[Ralph]

nibbler wrote:

This discussion reminded me of the following thread:

Floods Are as Dangerous as Famines

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4952&p=67667” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=4952&p=67667

It’s a bit of a short thread, and in re-reading it I thought… aren’t all the secrets, so to speak, already out there for the finding? So what we’re talking about is the church taking the lead on dissecting the letter to the CES director (as an example) in the context of SS or some other environment.

What you say, allow me torespond also to darkjedi.

Sometimes it is better to avoid the floods. Sometimes you can not prevent it from disclosing information. I’ll explain: If you say in ‘essay “Race and Priesthood”:

Quote:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else.

it is your duty to make known this to all members of the Church, especially to the black members. If you were told all your life that you have been less valiant in pre-existence, you will have the right to know that is not true? As long as this thing will not be done, this is kind of a secret. I know the truth, you know the truth, but most of the members know what? “incorrect information”. Why this information is not openly disclosed? No one can say that such an important thing can be inserted only in the Gospel Topic. Is there fear of the flood effect? I hope not. What is more important? We’re not talking about doctrines. We’re talking about people. We’re talking about their self-esteem, what they believe to be, and we believe they are. My doubt is that the essay “Race and priesthood” say something difficult to accept. I think the essay is telling the truth, and we should not be afraid of the truth.

We must fear the Lord, not man.

Old-Timer wrote:

Depending on the outcome, I could see all kinds of results for the membership.

I think a good starting point is the essay: “first vision accounts”. Maybe the critics will not agree, but the essay also speaks of their point of view:

Quote:

The variety and number of accounts of the First Vision have led some critics to question whether Joseph Smith’s descriptions match the reality of his experience. Two arguments are frequently made against his credibility: the first questions Joseph Smith’s memory of the events; the second questions whether he embellished elements of the story over time. etc…

I think it is a good example of good practice. The Church explains:

1. the facts (the different accounts)

2. his point of view in relation to the facts

3. the point of view of some critics

It’s a good outcome. If this is used for so many other questions, it would be instructive.

p.s. I wonder, as a not english speaking member, why this part of the essay has not been translated into other languages:

Quote:

Arguments Regarding the Accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision

The variety and number of accounts of the First Vision have led some critics to question whether Joseph Smith’s descriptions match the reality of his experience. Two arguments are frequently made against his credibility: the first questions Joseph Smith’s memory of the events; the second questions whether he embellished elements of the story over time.

Memory. One argument regarding the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision alleges that historical evidence does not support Joseph Smith’s description of religious revival in Palmyra, New York, and its vicinity in 1820. Some argue that this undermines both Joseph’s claim of unusual religious fervor and the account of the vision itself.

Documentary evidence, however, supports Joseph Smith’s statements regarding the revivals. The region where he lived became famous for its religious fervor and was unquestionably one of the hotbeds of religious revivals. Historians refer to the region as “the burned-over district” because preachers wore out the land holding camp revivals and seeking converts during the early 1800s.6 In June 1818, for example, a Methodist camp meeting took place in Palmyra, and the following summer, Methodists assembled again at Vienna (now Phelps), New York, 15 miles from the Smith family farm. The journals of an itinerant Methodist preacher document much religious excitement in Joseph’s geographic area in 1819 and 1820. They report that Reverend George Lane, a revivalist Methodist minister, was in that region in both years, speaking “on Gods method in bringing about Reformations.”7 This historical evidence is consistent with Joseph’s description. He said that the unusual religious excitement in his district or region “commenced with the Methodists.” Indeed, Joseph stated that he became “somewhat partial” to Methodism.8

Embellishment. The second argument frequently made regarding the accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision is that he embellished his story over time. This argument focuses on two details: the number and identity of the heavenly beings Joseph Smith stated that he saw. Joseph’s First Vision accounts describe the heavenly beings with greater detail over time. The 1832 account says, “The Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.” His 1838 account states, “I saw two Personages,” one of whom introduced the other as “My Beloved Son.” As a result, critics have argued that Joseph Smith started out reporting to have seen one being—“the Lord”—and ended up claiming to have seen both the Father and the Son.9

There are other, more consistent ways of seeing the evidence. A basic harmony in the narrative across time must be acknowledged at the outset: three of the four accounts clearly state that two personages appeared to Joseph Smith in the First Vision. The outlier is Joseph Smith’s 1832 account, which can be read to refer to one or two personages. If read to refer to one heavenly being, it would likely be to the personage who forgave his sins. According to later accounts, the first divine personage told Joseph Smith to “hear” the second, Jesus Christ, who then delivered the main message, which included the message of forgiveness.10 Joseph Smith’s 1832 account, then, may have concentrated on Jesus Christ, the bearer of forgiveness.

Another way of reading the 1832 account is that Joseph Smith referred to two beings, both of whom he called “Lord.” The embellishment argument hinges on the assumption that the 1832 account describes the appearance of only one divine being. But the 1832 account does not say that only one being appeared. Note that the two references to “Lord” are separated in time: first “the Lord” opens the heavens; then Joseph Smith sees “the Lord.” This reading of the account is consistent with Joseph’s 1835 account, which has one personage appearing first, followed by another soon afterwards. The 1832 account, then, can reasonably be read to mean that Joseph Smith saw one being who then revealed another and that he referred to both of them as “the Lord”: “the Lord opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord.”11

Joseph’s increasingly specific descriptions can thus be compellingly read as evidence of increasing insight, accumulating over time, based on experience. In part, the differences between the 1832 account and the later accounts may have something to do with the differences between the written and the spoken word. The 1832 account represents the first time Joseph Smith attempted to write down his history. That same year, he wrote a friend that he felt imprisoned by “paper pen and Ink and a crooked broken scattered and imperfect Language.” He called the written word a “little narrow prison.”12 The expansiveness of the later accounts is more easily understood and even expected when we recognize that they were likely dictated accounts—an, easy, comfortable medium for Joseph Smith and one that allowed the words to flow more easily.

Conclusion

Joseph Smith testified repeatedly that he experienced a remarkable vision of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. Neither the truth of the First Vision nor the arguments against it can be proven by historical research alone. Knowing the truth of Joseph Smith’s testimony requires each earnest seeker of truth to study the record and then exercise sufficient faith in Christ to ask God in sincere, humble prayer whether the record is true. If the seeker asks with the real intent to act upon the answer revealed by the Holy Ghost, the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s vision will be manifest. In this way, every person can know that Joseph Smith spoke honestly when he declared, “I had seen a vision, I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it.”13

What is the difference between me and a English mother language member? Quiet. There is no difference. Simply 95% of people who need this type of feedback is English speaking. It makes no sense to give the meat to those who can not eat it.

hawkgrrrl wrote:

I was just reading in American Grace today….”

I read in a your post, in another forum, a list of books that have helped me a lot (Tolle, Don Miguel Ruiz, etc …). Do you have another post where you listed other good books that you read? thanks

[Ralph]

Ray, I have a different idea about the secrets but I understand and respect your opinion.

I don’t think it is unproductive to talk about impossible scenarios because they make you think about why are impossible and what could be done to make them less impossible.

It would be so nice if the Church would share and comment openly with all members the new essays, doesn’t it?

Perhaps not everyone will agree, but I think that the critics may be wrong, but impel the Church to do better.

[Ralph]

Old-Timer wrote:

Bluntly? Won’t happen. It’s an impossible scenario.

Yes Ray, it was my introduction: imagine an “impossible” scenario. It was only a paradoxical situation.

I agree with 1) 2) and 4)

About 3) I do not agree with “A LOT”. I personally would say “more than in the past”. I think they could do much much more than what they are doing, especially in non-English languages​​. In my country it is almost the same as 30 years ago. I know it’s a huge job, but sometimes you really feel a member of an economy class. It may seem strange, but in my country, there are so many people who have not had the opportunity to learn English. Only people who speak English, who are curious, who use the Internet not only for facebook, know that something is changing.

SilentDawning wrote:

I think it wouldn’t have a huge impact on the core of active believers. We have seen that articles, such as the priesthood ban disavowal show that people are pretty entrenched in their beliefs.

SD, Race and Priesthood essay worked for me. I was a TBM, and that essay has completely changed my way of seeing things, and has challenged some TBM I know.

[Ralph]

Thank you Ray. I’m learning to know you by reading your posts and I really appreciate your frankness and clarity of thought.

[Ralph]

I love this quote by the Dalai Lama:

Quote:

“I always tell my Western friends that it is best to keep your own tradition. Changing religion is not easy and sometimes causes confusion. You must value your tradition and honor your own religion.”

I think that the gospel can be a great tool for a good life and to know God. Church is a wonderful vehicle to make known the gospel of Jesus Christ. However, I think it is one of the tools, not the one and only tool. I think I was lucky to learn the gospel through this special tool which is the Church, that I want to value and honor.

Sometimes it is not easy, but necessary if I think about all that it has given me over the years.

[Ralph]

Thank you all.

If I understand correctly, when you say anti, it does not necessarily mean false. Anti can be synonymous of manipulated, partial or out of context information. Probably the best anti information are disguised as impartial, but they carry the reader toward a specific interpretation or feeling.

However, from what I’ve seen, sometimes true information may be written in an anti website, and false information may be part of a pro-lds site.

How do you suggest, you must rely on multiple sources to get an idea less partial.

It’s a jungle!!

[Ralph]

Deepthinker wrote:

the biggest help to me was just being able to release the pressure I had bottled up with not sharing my doubt with anyone in person.

I completely agree with you. it’s so hard not to have people to talk frankly face to face. It creates a lot of pressure.

Thanks for your sharing.

[Ralph]

SilentDawning wrote:

I have a question — why were you released? Do you know? Were you open about your lack of belief in certain doctrines, or was it some other reason — or even an unknown reason?

I spoke with my Stake President about certain things that were disturbing me. I told him that I felt very uncomfortable with my calling. He only asked me to wait a month, for the ward conference. He was really charitable, I felt much better after that.

[Ralph]

I like that in the church we are free to share that kind of feeling, when it’s real and come from the heart.

I don’t like when it isn’t natural, and it is “used” as special effect because I feel that is manipulative and has for me the opposite effect.

[Ralph]

DarkJedi wrote:

Did that not happen for you because of your doubts or is it just a matter of the bishop or SP not quite finding the right place for you?

mackay11 wrote:

Out of interest, was the release at your request

It’s for my doubts. After I had my FC, ​​I felt inadequate to represent the Church. I do not know if I will accept callings in the future. I will choose from time to time. Maybe something peripheral, as a consultant, I do not know.

my introduction: http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5352

[Ralph]

The essay has not yet been translated in other languages. The previous essay, about the first vision, was translated in just two months. Do you think that the Church was afraid of the reaction to the essay in the States, and does not know what to do with the rest of the world? Don’t you think that, given its importance, it would have to be translated immediately?

In other languages you can read this (google translation)

Ordination to the priesthood before 1978

In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation that extended the ordination to the priesthood to all worthy male members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who were worthy (Official Declaration 2). Before then, only the male members who were not descendants of black Africa were ordained to the priesthood.

more information

Since Biblical times, the Lord has established through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi was given the priesthood and was allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Similarly, during the earthly ministry of the Savior’s blessings were limited to the Jews. Only after the revelation to the Apostle Peter the gospel and the priesthood were extended to others (see Acts 10:1-33, 14:23, 15:6-.

With the revelation given President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2). Every candidate for ordination is interviewed by priesthood leaders to ensure that understands and accepts to live according to the principles established by righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants & C 84:33-44; & C 121:34-46).

https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=spa

https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=deu

https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=fra

https://www.lds.org/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=ita

If you change the last three letters (spa, deu, fra, ita) with “eng” you’ll be redirected to this:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

interesting…

[Ralph]

On Own Now wrote:

For April 2014 General Conference, how would you order the following items from most likely to least likely to be announced:

A. New temple in Utah

B. Women can serve 24-month missions

C. Women to be ordained to the priesthood

D. Shortening the 3-hour block

E. Elimination of the 1-year waiting period for temple sealings

F. Renaming of the Priesthood Session to the General Men’s Meeting

G. A reiteration of the 1970 FP Letter on tithing, of which most members are still unaware, 44 years later

H. Opening a new BYU campus

I would add:

I: A statement by President Monson that formalizes the Church Essay: “Race and the priesthood”

It has not been translated into any language yet.

[Ralph]

Orson wrote:

Welcome Ralph. As I was reading your intro I thought of the recent interview of our friend Bill Reel with FAIR:

http://blog.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/REELLYNCHFINAL.mp3

I think they make several very good points and it is the best podcast that I have heard so far — for the goal of sharing what a faith crisis is with faithful members.

If I was in your position and I felt a need to help someone in the church know what I was going through I would share this podcast. I would also need to not get hung up on the discussion of how the church is ultimately true – for a long time I was not prepared to digest that type of language. You have to learn to let the things slide that you don’t relate to.

Best wishes!

Thanks for the link. It made ​​me think a lot. I felt very close to the experience of Bill Reel. I really respect his decision. I do not know where my choice will lead me. I would really like to still believe in certain things, but I do not want to believe simply because I want to believe. Last Sunday I had three hours very enriching, and even spiritual. But the question to which I do not have an answer, is whether it depends on the Church, or on the portion of righteousness and truth that the Church has, or by the universal principles that are taught.

I do not know if I’m running too fast. it is true that I made the decision in only three months, but I had read many things during these years. In recent weeks I have just given a different meaning to so many things. There was a moment where I began to see everything from a different point of view. You risk to lose your balance. To stand I’m trying to listen to my heart, my mind and my spirit. You know it is not easy.

[Ralph]

Thanks for the welcome.

nibbler wrote:

If you don’t mind me asking, what’s your native language?

Italian.

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

Hi wreck it Ralph! sorry, but the picture is an adept description for what seems to be your situation.

Ralph discovers life in his situation isn’t what it’s cracked up to be.

He goes the other way looking for inspiration. What he finds is he is an imperfect human who learns to make the best he can with what he is given(life and personality). Learning to be comfortable in your own skin without absolute answers out there he was looking for. He finds there is non but learns to be comfortable with it on his own skin.

It’s true! I feel just like that, but to be completely honest a few months ago I was just like fix-it Felix :”There is an answer to everything”, “everything will be okay”.

Forgotten_Charity wrote:

Welcome! What ever happens during the process of learning to be comfortable in your own skin without absolutes, be kind, be patient, be loving and charitable to others and to yourself. Likewise don’t let others tell you you are less then ideal, less then them but realize(it looks like you have) that you are not more then them either.

We all deserve respect and compassion while we try to figure out who we are(common when one persons “identity” becomes attached to something outside of yourself) you lose a sense of self because you loss a since of identity.

What takes time to learn is that who you are isn’t your job, isn’t your family, isn’t the church, your identity is who you are independently of other or other things. They are all a part of you, even an important part. But they are not you. As Ralph learns his identity isn’t the game or his role but is just part of him and learns to umbrage himself and parts of him.

“All I can be, is the best me I can be”. Learning to in in-brace that is something that can’t be told, it’s learning and discovering what that is for yourself.

Thank you for your words. I know it will not be easy to accept the disappointment of others. I can only imagine the face of my mother when I’ll explain something. Help! But first of all I want to be honest with myself. As you said, we are more than our jobs, our family, our church. Maybe not making these decisions, I could lose part of my identity, wearing the clothes of a person that I’m not anymore.

[Author]

Posts