Can someone please be honest with me?

[Hemidakota]

Was it similar like Paul?

[martybess]

No I didn't walk and talk with the Savior on a daily basis. LOL

[Hemidakota]

Nor did Paul at first...it was quite a surprise for him that the Savior voice and blinding light en-wrapped him at that moment on the road.

[martybess]

Well yes it was much like that. Really I don't know why either, just happen. I'm grateful.

My father in-law lives in Finland and his conversion story is really cool! He heard the missionaries preaching in the street of Sweden on day while he was on his way home from work. He had to get work where ever he could after their war with the Soviet Union. Anyway he went home got down on his knees and asked if the things he hard were true. Just as with the angle Moroni did with Joseph Smith his roof opened up and angle came down to about a foot above the floor and told yes what he heard was true and to join the church and then left in the same way he appeared. He went to find the missionaries, found where they lived, knocked on the door and when they opened it he said I want to join your church. They thought he was joking started laughing and told him good one and shut the door. Of course he finally convinced them. He is 85 years old now. Was a great instrument in establishing the church in Finland. He is an amusing man. One of the first missionaries from Finland, first couple to be sealed from Finland and on. Is still Finland's patriarch and sealer. Has served in every calling pretty much including the temple presidency of the Sweden temple. Now they have their own temple. President Monson knows him well. He still come here often. Will be here next mouth to deliver the P. Blessings to the church office. There's more concerning the temple that Monson came here to give him when he was a counselor to Hinckley but I can't say more and really shouldn't of said that much but there was a thread concerning it just lately so I will say that it still goes on today. That I do know. Though I shouldn't. He is old and rambles on sometimes. I myself am grateful to of known such a great man. Hmmmm now I'm rambling on too. LOL

[Hemidakota]

I apologize if my curiosity is online and not PM. My goal is searching out those who are the walking the path of those of the church of the Firstborn. Thanks for your response.

[martybess]

I apologize if my curiosity is online and not PM. My goal is searching out those who are the walking the path of those of the church of the Firstborn. Thanks for your response.

The Church of the Firstborn is Christ’s heavenly church, and its members are exalted beings who gain an inheritance in the highest heaven of the celestial world and for whom the family continues in eternity….

"Even as the first principles and ordinances, including baptism in water and the reception of the Holy Ghost, constitute the gate into the earthly Church of Jesus Christ, so higher ordinances of the priesthood constitute the gate into the Church of the Firstborn. To secure the blessings that pertain to the Church of the Firstborn, one must obey the gospel from the heart, receive all of the ordinances that pertain to the house of the Lord, and be sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise in the Celestial Kingdom of God (D&C 76:67, 71, 94; D&C 77:11; D&C 78:21; D&C 88:1-5; TPJS, p. 237)….

When persons have proved themselves faithful in all things required by the Lord, it is their privilege to receive covenants and obligations that will enable them to be heirs of God as members of the Church of the Firstborn. They are “sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise” and are those “into whose hands the Father has given all things” (D&C 76:51-55). They will be priests and priestesses, kings and queens, receiving the Father’s glory, having the fulness of knowledge, wisdom, power, and dominion (D&C 76:56-62; cf. D&C 107:19). At the second coming of Jesus Christ, the “general assembly of the Church of the Firstborn” will descend with him (Heb. 12:22-23; JST Gen. 9:23; D&C 76:54, 63).[1]"

Yes he and his wife have for sure. I can't say more.

This is him but he has legs. He's a vet. Drafted at 16, wounded and a servior of the Siberian winters.

[Hemidakota]

Thanks for sharing that...it was moving moment with tears.

[Enlil-An]

(Wow! This post is way too long. The only reason I don't edit it is because I'm too tired. Hopefully it's not boring. I'll understand if you don't read all of it.)

Lovely12, I just discovered this thread tonight and read through all your posts and some of the responses. I suppose I'm too late since your issues seem to have been resolved but I had it in my mind to respond and now that idea is fixed. I was just going to say, first of all that I'm proud of you and your family. I have known others who went inactive and fell away for a lot less.

I don't think your concerns were light ones. I think they're completely valid and I understand what you were going through earlier because I'm struggling myself at the moment with things I've been reading. I've been studying the history and cultures of the Ancient Near East the last couple of years and when I began to compare them with stories in the Bible it started to become obvious that many things in the Old Testament were influenced more by the beliefs of the times and cultures around them than they were by revelation from heaven. Then I stumbled across something in the New Testament (or rather it was pointed out to me by a historian) that completely pulled the rug out from under me. It was so devistating (to me) to what I had been taught to believe about the Bible in the Church that I literally couldn't do anything the whole day. My wife literally had to watch the kids and do everything that day all on her own. I just laid in bed thinking about what it all meant regarding the Church, Joseph Smith, and my own life and what I was going to choose to believe from that day on.

After a lot of meditating, I came to the conclusion that my spritual experiences in the Church and on my mission (both from God and the devil) told me that what ever God's purposes were they were wrapped up in this Church and that the supernatural forces of evil were constantly trying to keep me from it so I knew I would never leave the Church but my testimony is becoming increasingly more complex. Once I discovered the things that I did, I couldn't leave it alone. I'm now studying the Bible in depth and started reading books that explain the Bible form the historical critical point of view as well as reading LDS commentaries on the Bible and the more I study the more I'm inclined to believe that the last century of historical research has revealed more about the teachings in the Bible than many of the prophecies of Joseph Smith. In fact many things Joseph Smith said (especially the JS Translations) I feel (I stress the phrase I feel) are downright inaccurate.

I began to feel just like you did. If not all of the words of a prophet of the Lord can be trusted then what is the benefit of following a prophet? If the Holy Ghost couldn't correctly guide an amazing prophet like Joseph Smith into understanding the scriptures correctly, then what chance of I in using the Holy Ghost to sift through the teachings of the prophets to know what was true and what wasn't?

As I was struggling with these things, oddly enough I was called to be 2nd counciler in the Elder's Quorum. The Spirit was very strong when I received my calling and I received the usually Satanic oppositional feelings the previous couple of days. A couple of weeks later, the Elder's Quorum lesson was on Joseph Smith in Carthage jail and all the terrible things that happened to the Saints in Missouri as well as the "golden era" of the Church in Navou after that and the building of the Navou temple. The teacher had really prepared for the lesson and knew the period well. The Spirit in that lesson was the strongest I'd ever fealt it for a long time, perhaps in my life.

All of this is very perplexing because the experiences I receive when I'm doing work in the Church just don't gel with the things I've been learning and I haven't been able to piece it all together in a coherant thesis yet. Last Sunday in fast and testimony meeting, there was a lull in testimonies (about 4 minutes) so I got up to bear my testimony. Questioning everything from the Church's interpretation of the afterlife to Christ's infinite atonement, I stuck to what I know. I said, "I want to bear my testimony that I know the Spirit of God is in this Church. That he directs the work and the more we become involved and participate in the work and our callings the more we will feel his presence and see his influence in our lives." I said some other things but that was the gist of it. The Spirit was very strong while I was up there and stayed with me when I went back to my seat.

I finally decided to find an LDS forum to join and found this one. I brought up some of my concerns and started a thread (which hasn't been deleted yet, I think) and the responses I got surprised me. They ranged from disbelief to confrontation to personal attacks concerning my motives to twisting the scriptures to mean something they didn't. The only sympathizing responses I received were in private messages. I don't think any of the members who reponded to my post were bad. I just don't think many of them were ready or willing to accept what I was saying or adjust their own testimonies to it the way I have been forced to adjust mine.

Anyway, I want to say again that I'm proud of you for coming back and proud of you for staying. I know I'm not going anywhere. After obsorbing the shock of the things I had learned I came back to the fact that I had received personal witnesses from God that he is real and will help me (save me more like) in times that I need him and it was through the teachings and callings of this Church that I discovered this truth (I wasn't active until I turned 23) so here's where I'm going to stay until God directs me otherwise which I doubt he will do. I hope you take the same approach whatever other challenges come your way.

[Guest Lovely12]

Dean Anlil-an,

Reading your post made me feel as if I had written it. I shared your post with my husbnad, who is still having a hard time, and he was overwhelmed with emotions. I don't think I have ever met anyone who has experienced the same kind of pain as we have experienced and with the same kind of passion.

I can still see my husband curled up in fetal position on the floor, devasted with the things we had discovered. The more we read, the sicker we became. Our whole world had turned up side down.

Our religion was our life. We had lived it with all our hearts and now our faith had been shattered.

We had the same experiences as you. God wanted us in this church, but Satan was making it extremely difficult to follow his strong promptings.

There are some things that I have not shared on this board. I won't go into detail, but during the time we were thinking about returning to church, my family experienced some things that I really cannot explain, other than, it was something of pure evil.

This confirmed to me that I must return to church. I knew that Satan was doing everything he could to keep us from returning. So, we did. We didn't have all the answers, but our family had felt the strong Spirit of the Lord, and we had felt the evil forces of Satan. I asked my husband, "Why would Satan work so hard to keep us from something, if it was not of God?"

I came up with the same answer that you did----GOD wants me here. I told myself that if I return, I would never leave again. That's why I was searching for answers. I was trying to stay true to my word.

I just want you to know, that my heart goes out to you for the pain that you felt and for the things that you still may struggle with. I understand. You give me strength to know that I am not alone, and I never was.

I, too, have had people misunderstand my intentions, because they simply could not comprehend my pain. At one time I had even tried to delete my account out of frustration, but I couldn't figure out how to do it.

Thank you so much for sharing your story and testimony with me. I pray that Heavenly Father will make you strong against the adversary and that you will find complete inner peace. (By the way, I'm proud of you, too!)

God bless you, my friend.

Edited June 15, 2009 by Lovely12

[rameumptom]

(Wow! This post is way too long. The only reason I don't edit it is because I'm too tired. Hopefully it's not boring. I'll understand if you don't read all of it.)

Enlil, Thanks for your testimony. I've been reading critical Biblical history for years now. It doesn't bug me in the least. Why? Because I believe the Bible only insofar as it is translated correctly.

How does Joseph Smith fit in? In the JST, he wasn't doing a real translation. He never went to the Hebrew/Aramaic texts to rewrite the book.

Instead, he studied it out in his mind, and the Lord revealed doctrine to him. Changes made by Joseph Smith in the JST is more like a Midrash (commentary) than a real translation. We also see that Joseph added ancient text on Melchizedek, Moses, Enoch, Abraham, etc. Are these stories accurate? Who knows? It may be that the Lord provided them as a doctrinal teaching tool, and to give us insights into our own time and space.

When Joseph includes the name Mahijah, as a man from Mahujah, who questions Enoch; it really jumps out at you when the only other place to find a similar account (of a man named Mahujah questioning Enoch), is in the Dead Seas Scroll fragments of Enoch (see Moses 6:40, 7:2).

Such cannot be coincidence. The odds for this and so many other ancient things that Joseph got right, are so next to impossible that Occam's Razor could only explain it by revelation.

I have a Master's Degree in history. I do not have a testimony of history. History is written primarily by the winners of wars. And it is twisted to ensure the victor looks very good. Ramses II tried to make himself immortal by erasing the names of former pharaohs off of monuments, and then have his name carved in so deep that it was nigh impossible to remove his name without destroying the monument!

Societies try to bury their enemies, so that they never rise again. That is a key problem with the Bible, as different religious/political factions fought for primacy in Israel. J and E argued over whether it was Judah or northern Israel that was spiritually in the right. P and D insisted that worship could only occur at the temple, even though altars in high places had been used by prophets for thousands of years (and also by people like Lehi, who had the Brass Plates as a potential E source).

No wonder Jesus had a love/hate relationship with the temple. It was the House of God, yet it was being run as a "den of thieves" by the political factions among the Sadduccees and Pharisees. The Essenes believed they were the true priests of the temple, but lost it in the struggle against the Maccabbees (who later were Sadduccees).

Of course the Bible has errors. Joseph Smith's responsibility was not to correct the historical errors, but the doctrinal errors. THAT is the key difference here.

And it continues, as even our LDS history has some difficult components in it (such as blacks and the priesthood), which we are only now beginning to deal with, as much was put in our own skeleton closet for years.

[skippy740]

I'm "facebook" friends with Marvin Perkins and got this message. Download the MP3 and listen to it. It has a wonderful message!

Friends,

Many of you have been awaiting the following and it finally ready.

Would you please share with all on your emailing list.

FYI:

The 12 questions blog has created more response that any of the articles with the exception of Dana King's Meridian Magazine article last year.

Meridian Magazine:: Ideas and Society: Timely New DVD Helps Answer Hard Questions about Race and Equality in the Church

*Note that one week ago today, was the 31st anniversary of the end of the restriction on priesthood to Blacks.

New Podcast with 12 Questions from Marc Bohn for Times and Seasons

This is the audio version of the four part series on the LDS blog Times and Season.

Also features a call from a family tormented by the Blacks LDS issue to the point of needing medication, their exit from the church and return after 4 years.

http://bits-aaop.byoaudio.com/files/media/983850ac-cabb-bf20-2e9d-710db3e09790.mp3

Thank you all for joining in the work. It's working wonderfully!

[skippy740]

Lovely12! Is that YOU at the end of the mp3? :)

[Maya]

Perhaps.. this is the problem. Our missionaries simply don't know enough. They know the plan of salvation like the back of their hands.. but it seems to me (in general) that they have little to no knowledge of the tough issues.

Yes but then missionaries task is to guide people to Church, not answer their questions. This is what I been told... and I have understood the truth in it. Missionaries are innocent, they can find the innocet among people, the innocent searchers.

[Hemidakota]

Exactly Maya! They are only to teach what is given by the church [MTC and field learning] and if moved upon by the Holy Ghost for that individual and no other.

[Traveler]

One thing I wanted to revisit. I read a few more post came to remember my “Black” LDS friend from Seattle. Often when I would talk to him – I would say things like, “I think it would really help blacks if ______”. It did not matter what I put in the blank. But my friend would always smile and tell me that my prejudice was showing again. He would then remind me that the issue is a human issue and if anything truly helped blacks it would help me and everybody else as well.

Those things that hurt a “black” person are not “black” issues because such things would hurt and do hurt anybody. I really believe we must learn to move beyond “black” and “white” issues. This is why I am so set that there are no “race” issues. I cannot separate myself from anyone. That which is unkind to one is unkind to all. If we ever allow anyone to speak unkindly of anyone or to hurt anyone – it is our obligation to do all that we can to end such injustice – not as a race issue but as a human issue.

We all must move beyond thinking that something carries a different meaning because a “black” person or “white” person said it. Some are more ridiculously prejudiced than others so we should be more concerned with some foolishness than others – but let us make all such issues human issues and realize it hurts humanity.

The Traveler

[Elphaba]

That means, a blond hair, blue eye, white male could have possibly been denied the Priesthood as well, as did happen in some cases, if it was determined that there was African lineage in his family line.

Hi Keith,

Do you have any links to an example of this?

I loved your post, as always.

Elphaba

[applepansy]

Hi Keith,

Do you have any links to an example of this?

I loved your post, as always.

Elphaba

Elphaba, My father served his mission in South Africa in the early 1950s. Before they could baptize anyone, the person had to trace his genealogy out of Africa. It was while my father was there that President McKay prayed regarding the Priesthood ban being lifted.

applepansy

[Elphaba]

Lovely,

First, let me state that I am no longer LDS, but I have a passion for the Church’s history, and know a little bit about the early Church and its racism, which is an accurate descriptor at certain times, but not accurate at all during others.

I know I was taught, in the ‘60s through mid 80s all of the clichés, i.e., blacks were fence sitters in the pre-existence, they were the seed of Cain, they are an inferior race, etc. This was in official Church teaching sessions, and I don’t believe it only happened in my Southern California ward. I believe it was taught throughout the Church.

Additionally, my 75-year-old LDS TBM mother, who was raised when a good chunk of white Amerians, including LDS, were racist, still holds that title, so much so that it stuns me. She still believes all of the above, to which I would add she thinks interracial couples are an abomination.

So the Church does have a racist past, which cannot be denied historically. Still, there are many examples of these same early prophets saying something completely different than the usual quotes we hear from Brigham, etc. For example: Brigham Young said in 1860:

Negroes should be treated like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes [animals]. For their abuse of that race, the whites shall be cursed, unless they repent. (Journal Discourses 10:111)

In 1863 Brigham said:

"Men will be called to judgment for the way they have treated the Negro." (Journal of Discourses 10:250)

In 1855, Parley P. Pratt said:

I love a man without regard to his country, or where he was brought up, without reference to color or nation. I love a man that loves truth." (Journal of Discourses, 3:182)

There’s much more at Light Planet‘s Black Mormons and the Priesthood, but rather than post them all here, which would take up too much space, you can read the article yourself if you’d like. It is a good source of what was said and done during a historical timeline.

I don’t think the following answers your questions, but I’d like to add it anyway, because I love Joseph’s beliefs about, and treatment of blacks in the earliest days of the Church. Here is one little story that illustrations this, that happened in 1842:

From blacklds.org:

"While he was acting as mayor of the city, a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleaded that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the freedom of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, 'I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed, and we will have to impose a fine.'

The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child." (Young Women's Journal, p.538)

Another example of Joseph’s feelings toward blacks is the story of Jane Manning James. For some reason, every time I read it I have to take deep breaths, because otherwise, I start to cry. It's that powerful.

If nothing else, I hope my post provides some perspective on the Church and racism. It is a fact that it occurred from its earliest days, and even to this day with some of the older members. But, like life, it’s not always that black and white.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Elphaba, My father served his mission in South Africa in the early 1950s. Before they could baptize anyone, the person had to trace his genealogy out of Africa. It was while my father was there that President McKay prayed regarding the Priesthood ban being lifted.

Thanks apple.

I don't usually play the church card, but I'm going to this time.

Isn't the patriarch supposed to be inspired as to what tribe a person is from during the patriarchal blessing?

I don't know anyone else who had to chart his/her ancestry. I suppose that's because most of us don't live in a predominately black country. But why should that matter?

In fact, I've heard anectdotal stories of men being ordained to the priesthood where the elders stopped because they were inspired to know he was African. (Yes, I know anecdotal is just that, and proof of nothing.)

That's how I thought it worked.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

We all must move beyond thinking that something carries a different meaning because a “black” person or “white” person said it. Some are more ridiculously prejudiced than others so we should be more concerned with some foolishness than others – but let us make all such issues human issues and realize it hurts humanity.

You always amaze me how beautifully you write about prejudice hurting humanity, but for some reason, gays and immigrants aren't included in your . . . inclusiveness.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

IMHO, the reason your church gets so much criticism for past racial utterances and policies is two-fold.

1. The whole claim to being the only true, fully-restored church puts your faith under a microscope. People don't expect the usual unsanctified racial attitudes of the past to come from God's one true fully restored church. Likewise, it's a common expectation amongst people of faith that prophets were perfect, and their words without error. These expectations may not be fair or even accurate, but they do explain why people criticize as they do.

2. That ban on blacks in the priesthood lasting until 1978 remains a tough pill for many to swallow. Non-members can't help but respond, "What on earth???" Members, who are motivated to reconcile their concern with their love for the church may well come to peace with the reasoned explanations offered here. Critics, and many non-members will remain deeply perplexed.

[applepansy]

Thanks apple.

I don't usually play the church card, but I'm going to this time.

Isn't the patriarch supposed to be inspired as to what tribe a person is from during the patriarchal blessing?

I don't know anyone else who had to chart his/her ancestry. I suppose that's because most of us don't live in a predominately black country. But why should that matter?

In fact, I've heard anectdotal stories of men being ordained to the priesthood where the elders stopped because they were inspired to know he was African. (Yes, I know anecdotal is just that, and proof of nothing.)

That's how I thought it worked.

Elphaba

I can't answer your questions Elphaba. I just stated what my father experienced. It is not anecdotal if you've actually experienced something.

As far as a Patriarchal blessing...you have to be a member to receive one. Which means you'd have to be baptized.

Edited June 16, 2009 by applepansy

[Elphaba]

I can't answer your questions Elphaba. I just stated what my father experienced.

I wasn't questioning your father's story at all. I’m sure it happened just as you said.

My question is: Doesn’t a patriarch have the discernment to determine a person’s ancestry when giving a patriarchal blessing.

It is not anecdotal if you've actually experienced something.

It becomes anecdotal once you’ve related it to another person, or in this case, once your father related it to you, because you did not experience it firsthand.

Anecdotal:

1) somebody's account of something: a short personal account of an incident or event

2) based on anecdotes or hearsay: consisting of or based on secondhand accounts rather than firsthand knowledge or experience or scientific investigation.

3) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In this case, your father’s experience is not enough information to definitively answer my question: Doesn’t a patriarch have the discernment to determine a person’s ancestry when giving a patriarchal blessing.

As far as a Patriarchal blessing...you have to be a member to receive one. Which means you'd have to be baptized.

I know that. I'm not sure how that pertains to my question.

Honestly, I wasn‘t trying to offend. Obviously, because I responded to your post, you thought I meant I wanted an answer only from you, but I didn’t. My question was open to anyone who wanted to respond, including you. I’m sorry for the confusion.

Elphaba

[Enlil-An]

Originally posted by rameuptum

Enlil, Thanks for your testimony. I've been reading critical Biblical history for years now. It doesn't bug me in the least. Why? Because I believe the Bible only insofar as it is translated correctly.

I think the problem goes deeper than that. I believe the God of the Old Testament is the God that we worship but I don't know if I accept the belief that the Old Testament was originally written in purity and then corrupted over generations through mistranslations or changes made by scribes. The reason for this is that even though much of the theology of the OT is different than the NT and the revelations of JS, the books of the OT are completely consistant with themselves.

There is far more evidence to show that the full theology of the Bible was a system in the making. One in which many precepts that we take for granted like life after death, the coming of a messiah, belief in the devil, even monotheism itself were not held nor taught by the ancient Hebrews prior to a certain time in their history.

When Joseph includes the name Mahijah, as a man from Mahujah, who questions Enoch; it really jumps out at you when the only other place to find a similar account (of a man named Mahujah questioning Enoch), is in the Dead Seas Scroll fragments of Enoch (see Moses 6:40, 7:2).

Such cannot be coincidence. The odds for this and so many other ancient things that Joseph got right, are so next to impossible that Occam's Razor could only explain it by revelation.

Yes, I agree with this. Joseph Smith got many things right that he couldn't have gotten right unless he knew about them through supernatural means. But he also got quite a few things wrong and that makes it extremely difficult for a person who was taught to believe that revelation is more accurate than any other form of learning.

Societies try to bury their enemies, so that they never rise again. That is a key problem with the Bible, as different religious/political factions fought for primacy in Israel. J and E argued over whether it was Judah or northern Israel that was spiritually in the right. P and D insisted that worship could only occur at the temple, even though altars in high places had been used by prophets for thousands of years (and also by people like Lehi, who had the Brass Plates as a potential E source).

Yes, that can account for some of the problems in the Bible but not all of them. There were many other factors as well. There is strong evidence for outside influences that contributed to the ideas, stories and religious teachings in the Bible. The Presians, the Caananites, the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, and later on the Greeks seem to have all influenced the Bible in more than a few ways. Other beliefs seem to have generated as a result of the developing history of the Hebrews themselves. As they faced knew challenges, prophets came up with new, updated (sometimes contradictary) answers to people's questions.

Of course the Bible has errors. Joseph Smith's responsibility was not to correct the historical errors, but the doctrinal errors. THAT is the key difference here.

The problem is that not all of the corrections Joseph Smith made were doctrinal. Many of his claims were historical and modern research has shown (to me) that many of them were wrong. This creates a problem because more than a few of Joseph Smith's historical interpretations were the crux for many of the docrines he taught. The history of the gospel is tied up to the docrines of the gospel.

I haven't peaced it all together yet, but the theory I'm toying with now is what I call "revelatory impressionism" (made it up myself) which means that a prophet (like Joseph Smith) can only receive revelation about things he's meditated on and prayed for and those revelations can only be given as thoughts and impressions and would be interpreted through JS's on preconceived ideas.

It does seem that Joseph Smith was requried to do a lot more guessing than we as members are inclined to believe. There even seems to be evidence that JS embellished and made a few things up. But I don't know for sure. Lately I've been concentrating just on the Bible.

I'm not reavaluating my beleif that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I have a strong testimony of that. I'm reavaluating my understanding of what a prophet is and how he gets his revelation and whether that revelation is always right.

Edited to add: I've skimmed through much of Joseph L. Allen's Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon as well and think its incredible how that Mesoamerican scholar has been able to demonstrate that that area of the globe fits so perfectly with the landscape described in the BoM. Throw in the BoM's description of the Arabian Penninsila and the loyalty of the witnesses to what they saw and experienced and you've got far more evidence that Joseph Smith was receiving divine help than not. What I've been learning lately only makes things more complex. But one of my favorite sayings by a philopher (who's name I can't recall) is, "A little philophy inclineth a man to atheism but a lot of philosophy brings a man back to religion."

Likewise I fully believe that if I continue to study and pray that all of these things will be satisfied in some way and that I'll emerge with a greater testimony of the whole thing than I had before.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Enlil-An

[rameumptom]

Hi Keith,

Do you have any links to an example of this?

I loved your post, as always.

Elphaba

This was actually one of the key issues in 1978 when Pres Kimball and the 12 sought for the revelation. The temple in Brazil was about to be dedicated, people there were being baptized very fast. The only way to tell someone's "race" was through a patriarchal blessing. It was holding the Church back in Brazil from progressing forward, as someone who looked European, could easily have African ancestors.

P.S. - I got this info from Elder Haight, who was present when the revelation was given.