likelihood of his coming in contact with these other source materials.


Emanuel Swedenborg wrote several books on the nature of heaven in his lifetime, which were fascinating and convincing to many. He had many followers while alive and after he died (in 1772). Though he lived in Sweden (shocking, I know, given his name), his teachings had a strong following in the U.S.


Swedenborg had very different views than Joseph Smith on the makeup of the Godhead, as well as many other things, but he did advocate that there are three heavens, the highest being called the Celestial. The celestial heaven is divided into three parts, and you must be married to attain the highest heaven. There is a spirit world (or world of spirits) before entering into heaven. Additionally, little children who die go directly to heaven.


Joseph Smith had opportunities to learn about Swedenborg. As I said already, he had a wide following, so there could possibly have been followers in his general area. Notably, Johnny Appleseed, originally from Massachusetts, was a follower and missionary for the Swedenborgian Church, dropping information about him off wherever his travels took him. It doesn't take much effort to believe that if  a humble man from Massachusetts who was familiar with Swedenborg during the same time period, a humble man from upper New York would have learned the same information.


D. Michael Quinn, an ex-communicated historian who still believes in the validity of the LDS Church, discovered that a summary of Swedenborg's book was in the Palmyra library from 1817. (see here, footnote 27)


More information on Swedenborg and the relations to Joseph Smith's ideals, from an apologist, can be found here.


Further possibilities for Joseph Smith to have borrowed ideas include "The Golden Pot", a story from E.T.A. Hoffmann. I found this page, which I thought was very curious. The section entitled "The Cumorah Cave and The Golden Pot" surprised me. For one, I'd never heard that Joseph Smith claimed he'd seen a whole cave of treasure, just a lot of gold plates with the sword, Urim and Thummim, and Liahona. Though there are similarities between the stories, spelled out here, it wasn't the similarities that stuck with me; it was the new information on how Joseph Smith had described Moroni and early visitations from him, as well as the cave. It was all so disturbing for me.


I don't know that there's any real credit to the "Golden Pot" theory, but researching it just seemed to open more room for skepticism. Joseph Smith seemed to be more fond of telling stories in his early days than I realized. What did this mean?


For me, my faith was shaken completely. I didn't know that I could believe anything he'd said or written. But if I'd trusted him for so long, then what else was I wrong about? Did God exist and love me? Did He care, even if He does exist, what goes on with my life?


Fortunately, my faith had always been more centered in my Father in Heaven's love than in any earthly doctrine, because I'd felt it from a very young age, and continually throughout my life. Though I had serious questions about His existence, they were gone within a day. I wrote the following in an email to Jack:


"God in Heaven exists. He loves me. He watches over me. He speaks to me. I don't care if I do or don't become exactly as He is, and I've never cared about whether or not I can become a god. I do want to be more like Him. If you look at mankind, those that are happy or at peace are trying to emulate the attributes I believe are part of Him: goodness, truth, patience, compassion. I realize that if I were completely frustrated and decided against the Church, I would leave behind my pathway to be more like Him. Just as reading scriptures and praying on a daily basis help me in this quest, attending Church reminds me to do those things that are most necessary."

By Study, Part 1: Kinderhook, First Vision

The very next day, and for several days, I spent nearly all of my time researching. I managed to still feed our family, keep the house from falling to pieces, do laundry, and shop for Christmas, but it was all slipped in during breaks.

I've always loved really searching things out, gathering as much information as I can, and fitting it all together, but this was different. There was so much information, so readily available, but everything I ingested was difficult emotionally. I could see where things were going for me.


But let me back up and go slowly.


There were several important things I looked into in the next few days.


First, the Kinderhook plates, which I'd never heard of, though I think a great deal of members with a Church history fascination have. I found an explanation of what is commonly known and some information for further thought on mormonthink.com, a site that is open to all viewpoints on Church history and doctrine but put together by members, not by embittered ex- or anti-Mormon activists, which brings me to an important aspect of my search.


Really important note: I made sure that any of my research I did was on sites that are friendly to the Church, even if they don't agree with everything. I didn't want exaggerations by someone who'd been offended by past experiences. I also made sure that I looked at articles that were backed up, well documented with sound sources, or at least as sound as you can get, considering it all started about 190 years ago.


So, the Kinderhook plates did, in fact, punch a big hole in my bubble. After researching it more thoroughly, I had to concede that the stories weren't just lies by ill-intentioned people. Joseph Smith began a translation on plates that were made as a hoax. He didn't complete it, maybe because he didn't think there was any reason to, or he worried about a trap, or he'd made the first part up out of pressure and knew he couldn't translate the rest? So many possibilities, but none of them reflected well on my idea of what a chosen prophet of God would do.


If you're interested in doing your own research, the mormonlink.com page is a good place to go, especially because they have a links section at the bottom that connects to other sites both written by critics of Joseph Smith and by apologists defending the LDS Church.


Next came the various versions of the First Vision, which I'd mentioned I'd heard before, ever so long ago. Except maybe not in their entirety. In any case, I looked into them again, and I was surprised at a few really important things. For one, there's no mention of God the Father until 1838. I knew that before, which I thought was okay, really, because Christ is mentioned previously, and he was the main communicator in the version we learn at church. What I had failed to notice was that in at least a few of the accounts either in his personal writings or recorded as spoken to other, friendly members of the Church, he mentions that angels appeared to him and declared that Jesus is the Christ, rather than stating the Christ appeared to him. In fact, Brigham Young spoke of the first vision as including only an angel.


There are other significant issues with the first vision.
1. Joseph Smith said this happened in 1820, at a time of great excitement around religion in the area, and that his mother and other family members had joined the Presbyterian Church. There were, in fact, more converts to religions in the area in 1824-1825, when a revival was taking place locally, than previous years. From 1819-1823, converts were average to low. Additionally, Lucy Mack Smith and some of her children joined the Presbyterian Church at that time, after Alvin had died and they were looking more at organized religion. However, ridiculous as it seems, the idea that Joseph Smith may have claimed the wrong year and age that he had a remarkable, unprecedented vision of the Father and the Son is not something to ruin my testimony over. 


2. Joseph Smith said he was persecuted for saying he'd had this vision, but in fact he was a frequent and honored addition to a scripture study group at the local Methodist Church during over the next several years. (Grant Palmer)


3. In the official version located in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith says he came home and told his mom that he had found out Presbyterian was not true. Not only did she not mention this conversation in her biography, which (of course) featured a lot of important things about Joseph Smith's calling, but she doesn't mention the first vision at all. Again, that's not something that would ruin my testimony alone. It doesn't prove anything, but it doesn't help.


Apologists clarify (justify?) the changing accounts of Joseph Smith by stating he was bringing up different important points along the way, and understood it best after reflecting on it for 18 years, rather than somewhere in the first dozen or so. I have to agree with this analysis:

S. Dilworth Young was a senior member of the First Council of the Seventy, and one of the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It is apparent from this Improvement Era excerpt below, that Young was surprised to learn of Joseph's evolving accounts about the first vision and seems to indicate that Brother Young was somewhat distressed upon learning about this.  (emphasis added)

This statement is from the June 1957 Improvement Era magazine:

"I cannot remember the time when I have not heard the story,.concerning the coming of the Father and the Son to the Prophet Joseph Smith."

"I am concerned however with one item which has recently been called to my attention on this matter. There appears to be going about our communities some writing to the effect that the Prophet Joseph Smith evolved his doctrine from what might have been a vision, in which he is supposed to have said that he saw an angel, instead of the Father and the Son. According to this theory, by the time he was inspired to write the occurrence in 1838, he had come to the conclusion that there were two beings."

"This rather shocked me. I can see no reason why the Prophet, with his brilliant mind, would have failed to remember in sharp relief every detail of that eventful day. I can remember quite vividly that in 1915 I had a mere dream, and while the dream was prophetic in nature, it was not startling. It has been long since fulfilled, but I can remember every detail of it as sharply and clearly as though it had happened yesterday. How them could any man conceive that the Prophet, receiving such a vision as he received, would not remember it and would fail to write it clearly, distinctly, and accurately?" Improvement Era, June 1957, p 436

All these issues with the first vision are disturbing to me. Some, obviously, moreso than others, but taken as a whole they're unsettling enough to cause significant doubt. Not as much as the Kinderhook plates, but on top of that issue, the foundation is cracking. Seriously cracking.

Room

Thanksgiving came and went with light questions looming on the back burner, near the giblet gravy. They weren't big questions, and they didn't bother me. I actually felt pretty normal about where we were at that point, and well into December.


Jack, though, was quiet. It was a little unlike him.


Then one day when I was driving by myself, going to the library or something, I was just praying to Heavenly Father about the things we'd been going through. I knew Jack had something going on in his head, and that he needed to work through it. I took a deep breath and thought about my testimony. My very strong testimony. And I told Heavenly Father that I had room in me for all of this. Room for him to search out anything he needed to search. Room to listen to him when he needed to talk through things or bounce ideas out or ask for suggestions. Room to let him wander as far as he needed to wander. Room to love him all that he wanted or needed while figuring the truth out.


It was a small moment for me, but it felt like a big thing, like my heart was yawning and could afford any pain I might go through to understand the truth of the gospel. (Seriously, I had no idea what the pain would be like.)


Within a few hours, the kids were in bed, and Jack and I had retired for the night. We'd read a little, then we turned off the lights and laid quietly. After a few minutes, when I was sure Jack was asleep, he spoke up and asked if he could talk to me. Of course, I replied.


Serious concerns were going through his head about Joseph Smith. I felt calm and peaceful as I listened to him. This is what I'd said I was ready for, and I'd heard many stories before about Joseph Smith without being the least bit bothered.


Jack talked about the several versions of Joseph Smith's first vision. I knew those. I'd actually received a copy of most of them in a Sunday School class about 10 years prior. They were imperfectly matched, but I could accept that. The discrepancies clearly bothered Jack, but he was also very calm talking to me. In fact, everything he said sounded like a big sad sigh of relief, like he'd been stuffing it in for a while and it needed to breathe, but even in breathing it felt like a loss.


He talked about the Kinderhook plates, which were some fabricated writings a contemporary of Joseph Smith had come up with to see if he could trick the prophet into translating false documents. Apparently, Joseph Smith didn't get around to translating them but indicated that he was able to translate them fully but indicated in reviewing them briefly that they were about a man who was a descendant of Ham and Pharoah. I wasn't deeply concerned by this, either, because 1. Joseph Smith didn't translate them, and 2. Someone may have lied and said that Joseph Smith had proclaimed they were translatable.


Jack mentioned that there was another man, Emanuel Swedenborg, who had written about heaven having three degrees of glory, the highest being called the Celestial Kingdom, whom Joseph Smith may have certainly gotten ideas from, as Swedenborg's book was in the Palmyra library while the Smith family lived there.


Also, though I'd known for my whole life Joseph Smith was a FreeMason, I was unaware that he became such just two months before he introduced the temple endowment ceremony, which we all know and accept has many similarities to the Masons. I didn't realize they were so closely tied together.


That last two piqued my attention. The two previous concerns had depressed me a little, either because they might be valid or because there were people lying about Joseph Smith, but the third was a disturbance. I felt serious unease, and it seemed my testimony at that point had received a serious wound. I expressed my sorrow to Jack; he felt the same way, and it was in his grief and concern that he'd spoken to me. I told him that I was going to look into everything on my own, that I wanted to read documented and historic accounts of anything that was a concern about Joseph Smith so that I could figure it out.


I knew what the result would be. There would be no clear references, and I would be able to help him come through this, come back to the peace of the gospel.

Coffee and Related Questions

About the same time we had the tithing discussions, Jack had been reviewing his life as pertains to the Word of Wisdom. Ever since I'd known him, he'd been fond of diet coke, along with half (maybe more) of the LDS population in the state of Utah. As demands on his time increased throughout our marriage due to family, work, leisure, and church, his consumption increased. He'd tried to cut back at times, but fitting in a good workout at six in the morning and not going to bed until well after the kids took its toll. It wasn't bad priorities, and he felt like he was getting plenty of sleep, but he'd get tired during the day. I'd guess he was consuming 44 - 100 oz. of diet coke on a daily basis.


Which isn't to say that a little diet coke is bad for you, of course, but closing in on 100 ounces?


Jack started investigating his habit. And while he learned that maybe a little isn't bad for you, so many unnatural things in his drink of choice were going into his body at large amounts. That didn't seem like a healthy alternative to the non-Mormon pick-me-up: coffee.


Perhaps wikipedia can explain it better than I, but consuming a cup of coffee per day, or two at most, is a generally healthy habit, perhaps slightly beneficial to your overall health, while there was little to nothing that seemed to be wise in drinking large amounts of diet coke.


Which led him to wonder: what does the Word of Wisdom really say? According to an official Church website, it's a law of health wherein the Lord commands us to abstain from alcohol, coffee, tea, tobacco, and other harmful or habit-forming substances, and promises blessings for obedience. Looking closely at the wording, though, it's not a commandment. It's definitely an advisement, and, according to "BYU historian Thomas G. Alexander...while the original Word of Wisdom as a "principle with promise" was given by revelation, there is no evidence that any church leader has claimed a separate new revelation, or even a spiritual confirmation, of changing the Word of Wisdom from "a principle with promise" to a commandment.^"


Joseph Smith apparently encouraged members to follow the law, though he himself did not. Brigham Young informed the saints they needed to make sure there were tea and coffee in their rations for traveling across the plains, or they would not be able to succeed in the journey. Additionally, Young's concerns with the word of wisdom lay more with purchasing from "gentiles" rather than consuming forbidden goods. Prominent members of the church consumed coffee into the 20th century.


Heber J. Grant, however, chose to clarify the matter and made the "forbidden" aspects of the Word of Wisdom mandatory for temple qualification in 1921, just one year after the United States enacted Prohibition. Heber J. Grant had the privilege of enforcing the Second Manifesto on polygamy during his time as apostle and president, and could possibly have been concerned that the Church was losing its identity as a unique sect. This, at least, was one of Jack's ideas. Setting the members apart from the rest of the world by permanently abandoning alcohol, tobacco, tea, and coffee could reinstate that identity.


That was the first really confusing aspect, the part about whether or not it's a commandment. Next came the line "wheat for the man, and corn for the ox,  and rye for the fowls..." We'll stop there for now, because rye is not for fowls. It makes them sick. It inhibits growth, and possibly leads to infections in fowls. So. This is slightly confusing, since Joseph Smith received this revelation from God, who would know the health risks of feeding rye to fowls. At least, it surprised me, at a time when I didn't doubt anything I'd been taught.


Lastly, the line continues, "...and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain." Do you know of any mild drinks made from barley? To back up for a moment, let me quote from earlier in the revelation. "That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good.... And again, strong drinks are not for the belly." So strong drinks are wine or liquor, is what I'd assume from that wording. Their alcoholic content is above 10%. So mild drinks made from barley or other grains? That would seem to me (and others) to mean beer. (Not that it tastes good, anyway, but that's beside the point.)


Modern LDS leaders have taught that the Word of Wisdom's counsel to avoid strong drinks includes all alcoholic beverages. It's unclear when exactly this concept was originated, but it was definitely by 1921. 


So this brings us to an important question. Assuming the church is true, Joseph Smith was an amazing prophet who received enough revelations to apparently suffice almost entirely by themselves for the next 200 years in a church led by a prophet. How many revelations since then? At least one of the two polygamy manifestos. The distribution of the priesthood to all worthy men. Nothing else is ever called a revelation, just counsel, right? So should we believe that Joseph Smith's revelations were from God and perfect? If so, why the rye for fowls and the allowance for beer?  If not, then how does that work, for a prophet to receive revelations from God that we still follow and that are 1. harmful to fowls and 2. not the way we follow it?


And so the questions start coming.

Tithing

President Hinckley was pretty difficult not to like. He often spoke of finding ways to be a little better, try a little harder. He emphasized personal revelation on all levels in the Church and individually. He was pleasant to listen to and made you feel like he was just talking to you like a normal person would, not like someone sent here to correct us or dictate to us.


I always liked his message on seeking personal revelation; it's always been important to me to pray to Heavenly Father for my own welfare and aid, temporally and spiritually. When Jack has had questions, I've encouraged him to do the same thing and appreciated him doing this.


November was a month of realization financially. We'd had a crazy year with a lot of changes and things going on (obviously, nothing unusual for a lot of people this year) and felt like we were doing okay, but a closer look revealed that no, in fact, we were not. In fact, in adding up our necessary expenditures every month and comparing them to our income, we saw that we were a wee bit short. By a wee bit, I mean enough that we couldn't just pull that out of grocery store money. However, that was comparing our expenses with our post-tithing income, ten percent less than we originally brought home.


Let me say just a few words on tithing. We've always been full tithe payers, from the moment we married. I think both of us were full tithe payers before that, in all of our adult lives. I had one year that was a little short several years before I married, but that's all. If we pay our tithing, we won't be burned at the Second Coming. That's a nice blessing. And Heber J. Grant, that great promoter of this principle, told the story of how he would pay his tithing in advance based on how much he needed to make to meet his needs, and he was always blessed with that much. (Of course, he was a very hard worker, too.) It's been a big part of our lives and a pretty big part of our faith, at least in showing we had some.


Jack told me that he'd been trying to figure out what to do for our finances. He works hard but gets a salary, so can't just change the amount of money he makes. We've both been happy with me staying at home with our kids, taking care of them. (At least, he didn't mention any possibility of me finding a paycheck, which I appreciate.) He said he'd spent a lot of time kneeling in prayer lately, and the only thing that he can figure is to stop paying tithing. After extensive prayer, he felt good about this decision, completely at peace with it.


Years ago, I'd been stressed about family finances. I'd prayed a lot about them then, as well, and I felt very strongly that I needed to let Jack just take care of them and not worry anymore. Just trust him. That doesn't mean I don't know what's going on most of the time, but I leave it to him to make it work. I remembered that as he told me his decision, as he made sure I was comfortable with it. I was surprised, admittedly, but I believed he had made a good decision, and a rational one at that, since there was nothing else to be done. I had no big impressions that we were going to hell, and I know God gave us brains to figure a lot of things out on our own. Just in case, Jack had taken a lot of time to pray about this decision, and I trusted that aspect, too.


Anyhow, we decided that for now we'd stop paying tithing. It was still a good principle, but we couldn't do it right now. We'd hope for a raise in the spring and then return to being full tithe payers. In the meantime, we'd paid everything through November, and tithing settlement was scheduled for the last Sunday in November. We could at least say we were full tithe payers for now, though I knew I wouldn't be comfortable going to the temple when we weren't, even if my recommend hadn't expired. Jack and I went one more time, just before Thanksgiving. It was nice.

Seek Ye Knowledge

Jack began reading voraciously. He's always liked reading, but he started reading a lot more books on science. Specifically, Big Bang, The Universe in a Nutshell, and other works that would increase his understanding of scientific thought and theory. I've always been a big fan of science (though my bookshelf is mostly literary fiction), and I was impressed with his appetite for knowledge.

Though I've never been an exclusive creationist, I was a little nervous as some of his book choices were geared more toward persuading belief in evolution exclusively and away from any form of creation. I've never thought they needed to be mutually exclusive, and I didn't know where his reading would lead him. For the most part, though, I just kept my mouth shut. He wasn't reading science fiction or asking mystics to lead him down the proper path to perfection. He was reading documented, tested theories.

Sometimes our conversations (which were frequent, almost daily) went like this:

Jack – Do you believe in creation the way it's written in Genesis. That it's six days?

Me – Six periods of time, probably. Not so much the six days thing, unless a day is a thousand years.

Jack – Bruce R. McConkie said it was literally six days, but that a day to the Lord was like a thousand years. Elder Nelson gave a talk in conference a few years ago talking about six creative periods. There's just too much science to think each part could have happened in a day unless a day according to Genesis is a billion years. So do you think that man was put here on earth in his finished form, or that he evolved from something else?

Me – No, the evidence showing other forms of pre-man-as-we-know-him-now is overwhelming . Maybe there was a progression, and then when he became the homo sapien we know now, God placed him in the Garden of Eden and gave him instructions. He had to come from somewhere, even according to God's laws, I would think. He didn't just become an adult from dust. He either was born here or on some other planet or sphere and put here.

Jack – So he could have just changed over time and then Adam could have just been the first fully evolved homo sapien?

Me – Maybe. I don't know.

Yeah, we have really frivolous conversations. Keep in mind that during the time he was evaluating the existence of God, Jack regularly asked me how I was doing and made sure I wasn't feeling unduly stressed by it all (with the recognition there's only so much stress he could take away). Also that I felt I could contribute any ideas or information that would help him.

As Jack continued his reading, his interest in the subject only grew. I read snippets of his books while laying next to him at night and understood his passion for science. It's not full of haphazard theories put forth by nomads with wanderlust of the mind. Brilliant people expand scientific studies in astronomy and gravity and quantum theory, and their findings are amazing and beautiful.

I felt fortunate when, one day, Jack told me he'd decided he had come to terms with his questions. He does still believe in God, and believes that He created this universe in some way that aligns with scientific thought and evidence. He doesn't believe that God intervenes in man's life, but that He wants us to be kind to one another and as good to each other as we can while here on earth.

How it first started, or the God question

My husband, let's call him Jack, and I were laying in bed one night after the kids had fallen asleep. He said he had some big questions he'd like to tell me about if I didn't mind him talking. I always feel like listening when he feels like talking, because I can never guess what's going on in his head.


"I don't know if I believe in God," is basically what he said. I'm not sure the exact wording, really. It shocked me, having never doubted, but it was more of the shock you get when you're not careful plugging something in an outlet, nothing more. Jack had struggled lightly with this question previously, once after my miscarriage and again as he watched family members with fertility struggles. "If there is a God, He's either random about whose lives He chooses to intervene in or He doesn't interfere with anyone at all."


Well, let me rephrase what I said about being shocked. It settled in like a very small buzz, but as the seriousness of his question grew, I felt a heavy weight settle in the middle of my chest.


The big problem was that Jack had a good point. We'd known so many faithful people that have been really sick and don't get any better. Or, if they do, it just takes the normal amount of time. Sometimes they die. We've prayed for a lot of these people, prayed our hearts out, alongside numerous others.


The other problem was that I knew God existed, and knew I couldn't prove it. We discussed the old argument that everything around us proves God is, but I quickly rejected that notion, having never adhered to it. I do believe that you can see God in everything around us, but you have to look with eyes already filled with faith. There are beautiful and scientific reasons for every creation; God being the origin of these creations is beautiful, too, but not always easy to recognize.


One of Jack's friends had told him a good story about why someone he knows believes in God. Actually, Jack's friend had heard it from his bishop, so I guess that means it's okay to pass around in sacrament meeting.


This bishop had been working with a circular saw at one point, but he'd been wearing his garments. The saw slipped and headed toward his thigh, but it fell away and didn't cut through his garments. That was the whole of the explanation, which apparently proved the validity of God as well as the truthfulness of the LDS church.


The querier responded that this explanation was insufficient; if the leg had been cut significantly but had stopped short of severing an artery, the bishop would have attributed that as a blessing from God and possibly the protection of the garments. If the artery had been severed but he had survived, again, it would have been a blessing from God. If, instead, the bishop had died, faithful loved ones would have said it was part of God's plan.


If any of the scenarios can lead to faith in God, then there is no proof that God was involved. You may feel grateful to God for any of those situations and be right in your love to Him, but they're insufficient in proving God exists or takes care of us.


As I listened to my husband, I had a mix of feelings: comfort in my faith, sorrow for his disbelief, compassion for his possible world without God, and, above all, patience for him to take what time he needed to sort through his questions.