I don’t believe that anymore.

I used to believe it because that’s what I was taught. And my own experience confirmed it for me. We didn’t pray, read, or hold family home evening regularly growing up, and all my siblings have left the church at one point (two have been away for decades). Same with Mary.

We were convinced that the two were related. Our families didn’t read, pray, or have family home evening regularly, which didn’t keep our siblings in the church.

As a result, we were determined to be diligent about holding these three things regularly. And being home from my mission for only 6 months when we married, I was still very much in a black-and-white, exact-obedience mindset.

And for the most part, we’ve done it. We’ve missed it here and there, but we’ve had family home evening nearly every week for the last 24 years. We’ve prayed as a family at least once every day, but often twice (more if you include meals). We’ve read scriptures regularly, several times a week, if not daily.

But it didn’t work.

Sure, we have one child just months away from getting the Melchizedek Priesthood, going to the temple, and serving a mission. But, at the same time, half of our children are no longer with the church.

And it’s not just our family. I know lots of families who regularly prayed and read together and had regular family home evening yet who have some children who are disenfranchised from the church. Several of these families even live in our ward, families whose fathers have served in bishoprics and stake presidencies.

Likewise, I know families who rarely read and prayed together and rarely held family home evening, and they still have children who go to church.

Sure, it’s all anecdotal, but it’s enough to convince me that none of it’s a guarantee.

Why, for example, are they intent on proving that Noah’s flood occurred? Why are they intent on proving the Garden of Eden was an actual place and that it housed an actual Adam and Eve? Why are they so intent on proving the creation story? Why are they so intent on proving the events surrounding Jesus’s birth? And so on?

Is there not value in scriptural stories being just stories but with moral messages? Why mingle them with science? Why not just focus on the moral of the story rather than the legitimacy of the story?

History is skewed. All history. Each historical account we read was written by someone. That someone wrote only what they recollected or what they saw or what they researched. But there will always be elements they didn’t recall or they didn’t see or they didn’t research.

As such, all historical accounts are biased. The only way to overcome that bias is to consult multiple accounts of the same events. This will theoretically provide us with a broader, more representative, more accurate view of the event.

The problem with scripture in this regard is that it often is the only account. As such, it is told through limited perspectives, often just one perspective.

Let’s assume that the events told in the Book of Mormon actually happened. (This can equally apply to biblical narratives, too.)

Let’s assume Lehi took his family into the wilderness. Let’s assume that what Nephi said happened actually did happen. But what about the things Nephi didn’t tell us? What events occurred that we never read about because Nephi forgot about them or chose to not include them? What would our understanding of those events look like if we also had access to the perspectives of Sariah, Lehi, and Laman? What would our doctrinal understanding look like if we had the complete writings of Zenock, Neum, and Zenos, for example, rather than only Nephi’s passing mention of them? How would our understanding change if we had access to the writings that Mormon chose not to summarize or include? What would the war chapters of Alma look like if we had the Lamanite perspectives available to us?

It’s one thing to turn to scripture for spiritual guidance. It’s quite another to turn to it as a source of historical accuracy, something it fails at.

It’s no secret some written and artistic material can be insensitive. Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are great examples of this. Though written in such a way as to shine a light on racism, the truth of their history is unsettling to all of us.

In both books, the “N-word” is thrown around constantly — both from the mouths of bad characters and from those who we’re supposed to identify with. There’s no question the language is offensive, but is its use worth preservation to tell Twain’s stories?

We can’t ignore history, and it should come as no surprise that Twain’s works were realistic in many ways — from their depiction of child abuse to the reprehensible treatment of African-Americans. If we ignore that history, are we ignoring how far we’ve come? Or are we — like Tom Sawyer — white-washing something we’d rather be untrue?

Regardless of your answer, it’s happening.

In modern printings and digital copies of Twain’s books, the language is being altered so it’s friendlier to younger audiences. Some teachers report they’ve long omitted the offensive words to save their students the embarrassment and pain of revisiting such times. Is that protection misplaced, though? Most scholars consider Twain’s novels to be books pretending to be children’s novels that are actually about the evils of racism.

When the racism is removed, what is left of the novel’s ambition? This example leads to bigger questions: Should we really be altering such prominent and renowned examples of literature, or should we be preserving them as their writers intended? And what does that mean for other, culturally important texts?

New age or original: That is the question

When it comes to fictional content like Mark Twain’s novels, the argument is important, sure, but it’s not disruptive. However, what does this precedent set for religious texts, such as the Bible? There have been many controversial aspects of the Bible — from stoning and killing disobedient children to telling women to submit to the husbands.

As we continue to evolve as a society, more aspects of the Bible become problematic. For the LGBT+ community, the treatment of gay people and the insistence on certain gender classification transforms what many feel is a book about love and forgiveness into a book about hate.

For groups like the Southern Baptists — who are millions strong — scrubbing non-inclusive language is more than just offensive — it goes against everything they believe in. For years, they have condemned Bible translations and interpretations that employ gender-inclusive language.

That probably explains why recent translations of their denomination-approved Bible are causing quite the stir. Some in the group have even taken it upon themselves to revise and release their own editions of the Bible, which include more gender-neutral language, such as “humans” and “people” in place of the Greek word anthropos, which is traditionally translated as man.

Before we debate whether this is an affront to modern religion, consider that religious texts such as the Bible have been revised, restructured and translated numerous times over the centuries. This is not the first time these important texts have been altered. But it does beg the question: Do we change art to fit culture?

Does the kind of text matter?

In the case of Mark Twain’s novels, the issue is racism and offensive language. With the Southern Baptist approved-Bible, it’s the use of gender-inclusive language. Are there other texts out there, waiting to be scrubbed clean? Given the right crowd, absolutely. But again, the answer to the question of whether this content — offensive or otherwise —should be altered, is not so easy to answer.

It’s a question that has been brewing for decades now. Does changing the offending language alter the material enough that it becomes something entirely different? Are we bastardizing classic literature and sacred texts to be more politically correct?

In the case of the Bible and religious texts, that may be a relevant problem. In the case of Mark Twain’s books, however, that argument changes entirely. Does a fictional book need racist language to convey a message, especially when it’s being read to younger audiences who are both impressionable and sensitive? If it’s a message about racism, then yes.

A cultural divide

Twain is no John-the- Beloved, so should we be treating these issues the same? The effect may be the same — removing questionable material changes the writer’s intent. What’s interesting about this phenomenon is how this conversation will divide by culture lines.

Liberals vehemently against censoring a text like Huck Finn may feel it’s time for the Bible to have a revision. Likewise, strict scripture-reading Christians may be fine with a cleaner version of Twain’s works, but they are less inclined to revamp what, for them, has been a holy text. The jury is still out on how this will play in the court of cultural opinion, but it will surely be an interesting discussion in coming years.

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Specifically, we discussed the idea of what a keystone is. If you haven’t seen a keystone before, here’s what one looks like (it’s at the centre of the arch):

The usual discourse involves something like removing the keystone will make the entire arch fall. But that’s not quite accurate. After all, if you remove any stone, the arch will likely fall.

What the keystone actually does is turn the arch into a load-bearing structure. Because the keystone and each voussoir (the stones of the arch) are all wedge shaped, they each transfer the thrust of the stone above it until the thrust finally transfers to the vertical supports.

When Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon is the keystone of Mormonism, he wasn’t suggesting that the church would fall apart without it; he was suggesting that the Book of Mormon allows all the components of Mormonism to work together to support and sustain the religion.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a rare and valuable first edition copy of the Book of Mormon was eligible for bankruptcy exemption under a personal property exemption statute which allows “exemption for a bible”.

On February 25, 2013 Ms. Anna F. Robinson filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition seeking to reprieve $23,834.00 in debt. Among her personal property, Ms. Robinson included an “old Morm[o]n bible” of unknown value which she acquired while cleaning a storage area at work and was given permission to keep any of the old books she found. From the Seventh Court’s ruling:

Ms. Robinson testified that, in 2003, while employed at the local public library, she made an agreement with the library director that, if she cleaned out a storage area, she could use the area as an office and keep any books she found. While cleaning, Ms. Robinson found the Book of Mormon and later had it authenticated as an 1830 first edition Book of Mormon, one of only 5,000 copies printed by Joseph Smith. At the time, it was valued at $10,000.00. Ms. Robinson explained that she stores the Book of Mormon in a Ziploc bag to preserve it. She does not use it regularly, but does take it out occasionally to show her children and fellow church members.

The bankruptcy court denied the exemption citing the fact that she had other copies of the Book of Mormon, but the district court reversed the ruling:

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Anna F. Robinson filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the Southern District of Illinois seeking a discharge of unsecured debts. Ms. Robinson claimed an exemption for a rare, first edition Book of Mormon under the Illinois personal property exemption statute, 735 ILCS 5/12- 1001(a), which provides an exemption for a bible. The bankruptcy court denied the exemption, but the district court re- versed. Because we agree with the district court that the plain wording of the Illinois personal property exemption statute allows the exemption for Ms. Robinson’s Book of Mormon, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

The thought that expensive bibles (or in this case a rare Book of Mormon) can be used to disrupt bankruptcy laws made me wonder if it’s possible to skirt the law by running up debt, moving to Illinois, buying up tons of expensive bibles and then declaring bankruptcy.

Nope, at least not if it’s done less than 6 months before the filing, according to the Illinois Legislative Reference Bureau:

If a debtor owns property exempt under this Section and he or she purchased that property with the intent of converting nonexempt property into exempt property or in fraud of his or her creditors, that property shall not be exempt from judgment, attachment, or distress for rent. Property acquired within 6 months of the filing of the petition for bankruptcy shall be presumed to have been acquired in contemplation of bankruptcy.

The image above from wikimedia is a photograph of the 1841 First European (London) edition of the Book of Mormon, at the Springs Preserve museum, Las Vegas, Nevada.

(via)

I have personally found several of the articles encouraging because they cover things I never learned growing up: things I learned only as an adult and only through blogs, podcasts, and anti-Mormon websites.

I don’t know why I never learned these things. What I do know is that I never learned them in Primary, Sunday School, Aaronic Priesthood classes, Seminary, or Institute, or even on my mission. I never read them in a church magazine (although recently a handful of them have appeared in Ensign issues) or lesson manuals.

I present below several recent articles and direct quote from each showing facts and ideas I had to learn through non-official channels.

Book of Mormon Translation

• “The other instrument, which Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, was a small oval stone, or ‘seer stone.’”
• “As a young man during the 1820s, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost objects and buried treasure.”
• “Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather than the two stones bound together to form the interpreters.”
• “According to these accounts, Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument.”

First Vision Accounts

• “he wrote or assigned scribes to write four different accounts of the vision.”
• “In addition to the firsthand accounts, there are also five descriptions of Joseph Smith’s vision recorded by his contemporaries.”
• “1832 account . . . He wrote that ‘the Lord’ appeared and forgave him of his sins.”
• “1835 account . . . the appearance of one divine personage who was followed shortly by another. This account also notes the appearance of angels in the vision.”

Race and the Priesthood

• “During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood.”
• “There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.”
• “In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood”
• “Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood.”

Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham

• “Other times, his translations were not based on any known physical records.”
• “Neither the rules nor the translations in the grammar book correspond to those recognized by Egyptologists today.”
• “some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. ”
• “None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. ”
• “Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham”

Peace and Violence among 19th-Century Latter-day Saints

• Everything in the section about the Danites
• Everything in the section about the Mountain Meadows Massacre

Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo

• “Joseph married many additional wives”
• “The oldest [of Joseph’s wives], Fanny Young, was 56 years old. The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph [at 14 years old].”
• “Joseph Smith was sealed to a number of women who were already married.”
• “Emma approved, at least for a time, of four of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages in Nauvoo, and she accepted all four of those wives into her household.”
• “[Emma’s] decision to ‘receive not this law’ permitted him to marry additional wives without her consent.”

The Manifesto and the End of Plural Marriage

• “Under exceptional circumstances, a smaller number of new plural marriages were performed in the United States between 1890 and 1904”
• “Of the 315 marriages recorded in the ledger, research indicates that 25 (7.9%) were plural marriages . . . . Of the 25 plural marriages, 18 took place in Mexico, 3 in Arizona, 2 in Utah, and 1 each in Colorado and on a boat on the Pacific Ocean.”
• The entire section on The Second Manifesto.

I see these new articles as a step in a positive direction, where the Church has begun accepting the fact researchers have known for decades. I’m happy to see the Church moving towards openness and transparency on topics for which historians were excommunicated just a few short years ago.

I am happy my children can potentially grow up in a Church where these things are taught readily.

It’s not their fault. After all, they view it the same way as most everyone does and how it is portrayed in popular LDS art. A careful reading of the scriptures, however, shows us that the most popular conception of the strait and narrow path is an assumption we have made, which has no scriptural support.

To see the strait and narrow path from a new perspective, we must use a scripture chain. 

Let’s start in 2 Ne 31:17–18:

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost. And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life . . .

Notice that, according to Nephi, to enter the strait and narrow path, we have to enter through a gate, which is repentance and baptism.

Now look at 2 Ne 9:41:

O then, my beloved brethren, come unto the Lord, the Holy One. Remember that his paths are righteous. Behold, the way for man is narrow, but it lieth in a straight course before him, and the keeper of the gate is the Holy One of Israel; and he employeth no servant there; and there is none other way save it be by the gate; for he cannot be deceived, for the Lord God is his name.

Jesus is the gatekeeper. If the gate is repentance and baptism, then this makes sense. Jesus is the one who redeems us when we repent, and it is through baptism that we become his children (see Mosiah 5).

So, now we know that in addition to the strait and narrow path that Lehi described in 1 Nephi 8, there is a gate at the beginning of the path and Jesus is at the gate to let us through.

Now, let’s move on to Moses 7:53:

. . . I am Messiah, the King of Zion, the Rock of Heaven, which is broad as eternity; whoso cometh in at the gate and climbeth up by me shall never fall; wherefore, blessed are they of whom I have spoken, for they shall come forth with songs of everlasting joy.

So, this is interesting. Two words that stick out to me are “climbeth” and “fall”. They are odd words when you view the strait and narrow path as depicted in the image that accompanies this article. But consider the 1828 definition of “strait”:

1. Narrow; close; not broad.
2. Close; intimate; as a strait degree of favour.
3. Strict; rigorous.
4. Difficult; distressful.
5. Straight; not crooked.

Of interest to me are definitions 3 and 4. If we simply walk along a level path, using the iron rod as a guide, then these don’t make much sense. On the other hand, if we must climb the strait and narrow path, which brings with it a risk of falling, then those definitions do make sense.

The first definition seems to indicate that “strait” is sometimes synonymous with “narrow”. But why call it the narrow and narrow path? That seems redundant. Perhaps the reason it’s called the strait and narrow path is not to emphasize its narrowness, but to highlight another aspect of the path: its difficulty.

Now that it seems we must climb up the path, consider 1 Ne 8:20, 24:

And I also beheld a strait and narrow path, which came along by the rod of iron . . . I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.

Is it any wonder that the people in Lehi’s dream were clinging to the iron rod? It wasn’t just because they were afraid of being lost in the mists of darkness; they were afraid of falling (literally) off the path while they climbed it.

So what is the rod of iron? 1 Ne 11:25 says it’s the word of God. Our children tonight interpreted that to mean the gospel, and based on my anecdotal experience, it seems to be a common interpretation.

But there is one more interpretation. The first 17 verses of John 1 tells us that Jesus is also known as the Word of God. This is consistent with Moses 7:53 above, which tells us that we must climb up by Jesus.

So, what have we learned about the strait and narrow path?

1. The path starts at a gate.
2. That gate is repentance and baptism.
3. Jesus is the gatekeeper.
4. The strait and narrow path is more like a climb up a mountain than it is a stroll through a park.
5. Jesus is also the means by which we climb up the strait and narrow path.

I find comfort, actually, knowing that Jesus is there not only when we start on our journey towards eternal life, but he is there beside us to help us the entire way, never leaving our side, always waiting for us to reach out to him.

Knowing all this provides a different perspective on why Nephi said the following in 2 Ne 31:29–20:

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

When Nephi told us we must press forward and endure to the end, he wasn’t joking.

>”Now the people which were not Lamanites were Nephites; nevertheless, they were called Nephites, Jacobites, Josephites, Zoramites, Lamanites, Lemuelites, and Ishmaelites.” (Jacob 1:13)

So why isn’t Sam listed? Jacob and Joseph are. Laman and Lemuel are. All of Nephi’s brothers are except for Sam.

Any thoughts?