"When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish." (The Book of Mormon, Second Nephi 9:28).

I had always known that there were problems in LDS history. It struck me as too convenient, even as a child, when I asked my primary teacher what ever became of the Gold Plates, and she told me that an angel had taken them back into heaven. I learned enough details about polygamy in high school seminary to unsettle me, and reading National Geographic articles about the origin of Native Americans was enough to cast the Semitic origin of these people (as told in the Book of Mormon) into serious doubt. Yet I was told, and believed, that the best solution for dealing with these problems was to put them into a box on the shelf. Some day—the implication being in the next life—these questions would be answered. Until then, why not focus on the safer part of the gospel, the feelings of the spirit.

Within the last few years, however, the box on my shelf had begun to spill over. I heard once that Joseph Smith had been imprisoned for destroying a printing press claiming that he was practicing polygamy. But wasn't he? I wondered. And I heard someone claim that the gold plates would have weighed over two hundred pounds, given their dimensions and the specific gravity of gold. But wait? I thought. Didn't he go running through the woods with them tucked under his arm? And didn't people claim to "heft" them in their hands? I didn't do the math myself—I didn't want to—but it was an unsettling detail to tuck away for later.

Eventually, I decided the best thing to do would be to get some serious scholarship about the church. First, I shied away from official church histories, although much of what I read was written by faithful members of the church. Second, I avoided anything written by obvious anti-Mormons, or people with agendas of their own, like Evangelical Christians. I wanted serious, unassuming scholarship. The history of Mormonism was much richer than I thought. It was also more troubling.

Because alas, the issues that I thought would have easy answers did not. Instead of closing off each issue one by one as I studied more, I discovered more and more troubling details. Polygamy? The truth of it is much more disturbing than I thought. The First Vision? Not the neat package we are taught in church. The temple ceremony? Masonic in origin and evolving over the years. Hardly the restored endowment of Solomon's Temple?

How about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, then? Turns out there is none. In fact, it was worse even than I had imagined. Not only are there no archeological details to back up its claims, there are dozens of anachronisms from steel swords, to brass plates, to horses, elephants, and other animals that did not live in the Americas during the time in question. Further, errors in the King James version of the Bible are transmitted to the Book of Mormon, elaborated on, even, instead of corrected. There is strong evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th Century artifact, and is no more historical than The Lord of the Rings.

My readings are too great to sum up here. There are other sources for that, and you will find them easily if you are interested. That is not the purpose of this essay. Suffice it to say that they did not quiet my concern. I began to seriously consider the possibility that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was not what it claimed to be. The question was, what would I do about it?

First, I held long conversations with Melinda, who was reading the same material that I was. Turns out that she was coming to the same conclusions that I was. She would be no help to shore up my testimony, nor did I consider this her duty. Next, I turned to my best friend, an intelligent man with whom I have spend hundreds of hours discussing all manner of philosophical issues. We had a brief conversation about the matter.

I say brief, because I was unprepared for his shock and yes, outrage, at the path I was taking. Because I respect this friend's intelligence and because we share the same skeptical approach to information, I suggested he read some of the books that were troubling me. I thought perhaps he could point out flaws in the reasoning, could smooth over the growing cracks in my testimony. I was not prepared for a comparison between the books I was reading and cheating on my wife. Here is what he said,

I'm not going to take up your invitation to immerse myself in the very same anti-Mormon propaganda that has brought your own testimony to the breaking point. I believe that the church is true. I also believe that I should not cheat on my wife—but I suspect that if I went out to the strip clubs with my colleagues every time I was on a business trip, that belief would start to waiver. I'm no more sure of my testimony than I am of my loyalty to my wife. No matter how true something may be, if you subject it to a sustained-enough attack, your belief in it will falter.

Is this true? Are true ideas so fragile that they will wilt under serious scrutiny? There are Moslems who have constructed elaborate scientific arguments to show that the Earth is, indeed, the center of the universe as the Qu'ran says that it is. If I were to read enough of this literature would I start to doubt Galileo and Einstein? Or, rather, would a serious study of Galileo and Einstein in comparison serve only to show the fatal flaws of the Earth-centered arguments? One can extend this theory into a study of evolution versus a literal reading of the Garden of Eden story, or a comparison between germ theory and the medieval belief that disease was caused by bad air.

Goodness, did my friend really mean that the ideas in some books are so dangerous they should not even be read? Given that logic, I should stay away from Das Kapital because it would make me lose faith in market economies, or that reading Mein Kampf would make me want to shred the United States Constitution. Those are the most dangerous books on Marxism and Fascism I can think of; they are read in universities across the country, yet we are not turning out a nation of believers in these ideologies. That is because they do not stand up to the free market of ideas. If so-called anti-Mormon literature is false, would it not then, also wither under scrutiny?

And yet, the church teaches that we are to avoid anything that is not faith promoting. Boyd K. Packer teaches that some things that are true are "not useful," and should not be told. He claims that there can be no "objective" history of the church. There is only that which furthers the cause, and that which is damaging to fragile testimonies.

I utterly reject this claim. Truth has nothing to fear from lies. Truth will stand up to the most rigorous of inquiries. It will look better the more it is examined. It will strengthen under the most aggressive attacks. In a conflict with Truth, Lies will always lose in the end.

I urge you to make your own studies into these matters. Read widely and from a variety of sources. Do not immerse yourself in one kind of writing, or one author for an extended period of time. Try to be as balanced and as fair as you possibly can. And for goodness sake, do not make snap judgements about changing your religious path. There is no rush to make decisions. Remember, what is true will still look true after all of your studying. What is false will break up and drift apart like so much rotten pack ice.