Conference Talk Review: Saturday Afternoon - Gary Stevenson, "Look to the Book, Look to the Lord"

[oliver_denom]

For those interested, the Women's session, Saturday Morning, and part of Saturday Afternoon can be found here on Reddit, the NOM life raft.

It's confession time. I completely forgot that this guy was an apostle. He's such a standard issue and basic white dude that I completely forgot that the latest Peter is a Gary. Who'll be the next apostle? Some guy name Steven Garrison?

Part 13 of ∞

Conference Talk Review: Saturday Afternoon - Gary Stevenson, "Look to the Book, Look to the Lord"

Stevenson begins by telling the story of one of his ancestors, Mary Elizabeth Rollins. If that name sounds familiar, then it should, because she was one of the women who married Joseph Smith while she was married to another man. When she was 12 years old Smith visited her home and told her she "was the first woman commanded him to take as a plural wife". In spite of this, she married a non-member four years later. Smith comes back to see her again, after she's married, and tells her that God will kill him if she doesn't consent to become his wife. So she prays on it, has a vision, and becomes Smith's 5th wife while her husband was out of town.

The fact that Smith propositioned a 12 year old adds some context to Stevenson's story about how she received a Book of Mormon from her uncle, was converted by it, and was then visited by its author:

A short time later, Mary finished reading the book and was the first person in her town to read the entire book. She knew it was true and that it came from Heavenly Father. As she looked to the book, she looked to the Lord.

One month later a special visitor came to her house. Here is what Mary wrote about her memorable encounter that day: “When [Joseph Smith] saw me he looked at me so earnestly. … After a moment or two he … gave me a great blessing … and made me a present of the book, and said he would give Brother Morley another [copy]. … We all felt that he was a man of God, for he spoke with power, and as one having authority.”

"He looked at me so earnestly", gross, gross, gross. She was 12.

But in getting caught up in all the child grooming and polyandry, I admit that I initially missed Stevenson's main points: 1) He's descended from a pioneer woman who married Smith and Young 2) The Book of Mormon has the power to instantly convert people. So...good for him, and okay.

It's interesting to me that this talk, and others, really double down on the importance of the Book of Mormon. Far from distancing themselves from its numerous problems...it's super tanker size load of problems, they are emphasizing it's inseparable connection to the church's truth claims. All people can gain a testimony of the truthfulness of the church, which then demands your loyalty and complete obedience, and it is "the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion". The reason these claims remain so surprising, is that if forces any sincere seeker to ultimately reject the church once the book's problems are uncovered. IF they were to allow for a non-literal acceptance of the book and suggest that the stories were inspired but not historical, THEN this wouldn't be such a big deal. Joseph could have read the book from a vision of gold plates, and God could have inspired the book as a set of latter-day parables. But no. It's got to be "the most correct of any book on earth", and it's got to be 100% literal and historical. We could move forward with a more reasonable interpretation of the facts, but we would be doing it on our own, without the support of the institutional church.

But at the same time, this talk doesn't ever ask the question about whether the book is historical. He focuses on people gaining a testimony, through feeling, that it's "true". My guess is that the ideal scenario would involve a person reading the Book of Mormon without examining its claims historically or empirically, reading it without that sort of questioning, and focusing 100% on what one feels while reading. Then, focused on the feeling, a person should pray until overcome with a noumenal feeling, thus "proving" it's truthfulness. This is the example he gave for Mary Rollins and for himself. Neither of them questioned, they felt. I think that's a good description of how one would delve into a religion, because those sorts of activities are of the heart not the mind, but we can't ignore the fact that in at least Mary's case, her spiritual feelings guided her into committing adultery by illegally marrying another man who already had five other wives. So maybe, just maybe, in certain cases, we should allow some rationality to peak in the window while we're praying in our secret places.

So how does one gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon, especially if you're young and the church would like you to marry in the faith in order to raise the next generation of Mormons? It's simple. Just replace some of your "screen time" with 10 minutes of Book of Mormon reading. But don't treat it like a chore, read it as if you are enjoying yourself. Then keep reading it every day until you feel personally attached to it. Eventually, given enough time, attention, and spiritual context, you'll believe it.

He ends with his testimony that the Book of Mormon is filled with God's love, and that we should embrace the church just like his 12 year old great-great grandmother...ew...no.

[deacon blues]

Classic circular reasoning. The book tells us how to know it is true. Sounds suspiciously like affinity fraud.

[hiding in plain sight]

Thanks for the recap and editorial comment on this talk Oliver.

I always love reading anything you have to say.

I am always fascinated about the attention and double downing that leaders and members do with the BOM. I have studied it thoroughly more than 7 times in the past few years and it is so anti-mormon doctrine that it just blows my mind. How can members say they study it every day and miss how disconnected the Book of Mormon is from what is believed to be doctrine today.

For example:

Multiple times it says that the full gospel is believe in christ, obey the commandments, get baptized, receive the holy ghost and endure to the end. There is no more to the gospel and if anyone adds more they are wrong. Hmmmmm. Temple work, priesthood, etc. Anti-mormon doctrine.

After the judgement and resurrection the only people who get into heave are those who accepted christ and endured to the end. Everyone else. Everyone else is sent back to hell to be angels of the devil. Of course there is the exception of those who die without the law and children who die. But you get my point. There is no way you could teach that as doctrine across the pulpit without the bishop shutting you down. Anti-mormon doctrine.

Specific teachings that baptism for those who have already died "unto such baptism availeth nothing". Hmmmmmm. Why do we do baptisms for the dead again? Anti-mormon doctrine.

Whenever I hear a leader encouraging people to read and study the book of mormon I stand up and cheer. If the members would really do this, there would be a lot fewer members.

But members are notorious for just going through the motions.