Unlike the 8 witnesses, we have the advantage of reading the translation of the plates. We can readily read whether we should baptize infants, be baptized ourselves, what the name of the church should be, whether miracles exist today, why there is evil, and the state of churches and people in the last days. Or we can obtain a doctrinal or mental understanding of gospel truths that makes sense. Like the 3 witnesses we can also have a spiritual, or supernatural experience whether large or small, that can witness to us of God’s existence and love. Shortly after my mission 3 handwriting experts claimed that Joseph Smith and his scribes did not write the BOM. I remember looking upward and saying “Well it seems they have a strong case, dear Lord, but if I have to choose between 3 handwriting experts and the power of God and manifestations I felt and experienced in the mission field, I am choosing the Holy Ghost and its witness every time. Six months later the handwriting experts and the minister behind them were discredited. Later I heard of 4 different versions of the First Vision. Fortunately I had a book on the subject and was able to read the accounts and additional information, such as that of Orson Pratt, who heard about it in 1832. Part of our difficulty is that we have agency, which is not just choosing the right, but not knowing or having all the answers, and oftentimes what the answer is. As Nephi said ” I was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand what I should do”. Oliver Cowdery found out it was not enough to just ask, but he had to study it out in his mind. ” Behold, I will tell you in your heart and your mind by the power of the Holy Ghost…” . In short, we need both natural and supernatural experiences and testimonies. The miracle of the restoration is that others besides the 12 witnesses have had manifestations and spiritual experiences.

After reading McKonkie’ s “New Testament Commentary where the Four Gospels are listed side by side, I was shocked at how much they differed, and seem to contradict each other at times. Scholars say that The Book of John has poor Greek grammar. If apostles and prophets were mere demographers I would be worried. But God does not do for man what they can do for themselves, and he allows them to use their own language to testify. Otherwise, Isaiah, Paul, Peter, and John would all sound the same.In summary, we need both a divine witness, and our own best efforts at study to have a strong testimony. Joseph had to study and ponder before the First Vision as do all the apostles, both ancient and modern.

SVBob, to be fair the mesoAmerican model does explain the geological catastrophe by volcanoes and earthquakes that fit broadly the time period. (Not all fit exactly and there is a certain uncertainty in dating eruptions) Jerry Grover’s “Geology of the Book of Mormon” goes through a lot of this. It’s not perfect but seems believable. I’d also say there are compelling reasons to think Lehi’s group merged in with existing groups so the DNA issue is only an issue if you adopt certain naive views of the Nephites being the only inhabitants of the Americas that were popular in the mid-20th century.

Fast forward a year later when I was at BYU. Within a couple of months, I was not at all sure that I had a “testimony” that matched all the check marks I was being taught comprised a “real” testimony. I was praying diligently for confirmation of things that had already been confirmed to me before, and it was not until I landed on the verse in D&C 6 where it talks about the Lord speaking peace to your mind, that I realized what had happened, & why I was questioning what I had already received.

Being a credulous and callow young man I said, “Good enough,” and went on the mission. So, long before DNA there were language similarities with the Mongols. There were dentition studies showing the Mongol relationship. Then, I realized that all of those geologic upheavals must have left recognizable scars. I recognized all of the inconsistencies. Then I mourned for Nephi, I still do.

But the book is still miraculous in its own right. Complex plot, biblically more or less consistent. Written by a kid in short order in a most miraculous fashion.

After many years passing I was telling my nephew, son of my non-believing brother, about the book. I was apologizing, literally, about the book. But K. stopped me short and told me that every religion has its founding myths. So there you are. The book is complex. Joseph did a miracle. Joseph moved people. I really like Joseph’s theology. In addition and on the whole I like Mormons. My life has been richly blessed by my association with the Church. I would not do it over again any differently, well maybe a little.

The book must be true enough.

And I have grown to recognize that quiet but commanding voice. So, if God does not require absolute truth in anything, particularly something so important, who am I to argue?

I would have tried to tell that young returned missionary all of these things, but he would have shrugged, like my son did, and not understood what I was saying.

Um, let me think. High social pressure to serve a mission. Groupthink. Conditioning. Shaming on the mission for expressing doubt or falling out of line.

“So how would you respond to the doubting elder?”

Dear Elder, let me introduce you to the sunk-cost fallacy, which is the baseless idea that you have to continue doing something because you put time, money, and effort into that something. Just because you served a mission does not mean that you have to continue participating in the LDS church. Don’t let believers browbeat you into submission. You are the only one who gets to interpret your feelings and experiences. If you feel that you have never experienced some spirit or god telling you that the Book of Mormon is true, then there is no reason that you should be LDS. Don’t let people pressure or shame you into being Mormon.

When I hear or read about this kind of experience I shake my head in disbelief. Why? Because my testimony of the Book of Mormon came easily. I have no doubt about the truthfulness of the claims of Mormonism. The Lord has been near to me for over 50 years answering prayers and guiding me. Yes, I have had many trials, temptations, and reasons to leave lose my faith, but I can’t because of the experiences I’ve been given.

Some struggle for a testimony and others are born with a testimony or acquire one quickly after learning of the restoration and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. The word of God teaches the following to help us understand:

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

It takes real courage and commitment to believe on the words of others. Many do. I wonder if would if I were required to do so.

But then again, I am quite opposed to the simple, linear “I know” culture we promote and reward. I believe in the power of Moroni’s promise, but also think we need to allow ourselves and others space to growth throughout a lifetime because doubt is a necessary condition of mortality. It’s what we do in spite of our doubts that may matter most. (Mother Teresa’s example seems to fit here.)

There are so many problems with the approach that a perfect testimony can and should be had by everyone in one week, in two years, and if not it’s their fault. Just pray harder, damn it! Not to mention the conflict the approach can create, the unintended consequences, when members who feel they must “know” perfectly (or felt they thought they did know) and then who battle cognitive dissonance whenever they question, challenge a conventional wisdom, experience doubt, or struggle to pull apart the conflation of gospel teachings and church culture or policy.

(…but more than history the young missionary didn’t know, I think his message to Elder Christofferson was about trust more than hidden history. This is the message Elder Christofferson failed to address and resolve.)

I think we rob ourselves and members of extraordinary spiritual growth opportunities by not promoting a culture that encourages and rewards more honest expression. Members should be able to say in quorum meetings or a Sunday school class setting, “I feel the power of the Book of Mormon. I believe it to be of God. Yet I struggle to embrace the claims of its literal historicity. Nonetheless, I am committed to my faith and continue to seek understanding, conviction and enlightenment.” I have yet to live in a ward where a member is viewed as being stronger and more faithful for this kind of honest expression. To the contrary, those who express similar sentiment are often viewed as weaker in faith, of thinking too much and as a question mark when it comes to consideration for important callings.

Despite the momentum the essays are receiving and how assessable they have become, I also know members who think the church is publishing the essays because *they have to…* I have heard in ward council some conjecture there must be some motive other than the publication of better history as the reason the church published the essays. As if trouble-makers won out and the church was compelled to respond, but really doesn’t mean everything it writes. Elder Christofferson could have done more to strengthen the young missionary’s testimony and validate the essays and better history the church is producing. I see the interaction as a missed opportunity, and even the counsel he gave to the MPs as a missed opportunity. The message could have been so much more.

Notwithstanding, I do think the momentum may be changing, at least in some areas. I’m encouraged by bobdaduck’s comments. I hope his experience is shared by others.

The issue as you report it seems to be a lack of knowledge of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon which is separate to not knowing of the various accounts of the First Vision which your response aims to address. In addition, you have conflated the issue of not knowing the truthfulness of something with holding doubts about something. This distinction is important as these states are arrived at differently and for the most part from different origins.

I’m partial to invoking OM’s use of 2 Ne 28:30 to generate reflection on a process the Lord uses to reveal truth; also Thor’s reminder of the Lord’s timing. From the report there is a sense that Elder Christofferrson’s response is overly insistent and not of the apostolic tenor of ‘…but such as I have give I thee’, unless that’s all he’s got.

That’s a really good point.

Apart from this, I like your response. As to Elder Christofferson’s, it is problematical on so many different levels that it would be irksome to enumerate them.

Second – in addition to your paragraph, I would add only a few thoughts:

“A church historian, Rick Turley, said his big worry was that members of the Church would study the history of the church too little. Read all you can find. Study it, and play an active role in the development of your faith. Then, remember the promise of the Lord, from the Doctrine & Covenants: He will reveal himself to you, but it will be in His own time, and in His own way. Be where you need to be, so that you will be ready for Him.”

The other scripture I refer to regularly is D&C 46:13-14

To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

With good reason we emphasize knowledge in the church. But I think we err if we assume that gift necessarily comes immediately for everyone.

I see no problem with examining how little we really know and then acting on that and waiting patiently for more. I don’t believe the testimonies of every person who testifies of the Book of Mormon, especially when they recite the trite phrases so common in the church.

That verse also condemns complacency and self-assuredness in the seeking of spiritual things, “and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.”

The third (show them the door) is inconsistent with Elder Christofferson’s statement (be sure they don’t leave without…), but “exit” is sometimes the message received by those folks who honestly try to do X,Y and Z (the Moroni 10:4 promise) without experiencing the promised result. I cannot believe Elder Christofferson meant the second, but it has often been the result. In fact it was demanded of missionaries in the language training mission in the era of memorizing and delivering 6 discussions word for word. Even then, however, I suspect the originators of that method began with the erroneous assumption that the missionaries already had sure convictions of the things of which they were required to state “I know…” Unfortunately for some, there remains in the Church a common insistence on certainty and an emphasis on following Moroni’s formula to achieve such certainty. Experience shows that either Moroni got it wrong, or he got it incomplete (he doesn’t say when the manifestation will come), or he was mistranslated, or has been widely misunderstood. It seems to me Elder Christofferson meant Christian’s first alternative, that his charge taken seriously could increase pressure for missionaries to behave as described in the second and, for those who do not achieve or have a sure conviction thrust upon them, ultimately to exit (the third) or learn to live with ambiguity and uncertainty and find other value in maintaining membership or participation in the Church.

Franklin, I’m of the opinion that a lot of the “19th century theology” likely isn’t but we read it through a 19th century often distorting what the text actually says. For instance reading Mosiah 15 through a lens of modalism or trinitarianism is hugely distorting. Throw in a slightly different context and you get very different readings.

As to “fulness of the gospel” I think we tend to muddle that as well conflating the good news of Christ’s atonement with a smorgasbord of doctrines that aren’t really the gospel proper. The New Testament scholar N. T. Wright when talking about how Paul uses gospel say it means “the good news that the crucified and risen Jesus is the Messiah of Israel and therefore the Lord of the world.” As Wright reads Paul salvation comes by the gospel but is not the center of the gospel message. So what would be missing? Well the idea that Christ appeared to nations other than the backwards province of Syria in the Roman Empire for one. Second Jesus’ victory over evil and the rescue of his people entailed all of scattered Israel. The way it was typically understood — especially in Lutheran Protestantism — was that it was merely a personal message of justification. The Book of Mormon put as center the literal gathering of Israel with Jesus as its king. That is the announcement of the good news. Finally the revelation of God in Jesus was the fulfillment of prophecy in a way that many had denied. That element, as they say, was the Book of Mormon establishing the truth of elements of the Bible.

Now of course there’s more to the Book of Mormon than that. But that alone is pretty important.