An Evening With A General Authority 2015

[Thinking]

On February 6, 2015, Jeffrey R. Holland spoke in the Salt Lake Tabernacle.

 

Link

 

Near the end of his talk, he gets very animated when talking about those who lose their faith.

 

The quote below begins at 50:50.

We’ve recently addressed a dozen or so of these issues in a series of essays, desiring to be both accurate and transparent within the framework of faith. Not all gospel questions have answers yet, but they will, and they’ll come. In the meantime, I have a question. What conceivable historical or doctrinal or procedural issue that may arise among any group could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming spiritual conviction regarding the Father’s merciful plan of salvation, His only begotten Son’s birth, mission, atonement and resurrection, the reality of the first vision, the restoration of the priesthood, the receipt of divine revelation both personally and institutionally, the soul shaping spirit and moving power of the Book of Mormon, the awe and majesty of the temple endowment, one’s own personal experience with true miracles, and on and on and on? It is a mystery to me – talk about a question – it is a mystery to me how those majestic, eternal first level truths so central to the grandeur of the whole gospel message can be set aside or completely dismissed by some in favor of obsessing over second or third or fourth level pieces of that whole. To me, this is in the words attributed to Edith Horton truly being trapped in the thick of thin things.

 

Is this an indication that the brethren are very concerned about the number of members who are losing their faith?

 

[Paddy]

I think the leaders are concerned. Although Elder Holland is fundamentally correct, I think he also might be understating the issue....at least in my observation.

A member is taught a version of history about the foundational versions of the church – (for example) the first vision and the translation of the Book of Mormon. The member's testimony is often received spiritually as a result of prayer based on the version taught about these truth claims. The person is taught that the Spirit testifies and confirms truth. When the person discovers a more nuanced version of these events, which in some cases conflicts with the official version, then an epistemological conflict begins. The person naturally asks: how can the spirit testify of something that I was taught was true when it was not really as true as I was taught? Did the spirit really testify to me or was it just wishful thinking? The doubt felt as a result of this questioning, coupled with a feeling of betrayal from the church, often leads the member to harbour serious doubt or loss of faith. I think that is how it unravels quickly.

[Boanerges]

As one who has returned from a faith crisis, I agree with Paddy and my experience was much like Paddy describes. My issues were more doctrinal than historical but the same principles apply - when something we've been taught in church our whole lives turns out to be very different than what we thought, despite perceived spiritual confirmation, it certainly can throw one into a tailspin and bring up other questions - essentially "If this may not be so and I have had the same spiritual confirmation about that, is that also suspect?"

 

That said, I do believe the brethren are concerned and I think that's what's behind the essays. Of late, I also hear more than just Pres. Uchtdorf saying it's OK to question. I think that's another sign. I have always seen Elder Holland as one of the more progressive on the issue, but based on the quotation above I'm not sure he understands it as well as I may have thought. However, I don't think any of the GAs really understand it and that's part of the problem. I really think it's hard to understand if one hasn't had the experience.

 

Is Elder Holland's presentation available on the church site or Youtube? It was billed as being something for seminary teachers.

[Buckeye]

Part of the dilemma is that many minor issues are inherently intertwined with core doctrines and traditionally the church has required an all or nothing confession of faith.

Can I believe in the power of the BOM but reject its racism? Can I accept the majesty of the endowment but reject the teaching that I stand between my wife and God rather than at her side? Can I rely on the restoration of the priesthood but believe that historical and modern exclusions from priesthood office are not directed by God? Can I teach the core doctrine of eternal families but maintain hope that same sex couples will be accepted eventually?

[Hamba Tuhan]

Is this an indication that the brethren are very concerned about the number of members who are losing their faith?

 

No clue, but thanks for sharing that quote. His words precisely echo my experiences.

[teddyaware]

Part of the dilemma is that many minor issues are inherently intertwined with core doctrines and traditionally the church has required an all or nothing confession of faith.

Can I believe in the power of the BOM but reject its racism? Can I accept the majesty of the endowment but reject the teaching that I stand between my wife and God rather than at her side? Can I rely on the restoration of the priesthood but believe that historical and modern exclusions from priesthood office are not directed by God? Can I teach the core doctrine of eternal families but maintain hope that same sex couples will be accepted eventually?

 

After participating on this board for a while, I must say that for purposes of peace of mind I'm very grateful I'm not a liberal Mormon. It must be frustrating in the extreme when one is barraged with a God in the scriptures who doesn't conform to much liberal dogma. i admire the fact that many liberal Mormons remain believing and active in the Church even though Church doctrine and even God himself seem to so often disappoint and even horrify liberal sensibilities. Surely, the emotional discomfort caused by having to live with this cognitive dissonance is the reason why some LDS liberals on this board zealously lobby for the Church to conform with the tenets of modern liberalism.

 

Although I can at times be somewhat of a contrarian, I'm truly grateful my conservative perspective allows me to be perfectly comfortable with the Church as it is (by this I don't mean to say there isn't room for improvement). I don't have the kind of nervous system that could tolerate the buffeting emotional stress of being in a constant state of cold war with my own religion. And beside this, as a genuine benefit of my conservative outlook, I have been open to receiving many personal revelations that have well-answered many questions liberal Mormons still struggle with without much hope of relief. 

Edited February 12, 2015 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Is this an indication that the brethren are very concerned about the number of members who are losing their faith?

I think they have always been concerned; that is part of the calling. I would say they are concerned that not everyone has a “consuming spiritual conviction” of those eternal, first-level central truths he mentioned.

 

Not everyone is as consumed with obtaining a “consuming spiritual conviction” as they are with other pursuits. Second, third or fourth level pieces can draw the attention as much as that which is forbidden. This is natural, and the adversary knows this and works on us every step of the way (the parable of the sower).

 

A “consuming spiritual conviction” may seem to be a tall order, but it is possible to obtain it over time. The Lord’s grace is sufficient for those who are willing to hold to the iron rod during that refining process.

[Duncan]

I think people either never really get a spiritual witness and drift or they bury them with a whole bunch of junk and so hopefully they can clear out the junk from their life and remember their testimony that they do have.

 

I remember this talk from Elder Marlin K. Jensen

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/04/remember-and-perish-not?lang=eng

[Storm Rider]

Part of the dilemma is that many minor issues are inherently intertwined with core doctrines and traditionally the church has required an all or nothing confession of faith.

Can I believe in the power of the BOM but reject its racism? Can I accept the majesty of the endowment but reject the teaching that I stand between my wife and God rather than at her side? Can I rely on the restoration of the priesthood but believe that historical and modern exclusions from priesthood office are not directed by God? Can I teach the core doctrine of eternal families but maintain hope that same sex couples will be accepted eventually?

 

I don't find the distinctions you made above so clear cut or clearly defined.  I believe in a God that takes whatever comes in my life and can turn it into something for my benefit.  This does not mean that there will not be frustrations, but that there can be peace.  I will experience heartache, but without the juxtapositions you have drawn.  

 

This life is not about being fair; it is learning to deal with whatever comes.  Does this make God into a spiteful creator that blesses some and curses others?  No, it makes him our Father and he is there to help us when it appears that everything stands against us.  

 

Does man have an influence on the Church?  Can a prophet do something of his own accord?  Of course they do and they can; they are not automatons anymore than any one of us are.  They are simply men, called of God, and willing to serve...full stop.  They have not abandoned their weakness or shortcomings.  They are only men that willing serve to the best of their ability as humans. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

After participating on this board for a while, I must say that for purposes of peace of mind I'm very grateful I'm not a liberal Mormon. It must be frustrating in the extreme when one is barraged with a God in the scriptures who doesn't conform to much liberal dogma.

This illustrates how many just do not understand the problem. I love Elder Holland but in that quote above he seems completely unaware of the real issue and dismisses it as being in the thick of thin things. That is way too simplistic. And Teddy, it's not about liberal dogma. In fact many who undergo a faith transition begin as extreme conservatives.

 

I'll only speak for myself here, but I was a Tea Party Republican, conservative in politics, social issues etc and I saw everything as extremely black and white. I was actually stuck in a conservative dogma. The faith transition removed the dogma where I was required to believe an all-or-nothing, us-verses-them, literalistic thinking. So where I started as a dogmatic conservative and literalist I no longer am. Not because that dogma has been replaced by a liberal dogma but because I see nuance and don't buy into either side's dogma (as much as is humanly possible). Now I figure out what I believe on each issue and don't simply check the Conservative box, but neither do I simply check the liberal box.

[Rivers]

It seems to me that a lot of people who lose their faith go from black and white thinking to more black and white thinking. They become as dogmatic about liberal ideology as they were about Mormonism.

[Rivers]

I agree with Elder Holland's statement about people getting into the thick of thin things. I am guilty of this myself. We shouldn't spend too much time worrying about all the complicated issues at the expense of the fundamental gospel principles. Balance is important.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Rivers

[rongo]

When I was young, I had trouble judging fly balls. I would run in on them, always, and then notice (too late) that they were going over my head and backpedal or run back on them. It is very hard to catch a ball running back on it. A coach gave me good advice: when a ball is hit in the air, always, no matter where I think it's going in my judgment, go back a few steps on it. This gave me more time to judge the ball, and you can always run in on a fly ball if you need to. With practice, over time, I became very good at judging fly balls, and they rarely went over my head (unless the batter really got a hold of it and it would be over my head no matter what).

 

I think there are two types of people with respect to faith crises: those who always "run in on the ball" and have to backpedal on balls over their head, and those who start back on it, come in on it when necessary, and continue running back on it if it's hit deep. Some people constantly get upset, panicked, etc. over whatever new issue is learned. Others don't, even though they might be worried about it at first.

 

Everyone is either one type or the other, and it's not easy to simply wave a magic wand and be the other type. Like with me having to learn and practice judging fly balls, it takes conscious effort to change one's approach and assumptions. And frankly, to overcome the tendency to panic and wallow in the wave of betrayal/I've-been-deceived! emotions that afflict faith crisis types. Ultimately, some (those who go all the way in their faith crisis) decide that catching balls is stupid and doesn't matter, anyway. Some learn to catch the fly balls, and others keep trying but go about it wrong and have them go over their heads all the time.

[haggard]

How can you trust a group who consistently changes their stance (polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, temple ordinances...etc)? New "prophets" trump dead ones, but when doctrines change, it can be confusing as to where the change comes from. When one questions these changes they are then accused of lacking faith. No one likes being lied to and when a group is consistently caught teaching "half truths" these faith crises arise, which is why these issues must be addressed by the bretheren.

[bluebell]

There is a difference between having a testimony of something and being converted.  Peter had a testimony that Christ was the Son of God before he was converted to the gospel, for example.

 

Maybe Elder Holland is asking how people who have had a true conversion to the gospel can lose faith over historical discrepancies (from his perspective) when others are coming at the issue from the angle of having received a testimony of certain things but not yet being converted?

[Avatar4321]

This illustrates how many just do not understand the problem. I love Elder Holland but in that quote above he seems completely unaware of the real issue and dismisses it as being in the thick of thin things. That is way too simplistic. And Teddy, it's not about liberal dogma. In fact many who undergo a faith transition begin as extreme conservatives.

I'll only speak for myself here, but I was a Tea Party Republican, conservative in politics, social issues etc and I saw everything as extremely black and white. I was actually stuck in a conservative dogma. The faith transition removed the dogma where I was required to believe an all-or-nothing, us-verses-them, literalistic thinking. So where I started as a dogmatic conservative and literalist I no longer am. Not because that dogma has been replaced by a liberal dogma but because I see nuance and don't buy into either side's dogma (as much as is humanly possible). Now I figure out what I believe on each issue and don't simply check the Conservative box, but neither do I simply check the liberal box.

When you have experienced the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit and seen miracles, it doesn't make sense to allow when so and so got married or when so and so received the priesthood to overshadow what is important. Edited February 12, 2015 by Avatar4321

[Avatar4321]

How can you trust a group who consistently changes their stance (polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, temple ordinances...etc)? New "prophets" trump dead ones, but when doctrines change, it can be confusing as to where the change comes from. When one questions these changes they are then accused of lacking faith. No one likes being lied to and when a group is consistently caught teaching "half truths" these faith crises arise, which is why these issues must be addressed by the bretheren.

Doctrine hasn't changed

[Nevo]

Here is my transcription of the relevant section of Elder Holland's remarks:

 

You’ve heard these questions. They’re not new. They first arose in the neighborhood of Palmyra, when the 14-year-old Joseph first reported his heavenly vision, and they continue in one form or another to the present day. We’ve recently addressed a dozen or so of these issues in a series of essays, desiring to be both accurate and transparent within the framework of faith. Not all gospel questions have answers yet. But they will. And they’ll come.

 

In the meantime, I have a question. What conceivable historical or doctrinal or procedural issue, that may arise among any group, could ever overshadow or negate one’s consuming spiritual conviction regarding the Father’s merciful plan of salvation; his only begotten Son’s birth, mission, atonement, and resurrection; the reality of the first vision; the restoration of the priesthood; the receipt of divine revelation, both personally and institutionally; the soul-shaping spirit and moving power of the Book of Mormon; the awe and majesty of the temple endowment; one’s own personal experience with true miracles; and on and on and on?

 

It is a mystery to me—talk about a question!—it is a mystery to me how those majestic, eternal, first-level truths, so central to the grandeur of the whole gospel message, can be set aside or completely dismissed by some in favor of obsessing over second-, or third-, or fourth-level pieces of that whole. To me, this is, in the words attributed to Edith Wharton, “truly being trapped in the thick of thin things.”

 

I readily acknowledge the very legitimate inquiries of many who are perfectly honest in heart. I also readily acknowledge that everyone has some gospel question or other yet to be answered. Nevertheless, we would hope—for skeptic, believer, and everyone in between—that humility, faith, the influence of the Holy Spirit, would always be elements of every quest for truth. That foundational truths would always be the reference points in that quest and that all other issues which may yet need resolving are pursued by study and also by faith.

 

At the end of the day, all of us must make distinctions between the greater and the lesser elements of our testimony. For me, the greater pillars include those majestic truths mentioned earlier, their irreplaceable centrality in my life, and the realization that I simply could not live, I could not go on without them, or without the blessings I have known, or without the promises we’ve all been given in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

So, as we speak of questions, write this one from the Apostle Paul across the chalkboard of your mind, and instill it in the heart of your students: “For what if some [do] not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?” (Romans 3:3). Now, the answer to that question is no. Not in my life, not in my lifetime, not for me and my house. No one’s unbelief can ever make my faith in God, my love of Christ, my devotion to this Church, and this latter-day work, without effect. The truthfulness of this latter-day gospel is in effect, and will stay in effect, as long as the suns shines and rivers run to the sea—and forever after that. Don’t miss those blessings.

 

I think Elder Holland gets it. The key thing when confronting a faith crisis is to make a distinction between "the greater and lesser elements of our testimony," between "first-level truths," and "second- or third- or fourth-level pieces of [the] whole." Some things matter less than others.

 

I particularly like this line: "We would hope—for skeptic, believer, and everyone in between—that humility, faith, the influence of the Holy Spirit, would always be elements of every quest for truth. That foundational truths would always be the reference points in that quest and that all other issues which may yet need resolving are pursued by study and also by faith."

 

Sometimes faith means stepping into the darkness, trusting in God and in our experiences with him. I heard a great sermon on the radio this morning by the late Baptist preacher Adrian Rogers expounding two NT miracles stories: the turning of water into wine at Cana (John 2) and the miraculous catch of fish (Luke 5:4–6). He noted that filling the water jars and casting the net on the other side of the boat made no sense. Peter was a seasoned fisherman. Yet Peter replied, "Nevertheless, at thy word, I will." It cut against his reason, his experience of the world, but "nevertheless" he trusted.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Nevo

[BlueDreams]

Part of the dilemma is that many minor issues are inherently intertwined with core doctrines and traditionally the church has required an all or nothing confession of faith.

Can I believe in the power of the BOM but reject its racism? Can I accept the majesty of the endowment but reject the teaching that I stand between my wife and God rather than at her side? Can I rely on the restoration of the priesthood but believe that historical and modern exclusions from priesthood office are not directed by God? Can I teach the core doctrine of eternal families but maintain hope that same sex couples will be accepted eventually?

 

I don't know if that's the whole of the problem though. The thing is, the questions in and of themselves do not inherently elicit a faith crisis or even enough doubt to begin to supersede or erode faith. It hasn't for me and it hasn't for others as well. For me, there is a part of me that ID's with what Holland said. I can't think, nor have I seen, something that has taken me away or moved me from my faith of the simple, foundational truths.  Who knows, maybe one day there could be an issue that ruptures it, but I doubt it. 

 

To me, it's not in the potency of a question or issue it's how we go about answering them and the importance we place on them in comparison to our faith and faith practices.

 

Also, just as some (probably including myself) may not understand the breadth of a faith crisis, people in a faith crisis or loss of faith, may not understand the life of the faithful. For example, with the Dehlin transcript he kept throwing out concerns such as anachronisms, rationale against the atonement, etc. The interesting thing was that at some point he assumed that the others were still faithful because they hadn't really dug into the issue or had the necessary exposure to "the truth" in order to get it. I've seen that assumption, among others who've lost (or begun to lost faith). If you KNEW you would believe otherwise. The only simple truth I've seen is that knowledge does not equal faith. Knowledge is not an exhibition of conversion. For me personally, faith and conversion have been the guideposts to my interactions with the issues that one may grapple with.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 12, 2015 by BlueDreams

[DBMormon]

I think the leaders are concerned. Although Elder Holland is fundamentally correct, I think he also might be understating the issue....at least in my observation.

A member is taught a version of history about the foundational versions of the church – (for example) the first vision and the translation of the Book of Mormon. The member's testimony is often received spiritually as a result of prayer based on the version taught about these truth claims. The person is taught that the Spirit testifies and confirms truth. When the person discovers a more nuanced version of these events, which in some cases conflicts with the official version, then an epistemological conflict begins. The person naturally asks: how can the spirit testify of something that I was taught was true when it was not really as true as I was taught? Did the spirit really testify to me or was it just wishful thinking? The doubt felt as a result of this questioning, coupled with a feeling of betrayal from the church, often leads the member to harbour serious doubt or loss of faith. I think that is how it unravels quickly.

Great Observation.

[Mystery Meat]

I don't know if that's the whole of the problem though. The thing is, the questions in and of themselves do not inherently elicit a faith crisis or even enough doubt to begin to supersede or erode faith. It hasn't for me and it hasn't for others as well. For me, there is a part of me that ID's with what Holland said. I can't think, nor have I seen, something that has taken me away or moved me from my faith of the simple, foundational truths.  Who knows, maybe one day there could be an issue that ruptures it, but I doubt it. 

 

To me, it's not in the potency of a question or issue it's how we go about answering them and the importance we place on them in comparison to our faith and faith practices.

 

Also, just as some (probably including myself) may not understand the breadth of a faith crisis, people in a faith crisis or loss of faith, may not understand the life of the faithful. For example, with the Dehlin transcript he kept throwing out concerns such as anachronisms, rationale against the atonement, etc. The interesting thing was that at some point he assumed that the others were still faithful because they hadn't really dug into the issue or had the necessary exposure to "the truth" in order to get it. I've seen that assumption, among others who've lost (or begun to lost faith). If you KNEW you would believe otherwise. The only simple truth I've seen is that knowledge does not equal faith. Knowledge is not an exhibition of conversion. For me personally, faith and conversion have been the guideposts to my interactions with the issues that one may grapple with.

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

This may be the best post I have ever read on this board. 

[DBMormon]

As one who has returned from a faith crisis, I agree with Paddy and my experience was much like Paddy describes. My issues were more doctrinal than historical but the same principles apply - when something we've been taught in church our whole lives turns out to be very different than what we thought, despite perceived spiritual confirmation, it certainly can throw one into a tailspin and bring up other questions - essentially "If this may not be so and I have had the same spiritual confirmation about that, is that also suspect?"

 

That said, I do believe the brethren are concerned and I think that's what's behind the essays. Of late, I also hear more than just Pres. Uchtdorf saying it's OK to question. I think that's another sign. I have always seen Elder Holland as one of the more progressive on the issue, but based on the quotation above I'm not sure he understands it as well as I may have thought. However, I don't think any of the GAs really understand it and that's part of the problem. I really think it's hard to understand if one hasn't had the experience.

 

Is Elder Holland's presentation available on the church site or Youtube? It was billed as being something for seminary teachers.

I think this is a big issue that you point out.  Those who have not had a deep faith crisis seem unable to grasp the "those who have" 's perspective.  This will offend some but please hear me without jumping the gun.  Those who have may be focused on the wrong things, they may be centered on the wrong questions... that is entirely possible. It is also possible that until one has really wrestled with the absolute possibility that the Church is not what it claims , they are unable to really grasp at the thought process and anguish the person feels/felt and why this moment seems so make or break for them.  Either way when one struggling comes forward they are rarely met with someone who can handle it and truly help them redirect their faith back to a completely safe space.  I guess I am saying that we have a ways to go to get to a point where both sides can truly hear the other and work together to move forward faithfully in the Church.  If you asked 100 people who had a deep faith crisis where they realized real problems with our history..... I would guess that 95-98 % of them never go back to the way they previously framed the Church and are always aware and bogged down with the questions even for those who remain and are faithful.   I would be curious if anyone here can validate this or offer a counter real life perspective.

[canard78]

No clue, but thanks for sharing that quote. His words precisely echo my experiences.

When Elder Holland asks what trivialities could possibly undermine the reality of "the receipt of divine revelation both personally and institutionally" he misses the point.

The very biggest issues and historical pull out the foundation of the claim of "institutional revelation." Without revelation, many of the other aspects he mentions also become unreliable.

Edited February 12, 2015 by canard78

[DBMormon]

When Elder Holland asks what trivialities could possibly undermine the reality of "the receipt of divine revelation both personally and institutionally" he misses the point.

The very biggest issues and historical pull out the foundation of the claim of "institutional revelation." Without revelation, many of the other aspects he mentions also become unreliable.

While I am not going to touch the specifics of people not understanding, I do agree with the principle that what seems like straining at gnats for those who have not had a major crisis of faith over historical issues is to the one struggling the absolute center of the crux of the debate.  It pulls into question every part of his foundation.

Edited February 12, 2015 by DBMormon

[wtrdog]

When you have experienced the powerful witness of the Holy Spirit and seen miracles, it doesn't make sense to allow when so and so got married or when so and so received the priesthood to overshadow what is important.

 

This is wrong in so many ways.  You're setting up a straw man here, "powerful witness" vs trite irrelevances.  That however isn't the situation at all.  

 

Define "powerful witness."  

 

I visited a Community of Christ church last week and one of the speakers gave a talk about priesthood blessings.  Aside from not using the word "priesthood" once, in every other way his talk sounded like something one would hear in an LDS sacrament meeting.  Consecrated oil, laying on of hands, blessings, opportunity to serve, bearing of testimony which included a first-hand story of witnessing a bonafide miracle - someone who had a cancerous tumor that magically disappeared to the befuddlement of all the doctors after a blessing was administered.  Have you ever made an effort to compare the nature of your spiritual experiences with people of other faiths?  What's similar, what's not?  What is truly unique about your spiritual experience?  I'm in the midst of doing that right now.  I have had what I consider to be very powerful spiritual experiences.  Prophetic dreams, non-audible voices in my mind that have instructed me on things I knew nothing about, statistically impossible coincidences, etc.  And these things really did happen and I don't deny them.  I won't deny them.  I'm not overshadowing those experiences with trite details, not at all.  But I also don't want to be a hypocrite and act like those experiences taught me something they didn't.  Being honest with myself, none of those experiences told me "the church is true."  I made that association myself out of convenience and personal bias.  What are the epistemological limitations of a given spiritual experience?  I think more often than not emotion gets conflated with spirituality.  People get the same goose-bump feelings associated with listening to a compelling conference talk when they watch certain movies or read a good book.  But I do think there are also real spiritual experiences and I have experienced these myself.  In order to help myself better understand the distinction between the two I'm studying what types of experiences others have so that I may compare.  If we are the only ones that have the gift of the holy ghost, should we not expect some kind of a discernible difference between us and others?  That being the case, we need to know what is common so that we can filter out what is truly unique.  And if there is nothing unique, well, that should tell us something too.

 

Define trite irrelevance.

 

You consider prophets being wrong and leading people astray trite?  People aren't arguing over marriage dates for goodness sake.  They are arguing over the credibility of Joseph Smith.  Have you seen the gold plates?  I haven't.  Have you seen Christ face to face?  I sure haven't.  So you're taking it on faith and simply trusting the prophet?  Ok, but why?  What is it about his behavior that makes you trust him?  Faith by definition is about the unknown, whereas science and history are about observation, that which is known.  Do you not understand the distinction?  Belief should change in accordance with the reality of observation.  This is a matter of spiritual confidence.  And isn't that even the argument the church uses?  The debate was settled with the First Vision we are told.  Centuries, even millennia, of debate, settled by something observed with human eyes.  Observation trumps spirituality.  Not because spirituality isn't real or important, but because it comes with a confidence interval that is much lower.

 

And the reality of the situation, which we KNOW from observation, is that Joseph Smith, other leaders, and the church at large, was and is far from perfect. Things have been done which deserve scrutiny and criticism.  Not for the sake of tearing things down, but in order to learn from our mistakes and progress even further.  Things need to be put in a truthful context, even if that understanding is somewhat opaque we need to try and make it as clear as possible utilizing what we've got.  It is an absolute mockery of truth and God for Holland to say what he did.  Dismissed in favor of obsessing over second or third or fourth level pieces?  Is that the rationale behind josephsmith.net, where polygamy isn't mentioned a single time?  Or how about the movie, Joseph Smith: Prophet of the Restoration?  No mentions of stones and hats, treasure hunting, polygamy, or how strained the relationship between Joseph and Emma was, her forcing him to sign a postnup, no mentions of expositor and how he set the stage for his "martyrdom," no mention of declaring himself a king and sending apostles out to campaign for his insane bid to become POTUS, no mentions of prancing around like napoleon astride a grand horse.  It's a leave it to beaver portrayal of him and all the events.  On and on and on.  The church describes a character that is so far removed from the real Joseph that it's pure fiction.  And insodoing it also sets the stage for obfuscating other things, like the nature of prophets and apostles, what revelation is actually like, etc.  These are not trivial things.

 

Tell me something.  Say the apostles, the "special witnesses" who we sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, were to each get up in conference and say that they've never seen Christ?  What if they said they have never experienced a vision or had any spiritual experience that would fall into this realm, but that all they've experienced are "feelings," burnings of the bosom and such, exactly the same sort of feelings that everybody else experiences, and that this is the form their "revelation" comes in, as a confirming feeling in response to a prayer.  In other words, that their "special witness" isn't really special at all, how do you think membership would react to it?  I don't think the reaction would go over very well.  I'm not saying people would be headed for the doors, some might, but what this would do is generally lower confidence and cause people to take "prophetic counsel" a lot less seriously.  But, if it's the truth of the matter, that's how it should be.  We need to be open about what we're submitting to.  Are we truly submitting to the Lord, or just some leader's "feeling?"  Are you really just an idol worshipper?  With the leaders being your graven image?