I too believe that some members, particularly those in the “Bloggernacle,” seem to want to water down Mormonism. Just yesterday I told a friend:

I often hear “if only we didn’t have to believe the Book of Mormon is literally true, if only the temple didn’t have all these weird ‘Masonic’ ceremonies, if only the prophet wasn’t the very mouthpiece of God on the earth, if only we didn’t have to live these strict commandments all the time, if only the Church authorities would just allow lesbian and gay couples to marry, if only the Church wasn’t so patriarchal, if only the Church authorities would change this that or the other, etc., etc., etc., THEN I might be able to fully believe and be a good member of the Church.”

What would we be left with if these members got their wish? Absolutely nothing. It is an excuse for failing to seek faith.

The “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic” (which comes from CS Lewis, no?) seems to me to be an exhaustive logical description of the figure known in the Bible as Jesus of Nazareth.

Joseph Smith may not have understood all the ways in which the Lord was using him. But we (his contemporaries and us) have even less understanding of how the Lord used Joseph.

To state that the Book of Mormon might be a “pious fraud” would require that either Joseph Smith lied about the book’s provenance, or else that God sent an angel who lied to Joseph.

There may be room to “nuance” some of Joseph Smith’s (and Brigham Young’s, and etc.) teachings, because the church has received further light and knowledge since then. The Journal of Discourses contains plenty of stuff that is “not official” or “no longer operative” or “operative but not promulgated” or “operative but not binding” or “ummmm, that person was just plain mistaken.”

But other than the shortcomings that are inherent in human communication (ie, the transcription, transmittal and translation of His sayings), there’s extremely little, if any, room to “nuance” Jesus of Nazareth who died on the cross. CS Lewis was right, the Jesus of the New Testament was either the Son of God, a liar, or extremely delusional., or a combination of liarn/delusional. And if He wasn’t the Son of God, then His contemporaneous followers who claimed intimate knowledge of His divinity were also liars and/or delusional.

The scriptures are replete with things like “the wisdom of the wise shall perish” “truth hidden from the prudent”, “truth revealed to the simple”, etc.

People who consider themselves smart and intellectual can over-analyze things to the degree that they miss the point. I think that’s one way how “smart people” have watered down the pure truths of the Bible, and come up with the wishy-washy pablum that makes up most of modern mainstream Protestantism.

Please, please, please don’t try watering down the simple truths of the restored gospel. Please, please, please don’t try to “protestantize” Mormonism. There is no “new way” or “middle way” to what Joseph Smith brought forth under the guidance of God.

I saw within Elder Holland’s talk somewhat of a “smackdown” on the “middle way Mormonism” that seems to be fashionable among the self-proclaimed intellectuals in the bloggernacle.

My thought while hearing Elder Holland’s talk was “Preach it, Brother!”