These are questions the LDS church claims to have answers to. In fact, I even parroted those answers when I was a full-time missionary.

The thing is though, the LDS church doesn’t answer those questions.

Well, at least not in a meaningful way. Sure, it proposes that we are children of heavenly parents as an answer to the first question and that we came here to learn and get a body as an answer to the second.

But that’s the same answer for everyone. It doesn’t actually answer the questions “Who am *I*?” or “Why am *I* here?”

It doesn’t tell me what *my* purpose is or how *I* am to make a difference in the world.

My purpose must be more than learning. I must be able to apply that learning. And not just in checking off items on a checklist. We don’t change the world by overcoming the temptation to drink coffee or watch porn or swear. We have to apply that learning in ways unique to us, in ways not covered in temple recommend interviews, in ways that change our character and positively affect the world around us.

To be fair, I’m not convinced that any institution or ideology has answers to those questions. I think the answers can be found only within us.

(Kids these days and their FaceSpace, amirite?)

From a Deseret news article about Elder Ballard’s talk:

“Drawing on the scriptures and the words of the prophets, [students] will learn how to act with faith in Christ to acquire spiritual knowledge and understanding of His gospel,” he said. “And they will have opportunities to learn how to apply the doctrine of Christ and gospel principles to the questions and challenges they hear and see every day among their peers and on social media.”

Applying the doctrine of Christ to questions of church doctrine makes sense. Is it true and is it helpful? Does it follow the golden rule?

Elder Ballard continued, comparing faithful interpretations of history to vaccinating the youth against topics that are “sometimes misunderstood” — a polite way of saying, negative toward the church.

You know, we give medical inoculations to our precious missionaries before sending them into the mission field, so they will be protected against disease that can harm and even kill them. In a similar fashion, please, before you send them into the world, inoculate your students by providing faithful, thoughtful and accurate interpretations of gospel doctrine, the scriptures and our history, and those topics that are sometimes misunderstood.

And in a praiseworthy show of transparency, Elder Ballard listed a few topics which in some circles (or at least in the not so distant past) would have been considered anti-mormon.

To name a few of such topics that are less-known or controversial, I’m talking about polygamy, and seer stones, different accounts of the first vision, the process of translation of the Book of Mormon [and] of the Book of Abraham, gender issues, race and the priesthood, or a Heavenly Mother. The efforts to inoculate our young people will often fall to you CES teachers.

Perhaps if I’d been further inoculated as a youth, I wouldn’t have found these topics so difficult to digest when I finally found them too hard to swallow. So roll up your sleeves while I share with you what I remember being taught about this list while at the same time you’re going to get inoculated.

Before you run off searching high and low looking for how far the rabbit hole goes, Elder Ballard warned of the dangers of access to too much information:

It was only a generation ago that our young people’s access to information about our history, doctrine and practices was basically limited to materials printed by the church. Few students came in contact with alternative interpretations. Mostly, our young people lived a sheltered life. Our curriculum at that time, though well-meaning, did not prepare students for today — a day when students have instant access to virtually everything about the church from every possible point of view. Today, what they see on their mobile devices is likely to be faith-challenging as much as faith-promoting. Many of our young people are more familiar with Google than they are with the gospel, more attuned to the Internet than to inspiration, and more involved with Facebook than with faith.

For the sake of Elder Ballard’s concern about Google, I’ll only use church approved sources for the inoculation and I’ll stay far away from Facebook.

…

In church I was taught that Brigham Young and the LDS population as a whole started practicing polygamy on their way west after Joseph Smith died. I was taught that Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy. I was specifically taught that The Nauvoo Expositor, a newspaper that published only one issue, on June 7, 1844, was printing anti-mormon lies about the Prophet Joseph Smith and that it needed to be shut down.

If only there was some way to look up the contents of that newspaper… Also, at church the word polyandry was never uttered, just the more generic term polygamy.

The church now teaches that Joseph practiced polygamy. It doesn’t bother with timeline details between when these marriages started and when the revelation on polygamy was given but it does point out that at least one of the lucky ladies was just few month shy of her fifteenth birthday. https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng. The church also admits that he practiced polyandry.

I was taught in church that Joseph mostly used his seer stone for money digging but that it was something he regretted. It was a part of his wayward youth; folk magic being part of the culture of the time; something he did before being called to restore the gospel. I was taught that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates written in reformed Egyptian into English using some kind of, never that clear to me, looking-glass shaped device called the Urim and Thummim.

The church now teaches Joseph used the seer stone and other instruments to translate the Book of Mormon. The church teaches that Joseph didn’t look at the plates while translating, instead, “Joseph looked into the instruments, [and] the words of scripture appeared in English”: https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&_r=1

I was taught about the different accounts of the first vision in church but I was told there were only 2 or 3 different versions. I was taught that they were given to different people at different times and that the different details were because of different audiences and their different needs. I was told not to worry about it.

The church now teaches there are seven nine different accounts of the first vision story and the details within those various narratives isn’t exactly the same but that they all follow the same basic story. The details over number of visitors or their identities isn’t a sign of fraud because, “Joseph’s increasingly specific descriptions can thus be compellingly read as evidence of increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience.” https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng&_r=1

What I was taught about the Book of Abraham at church: “A translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” It was on my mission that I learned the controversy of Ancient Egyptian translations not matching the Book of Abraham. I was suspicious of the antagonistic pastor telling me this, but all the same, I was very curious about the truth behind the Book of Abraham’s origins, and specifically why this guy figured he had a “silver bullet” against the church.

Now the church teaches that the phrase “by his own hand, upon papyrus” can be understood to mean that “Abraham is the author and not the literal copyist”. Also, the church teaches that while “the word translation typically assumes an expert knowledge of multiple languages”, but in this case, “[b]y the gift and power of God, Joseph received knowledge about the life and teachings of Abraham.” https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng&_r=1

As for gender issues, I’m going to assume Elder Ballard is talking about lesbians and gays (though not strictly a “gender issue” at all).

I was taught that gays were bad and I openly talked about how being gay was wrong and probably said other horrible things that mercifully — for my own feelings of guilt — I can no longer recall. I remember that feeling of self-righteousness as a Mormon when I proudly declared my prejudice against gay people. I’m sorry for what I thought and said.

The church still doesn’t get it when it comes to the biological realities of same sex attraction nor to the impact that their stance has on so many members of the church. I specifically feel bad for the heartache that Kim and his family have been put through. The church still proudly rolls out The Family: A Proclamation to the World as a response to why being gay is sinful. https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&_r=1

The church’s stance with race and the priesthood was never something that bothered me until after I stopped going. Probably because growing up in Southern Alberta, I never encountered very many (any?) black people and I certainly felt that God knew what he was doing. I never thought about what it would mean to belong to a church that emphasized eternal marriage, families being together forever, and the importance of temple ordinances but then banning a certain group of people from said ordinances because of the way they looked. I read in Bruce R. McConkie’s book, Mormon Doctrine, that the reason for the ban was because they had been fence-sitters in the war-in-heaven and were now cursed to be descendants of the most wicked person on the face of the earth, Cain.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse. https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng&_r=1

Lastly on Elder Ballad’s list of topics to be inoculated against is Heavenly Mother. When I was in the church, I was taught that Heavenly Mother was also divine (a goddess not unlike God) but that we didn’t know her name and it was forbidden to pray to her. This sat just fine with me.

It was on my mission that another missionary pointed out to me that Jesus’ mother Mary, was in fact our Heavenly Mother. This didn’t sit well with me, especially when they pointed out what 1 Nephi 11:18 was getting at by saying, “Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.” You’ll have to imagine my shock when I realized what the manner of the flesh means. God did what with Mary?! And how exactly does that square with the biblical emphasis that she was a virgin?

The church still teaches that you shouldn’t pray to Heavenly Mother (perhaps a way of delineating themselves from churches that do pray to Mary). But, it’s pointed out that, “[t]he fact that we do not pray to our Mother in Heaven in no way belittles or denigrates her.” https://www.lds.org/topics/mother-in-heaven?lang=eng

I’m not sure inoculation against these topics that are sometimes misunderstood is really going to affect the youth in the way they expect. In fact I think it might have the opposite effect.

I’m reminded of the agonizing guilt Huckleberry Finn felt over his failure to turn in his raft-mate Jim. Jim, who was attempting to escape from slavery, is betrayed by someone else, and Huck has to face what he is doing. Realizing he is incapable even of praying because of his sinful compliance in a slave’s escape, Huck gives in to his conscience and writes a note to Jim’s rightful owner, revealing his whereabouts.

I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn’t do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking—thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell.

Unfortunately for Huck’s peace of mind, he kept on thinking. After recalling all the good times and misfortune they’d shared, and Jim’s gratitude for saving him from capture, he looked down, noticed the letter and made his decision.

It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

“All right, then, I’ll GO to hell”—and tore it up.

It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming. I shoved the whole thing out of my head, and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being brung up to it, and the other warn’t. And for a starter I would go to work and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that, too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.

I’m also in for good, and there’s no better way to say it: I’m going whole hog.

Since the church’s policy change regarding same-sex marriages was leaked on Thursday, my Facebook feed has been like a firehose regarding reactions to the changes. I tried to read so many thoughts, article, and blog posts in an effort to help me figure things out.

It didn’t work that well.

Instead of direction and guidance, I received anxiety and depression. There were times on Friday and Saturday when trying to respond to claims or viewpoints that I found myself shaking and had to stop.

Even going to the temple Friday night didn’t help. In fact, my endowment session felt like a two-hour stupor of thought. I drove away from the temple as lost and depressed as ever—a far cry from the guidance and inspiration I had received the week before.

A lot of emotions have run through my heart and mind. I’ve been upset, confused, hopeless, lost, abandoned, hurt, sad, lonely, disgusted, sick, and so many more.

As a parent of an LGBT child, I’ve struggled to know what to do. My daughter left the church earlier this year, but the changes still hit me hard, and I’ve been seriously considering throwing in the towel.

Before this weekend, I never fully understood what people go through when they wrestle with the decision to leave the church. Something I’ve learned is that it’s a complex decision with no easy answer.

In fact, two years ago, President Dieter F. Uchtdorf addressed this very topic in general conference:

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church.

I can say with frankness that the last paragraph describes me. As the church as grown more evangelical and my understanding of the actual Gospel has become more Christ-centred, this growing divide has become problematic for me.

But there are aspects of Mormonism I love and that I can find in few other places: an anthropomorphic God, a feminine divine, the masonic temple rites, seer stones, visiting angels, continuing revelation, and the list goes on. Scriptures like D&C 18:10, D&C 93, Mosiah 4, and 4 Nephi 1 resonate with me.

So I continued on, focusing on what is right.

But this policy change and how it could affect my future grandchildren feels like the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back.

And I find myself once again contemplating leaving. This time, however, it feels so intense. I find parallels even to the faith crisis story I shared 8 years ago.

But here it is three days later, and I haven’t found it any easier to decide what I’m going to do.

There are so many factors at play in me head. As I’ve commented several times, the church is like a cherry pie: it tastes so good, but it has pits.

Here are some of the things that make it taste so good to me:

• The symbolism in the church found in baptism, the endowment, the Sacrament, and various other places.
• The temple
• God being a resurrected, glorified man who is our father
• Having a mother in heaven
• The example and teachings of Jesus (arguably this could easily be found elsewhere)
• The unique teachings in Mormon scripture, specifically how we should treat others
• The brotherhood of a quorum
• Continuing revelation
• A personal relationship with God

I’m not going to list out all the pits, but I will say there are many, and some of them are big. Despite the common rhetoric found among its members, the Mormon church is not perfect.

So I find myself in the middle of various forces pulling me in these two directions: all the positive trying to keep me in and all the negative trying to push me out.

But there are some other things that are making it difficult to make a decision:

• I worry about not being able to baptize my three younger children
• I worry about not being able to be an escort when my two boys go through the temple
• I worry about Mary and the children following me
• I worry about leaving Mary to take the role of a single mother at church on Sundays
• I worry about never being able to go to the temple again, the one thing remaining that ties us to the esoteric church of 200 years ago
• I worry about not completing temple ordinances for my ancestors, something I have been working on for 25 years.
• I worry about others having to come to my home to give Mary and our children blessings
• I worry about being the last person in my family to go on a mission despite being the first
• I worry about what it would mean to my parents, who were my pioneers
• I worry about what it would mean to those I taught and baptized on my mission
• I worry about not being able to give my boys the Melchizedek Priesthood, something my dad was never able to do for me.
• Related to that, I worry about not being able to be ordained a high priest by my dad, the last chance I have to get my priesthood lineage from him
• I worry about satisfying those who already expect me to leave

So, for anyone wondering what I’m struggling with, it isn’t about trying to reconcile my beliefs with the new policy to rationalize it. I think it’s wrong. Period.

No, I’m struggling with so much more and with something far more complex.

And I don’t know how long it will take before I have my answer, nor what will happen when something like this happens again.

What I do know is that it’s not an easy decision for those who decided to leave the church, and we should be careful about judging them when they do.

What it used to say:

?¢‚Ǩ?ìAfter thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians?¢‚Ǩ¬ù

and what it says now:

“After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù

(emphasis mine)

So, is this a manifestation of the church?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s efforts to bring its teachings in line with the scientific realm—as if the doctrine was held in the hands of men and arbitrarily changed to fit the tides of secular progress? Or something else? Or is the introduction not technically scripture, and therefore, not a big deal to change?

Honestly, I’m glad they aren’t in denial about the science and see the change as a positive indication that the First Presidency is admitting the evidence has merit.

Usually, they are spoken by a Gospel Doctrine teacher when introducing a topic. I’m sure on any given Sunday, those words are mentioned a couple dozen times in any average ward.

The reason why I cringe is mostly because of my dear wife. She joined the church after her 18th birthday. She had very little exposure to the gospel before that. Her knowledge of things taught in primary could probably fit in a large thimble (ok, well, she probably knows more than she lets on, but it’s nowhere near what us BICers have encountered). Usually after a lesson in which those words are mentioned, she asks me about the story that the teacher was referring to. I do my best to explain it. She usually mentions something like “well, knowing that would have helped to make sense of the lesson”.

Another variant is the phrase “We all know…”. This one is even worse. It’s not just a story, but usually some cultural church practice or perhaps some meaty chunk of doctrine. The instructor usually glosses over the important parts and dives right into his / her analysis, leaving my poor wife in the dust.

I’ve noticed it’s lessons or discussions / talks like this that make church services so unpleasant for my wife. After a consecutive string of Sundays like this, she usually wants a break and we all take a rest from going to church.

I guess what really baffles me is the fact that we are suppose to be a missionary minded church. We are suppose to be ‘inviting others to Christ’, but when they get here, we treat them as if they’ve been here all along and end up frustrating the heck out of them.

“Expressing gratitude brings us humility. In a world where we have been given so much and might be severely tempted to pride, gratitude stands as a barrier, for one cannot fill pride and gratitude at the same time.”

–S. Michael Wilcox, “Gratitude”, January 2005 Ensign pg. 47

I saw this in an email I received this morning (LDSNuggets) and it really struck me as a truth. I can’t add much to it, except I believe gratitude is something our world is sadly lacking in, and something we are in dire need of.

Several years ago my Institute class was challenge (as I know many others have been before that and since) to offer a “gratitude prayer” in our personal prayers. I took up the challenge and it turned out, spent a lot of time on my knees, in tears of humility and thankfulness, unable to end it. The reason was, everything I gave thanks for brought new blessings to my mind. More and more, the reality of how blessed I have been in my life overwhelmed me.

Anyway, gratitude and pride. They cannot co-exist. And what is more valuable to our personal growth? Gratitude.

On another note, perhaps the Correlation Program was implemented as a necessity measure in preparing for the growth of the church. As a church grows (one only need look as far as Paul, Peter and other leaders in the original church), it becomes more difficult to overcome the potential apostasy that emerges though misunderstanding of past teaching and practises and the introduction of new ideas from converts. Correlation could have been conceivably introduced to help regulate what is taught and reduce the chances of apostasy. If this was why it was implemented, has it been effective? Are there less people apostatising from the Church than there would have been without Correlation?

Can the Correlation Programme have been introduced for both reasons? Or other reasons altogether?

I expressed gratitude for the story and its proliferation among media outlets and my hope that it may convince Mormons to stop treating tradition as doctrine, particularly the belief that indigenous peoples of the Americas are all Lehitic descendants (literally, Lamanites).