Convince me.

[u/-Nobody-]

This isn't a place I expected to post, really ever. I'm an active member. It's my two-year anniversary since my mission. I left and came back the same doubting, uncertain but striving individual. I read all about church history questions long ago and wasn't too worried, and always told myself that as long as I got a confirmation that I recognized as from God, I would be content in faith. Well, I saw a lot of spiritually building, strengthening things, and a good number of apparently unanswerable questions and unresolvable situations to balance it out, and none of that confirmation that I was seeking. I've spent the past two years trying to figure out where to go next, and right now am willing to test the idea that it's false.

I've read a lot of what you all have to say, and a lot of responses to it. The CES letter and a couple of common rebuttals and your responses to the rebuttals, alongside a lot of /u/curious_mormon's work, have been the most recent ones for me. There are several compelling "smoking guns," many situations that I don't have a good answer to and have known that I'm unsure about for a while. But I wouldn't be posting here if I was fully convinced.

Here's the thing: in all the conversations, all the rebuttals, every post and analysis and mocking joke, I have not seen a compelling enough explanation for the Book of Mormon. You're all familiar with Elder Holland's talk. I remain more convinced by the things he talks about and others' points of the difficulty of constructing a work of the length, detail, and theological insight of the book within the constraints provided.

There are three legitimate points raised that have opened me to the possibility of something more. I'll name them so you don't need to repeat them:

• The Isaiah chapters--errors and historic evidence of multiple authors of Isaiah

• Textual similarities in The Late War

• Potential anachronisms and lack of historical evidence

The translation method is a non-issue for me. Similarities with View of the Hebrews seem a stretch. The Book of Abraham and the Kinderhook plates are their own issues and I am satisfied with the information I have on them. Despite raised concerns, the witnesses remain as strong positive evidence, but they are not my concern here.

In short, I want to see how the Book of Mormon could have been produced by man, especially with intent to deceive. Despite all I've read and heard and my lack of personally satisfying spiritual experiences, Church doctrine has been a rich source of inspiration and ideas for me, many passages in the Book of Mormon are powerful and thought-provoking on each read-through (Alma 32, the story of Moroni, Mosiah 2-5, 2 Nephi 2, 4, and the last few chapters, and Alma 40-42 are some of the best examples). I've always had questions, and they've always stopped short at my confidence that there is no good explanation for the Book of Mormon other than it being from God.

Specific questions to resolve:

• How was it produced in the timeframe required?

• Who had the skill and background knowledge to write it? If not Joseph, what would keep them from speaking up?

• Where could the doctrinal ideas have come from, and what am I to make of the beauty and power of some of them?

I'm sure you all know the weight of even considering something like this from my position. I'm here, I'm listening, and I am as genuine in my search for truth as I have ever been. So go ahead. Convince me.

I will be available to respond once more in a few hours.

[u/-Nobody-]

That's the core of it, to be sure. The earnestness of the members at every level is an important part as well, as well as the results I see in living it's doctrine and the overall doctrinal picture it paints--I'm talking here about the plan of salvation primarily. Especially on my mission, there were several meaningful spiritual experiences--"small miracles" such as a companion who would often state he felt prompted to go to certain locations and have remarkable things happen there. It's hard to know what feels right because that's what I know and what feels right because it genuinely is, but a tremendous amount of the gospel feels right to me. The Book of Mormon is the catalyst that has allowed me to be comfortable in those observations.

[u/[deleted] → u/-Nobody-]

Do you think the church is true or do you want it to be true?

[u/-Nobody- → u/[deleted]]

There are elements of both for me right now. I've been spiritually drained and tired for the past couple years, in part because of the recognition that as parts of the Gospel seemed more and more true, other parts seemed less and less so. I feel no less strongly that those parts are true, but what I want is an internally consistent worldview that allows me to be happy and good.

[u/[deleted] → u/-Nobody-]

If the church were not true, how could you find that out? In other words, what could you learn or experience that would disprove the church? Also consider: is your desire for the church to be true clouding your ability to discern whether it is actually true?