An Honest Declaration of Faith

"Sometimes we act as if an honest declaration of doubt is a higher manifestation of moral courage than is an honest declaration of faith. It is not! So let us all remember the clear message of this scriptural account [from Mark 9:14-24]: Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another. But if you and your family want to be healed, don't let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle." —Jeffrey R. Holland, "Lord, I Believe," April 2013 General Conference

I was an inquisitive child and things haven't changed much.

I tore apart the details of pretty much anything my parents told me. I'd ask questions and follow-up questions, digging so deep on so many topics that I'm sure it exasperated my parents. I've always felt an innate desire to understand the world and culture I live in.

Questions about our church—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—naturally crept into the conversation. I saw polygamists on our family tree and wondered why some people called our church "racist." I asked about it, but not because I thought our church wasn't true, but because I had faith my questions would always be answered, at least to some degree. I also understood the need for an occasional leap of faith.

So when I came across this article from the New York Times last week, I was interested. It's the story of an LDS General Authority in Sweden who came across what he considered troubling information about the history of our church. I also read this article from BYU-grad-turned-Newsweek-reporter McKay Coppins—a response to the article about why these questions didn't shake his faith. This post is my way of adding my voice to the conversation.

Apparently, there are a lot of people in the Church who know very little about our history. And that's OK. It's not necessary to our salvation to understand the thousands of names, dates, places and events that make up the millions of volumes of recorded Church history.

But while the Church could be more transparent as a whole, we can't make the mistake of assuming Church leaders are trying to hide anything. The Times article mentions "warts" from Church history that "just weren't talked about [or] ... mentioned in church periodicals. That was policy."

The fact that something "just isn't talked about" doesn't mean it's secret. All of us have things from our past we'd rather not mention on a first date. But Church members have kept painstaking records of nearly everything that's happened since the Church was organized—and even before that—and they are all readily available. The Joseph Smith Papers project is the perfect example of that. Anyone with an Internet connection has access to Joseph Smith's personal writings, records of his revelations, original documents regarding the Relief Society and other aspects of organizing the Church, and even his personal business transactions.

No, our Sunday School lesson manuals don't lead out with the most complicated, difficult aspects of Church history. But that can hardly be condemned, especially when our church has more than enough restored truth to keep us improving for a million lifetimes. And we have access to materials that can help us in our search for answers on our individual paths to understanding.

Do I think we could all be a little more transparent? Yes. Are the youth of the Church more capable of understanding difficult concepts and uncomfortable situations than we think they are? Of course. Should there be more room in our dialogue for tough questions, soul searching, and fervent prayer concerning difficult matters? Absolutely.

In my own search for understanding, I have received answers to my questions. Some of my answers are definitive in my mind—"case closed" kinds of things. Some of my answers have led me right up to the edge of the light and required from me leaps of faith. But I have come away satisfied and with a burning testimony of the truthfulness of God, Jesus Christ, and Their restored Church and its unlearned founder Joseph Smith.

With that, I want to look at the specific questions addressed in the Times—questions that we wouldn't normally draw attention to, but since they're out, I guess we'd better discuss them:

• Why does the church always portray Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon from golden plates, when witnesses described him looking down into a hat at a "peep stone," a rock that he believed helped him find buried treasure?

—My first thought was, "We're worried about artistic interpretations?" In that case, I have some questions of my own: Why is Nephi frequently depicted as a 30- or 40-year-old man, when the scriptures indicate he was "exceedingly young" (1 Nephi 2:16) when those stories occurred? Why are oxen depicted frequently in paintings of pioneers crossing the plains when the majority used horses? And why is Lucy Mack Smith relatively tall in movies about Joseph Smith, when his mother was in reality very, very short? Sometimes artistic interpretation is just that.

But I'll stick with this question and admit that I've wondered about it before—not because of the artist's interpretation, but because the documented descriptions of the way Joseph translated the scriptures paint a peculiar scene. As I understand it, he even came to a point where he didn't have to look at the plates in order to translate them. That's pretty incredible stuff.

But we have to take a step back. Joseph Smith had very little formal education and certainly was not an expert in ancient American linguistics. If we believe he could translate The Book of Mormon by the power of God—which I absolutely, positively believe—what difference does it make whether he did it directly from the plates, with the aid of a seer stone, or while standing on his head? You can believe he translated it or you can't, but we shouldn't get hung up on the method when considering such a big claim.

I know Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon through the power of God. I also know I could never pretend to be smart enough to know exactly what that looked like.

• Why were black men excluded from the priesthood from the mid-1800s until 1978?

—My niece asked me, my mom and my dad this question a year or so ago. She was probably 13 and really bothered. So was I, when I found out, and it still bothers me—especially when I meet the people my husband served with during his mission in South Africa. But I've done a lot of studying about it, and though my answers are in no way complete, they help me understand perhaps a little bit of why God—whose thoughts are higher than our thoughts—let this be.

The account in Matthew 15:21-27 bothered me in the same way, the first time I read it as a child. Why is this Canaanite woman considered one of the "dogs"? What about the teaching in Doctrine and Covenants 18:10: "Remember the worth of souls is great in the sight of God"? Why was the gospel withheld from the Gentiles for so long, especially when there were apparently those who sought the truth?

In Acts 10, Peter—the senior apostle and prophet at the time—receives a commandment in revelation to take the gospel to the Gentiles. Soon thereafter, Cornelius becomes the first person to convert directly to Christianity without converting to Judaism first. Paul is later called to be a missionary to the Gentiles, who had been denied the gospel in the past but were now to be gathered in.

In 1978, Spencer W. Kimball—the senior apostle and prophet at the time—received a commandment in revelation to take the fulness of the gospel, including the bestowal of the priesthood, to black people. Later, the Church sent thousands of missionaries (including my husband) to teach the people of Africa, who had been denied that blessing in the past but were now to be gathered in.

I don't know why the gospel went to the Jews first, then the Gentiles, in the meridian of time. And I don't know why it went to Europeans first, then blacks, in this dispensation. But I do know the situations are similar, and both changes took place following the pattern of revelation to prophets.

This is where I take my faith and leap. I believe that the Lord had His reasons in both cases, even if they are unfathomable to my finite mind, and I have faith that I will understand completely in time.

• Why did Smith claim that the Book of Abraham, a core scripture, was a translation of ancient writings from the Hebrew patriarch Abraham, when Egyptologists now identify the papyrus that Smith used in the translation as a common funerary scroll that has nothing to do with Abraham?

—To be honest, I haven't looked much into this one. But I have read the Book of Abraham, and I believe it to be true. I will lead with that faith in my own search for answers. But for now, I will say this: I don't know about this one yet.

• Is it true that Smith took dozens of wives, some as young as 14 and some already wed to other Mormon leaders, to the great pain of his first wife, Emma?

—I was a bit surprised that people didn't know about this one. It's well-known that Brigham Young was a polygamist, as well as John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff (our second, third, and fourth prophets). The commandment was given from God through Joseph Smith, who relayed the message to these men and others.

I've researched polygamy more than any of these other questions, probably because it bothers me the most. But if I've learned anything about it, I want to share it here where it can maybe help someone else understand.

A 10-minute search of Church History in the Fulness of Times (a manual written for teenagers and young adults who are studying Church history) led me to the story. Joseph Smith, as was his custom, asked God to clarify something he read in the scriptures. This time, it was about polygamy. He didn't understand how plural marriage could be justifiable, yet Abraham and others had practiced it under God's command.

The response that came through revelation was that God was again commanding it. Joseph was distraught, as was Emma, as were the other leaders he shared the commandment with. Brigham Young wrote of his feelings on the matter, which are recorded in Journal of Discourses, 3:266:

"I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time. And when I saw a funeral, I felt to envy the corpse its situation, and to regret that I was not in the coffin."

But they were obedient. The manual explains it all here, if you're interested.

But I haven't yet addressed my personal feelings about polygamy, probably because that's much more difficult than quoting historical documents. The fact of the matter is that it's a very difficult thing, and one that has troubled Latter-day Saints from Joseph Smith on down.

I have to think of polygamy clinically before I can begin to understand. I can't think of how I would feel if Ryan were commanded to comply, because the emotion of it all is too much for me to think clearly. But I know Abraham was commanded to practice polygamy, so it clearly does not disqualify a man from being a prophet (unless you don't believe Abraham was a prophet, which discounts four major world religions). And doesn't a restoration of all things—which The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints professes to be—include all revealed truth, at least for a while?

As for the women? It seems they came to grips with the doctrine. They even defended plural marriage against those who sought to end it, finally submitting with their husbands to God's revealed will that polygamy be discontinued. I find this chapter of Daughters in My Kingdom fascinating.

And let's not forget the words of the prophet Jacob as recorded in the Book of Mormon in Jacob 2: "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."

I know I can't answer all of my questions and yours in one blog post (lengthy as it may be). And I know I'm not going to convince anyone of the truth of the Church if they are determined not to be convinced. But I want to close with a thought from the brilliant C.S. Lewis, who didn't care for Mormonism but understood the fundamentals of Christian belief.

He asserted that, when it came to debating who Christ was, there were only three possible explanations: liar, lunatic, or Lord. He was either an evil man who came to deceive the people, or He was completely crazy and believed he was the Son of God, or He really was who He said He was.

The same can be said of Joseph Smith. He was either evil (which some believe), crazy (which some believe), or the prophet he professed to be (which I absolutely, positively believe).

With that foundation, leaps of faith become a little easier to take. Even for an inquisitive child like me.

(If you want to learn more about the basic doctrines of our church, visit Mormon.org. Or, better yet, you can ask your local missionaries.)