justamere10

Jerry Ainsworth expressed a few of his thoughts on "the south countries" in this morning's issue of "Nephite Evidences", the free monthly newsletter from Mormon Sites. Here's a link to Ainsworth's article: Ask a Mormon LDS Forum Discussion Board • View topic - Newsletter September, 2009 - the south countries

Here's a link to Jerry's primary site but sorry no egg! http://www.mormonsites.org

I accept that you are not a fan of Jerry Ainsworth and that you apparently have a desire to do what you can to detract from his reputation and the value that his book has had for thousands of readers. Have you perhaps written a book about the MesoAmerican theory of Book of Mormon geography yourself that you would like to recommend to readers of this thread instead of Jerry's?? My guess is that Dr. Ainsworth is just as capable of writing a scholarly discourse on the subject as are those who have done so. But his book "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni" was intended to be an introduction to Book of Mormon geography for a general (popular) audience. With respect for your right to voice your personal opinions, Jerry's book works well at the popular level regardless of your criticism and that of those whose bandwagon you have apparently hopped upon. The difference between Ainsworth and many other scholars is that Ainsworth actually gets his hands dirty in the field and generates unique knowledge instead of just criticising the writings of other scholars as so many ivory tower 'scholars' tend to limit themselves to.

Brigham Young dedicates site of Manti Temple - LDS.org: "Brigham Young announced the (Manti) temple site 25 June 1875 and dedicated the site on 25 April 1877. Earlier that same morning, he had taken Warren S. Snow with him to the southeast corner of the temple site and told him, “Here is the spot where the Prophet Moroni stood and dedicated this piece of land for a Temple site, and that is the reason why the location is made here, and we can’t move it from this spot.” LDS.org - Ensign Article - The Manti Temple Some references for Moroni also dedicating the St. George Utah Temple site: "The temple sites credited to Moroni were at St. George, Utah and Manti, Utah. Brigham Young met with the leaders of the Church in St. George, Utah to announce the building of a Temple. David Henry Cannon Jr., a member of the St. George Temple Presidency, was in attendance when President BrighamYoung said of the St. George Temple site, This spot was dedicated by the Nephites. They could not build it [the Temple] but we can and will build it for them. Those present at the meeting believed Brigham was referring to Moroni as one of those Nephites who dedicated the site at St. George. President Cannon reported that "many rumors" were circulating that Brigham Young had said that "Moroni, the Nephite-General had actually dedicated the site where the Temple now stands." Brigham Young's statement that "Nephites" dedicated the site for the St. George Temple is consistent with Warren S. Snow's testimony that Brigham Young said that Moroni, a Nephite had dedicated the site for the Manti Temple... http://www.elektroteck.com/bens/SCAN0003.txt "Moroni had the great privilege, as he walked across this American Continent, of finding a place and designating the place where the St. George temple was to be built. He also designated where the Manti Temple was to be. And it’s been written that he designated Kirtland and Nauvoo and probably others. Moroni appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith 22 different times during the life of the Prophet Joseph that we know of." Elder Glenn L Rudd 2003 The Angel Moroni "The site for the temple at St. George was swampy, but Brigham Young insisted that it be built there because the spot had been dedicated by ancient Book of Mormon prophets (statement by David H. Cannon, Jr., Oct. 14, 1942, quoted in Kirk M. Curtis, "History of the St. George Temple," Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1964, pp. 24-25)." History of Mormon Temples

I personally find this post in very poor taste. Disagree with him if you will but Dr. Ainsworth is an eminent Book of Mormon scholar, he deserves more respect than this on an LDS board in my opinion.

Apparently Brigham Young said that Moroni dedicated the site for the St. George, Utah temple, but I don't have the reference in front of me. The petroglyphs that Jerry talks about are very different than the Anasazi etc. glyphs that are common in southern Utah. Some of the ones Jerry talks about contain a symbol that some people think is Moroni's signature. That signature has been found in I think about 32 known locations in western USA. A ranger in Filmore, Utah has a lot of information on it if anyone cares to go to the ranger station there and ask for him. Go around to the back of the ranger station and you'll see the "Signature Rock" that was brought in from a nearby mountain location, it has a Moroni signature.

It is just your opinion that Mormon "remained in Central America near the Hill Ramah." Some people think that Mormon was killed and is buried near Cedar City, Utah. But of course there is no proof of that, at least I'm not aware of any. Dr. Ainsworth is currently involved with a new nonprofit group called the "Foundation for Ancient American Studies." It's possible that some day they may conduct tours in Utah to introduce others to the wealth of possible Nephite 'evidences' that is to be found in that state. Subscribers to the Mormon Sites monthly newsletter "Nephite Evidences" will be among the first to know if that happens. Mormon Sites - rising from the dust...

This needs some clarification. Dr. Jerry Ainsworth wrote the words up to: "More on these two sets of petroglyphs next month." The other words were written by and are the personal opinions of the person who compiles and sends out the newsletter that HemiDakota has quoted from.

If you've never heard of Susan Boyle you've just got to watch this incredible video! YouTube - Susan Boyle - Singer - Britains Got Talent 2009 (With Lyrics)

Somehow I thought that was what the priests did every Sunday...

Water is not just holy to Catholics, water is holy to Latter-day Saints and throughout Christiandom. Baptism by water is how we enter the Kingdom of God. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3: 5 John 3 "That by reason of transgression cometh the fall, which fall bringeth death, and inasmuch as ye were born into the world by water, and blood, and the spirit, which I have made, and so became of dust a living soul, even so ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin, and enjoy the words of eternal life in this world, and eternal life in the world to come, even immortal glory;" Moses 6: 59 Moses 6

They're looking for feedback. You can send suggestions to: [email protected]

Good counsel Hemi, thanks.

Of course anything we discuss about Heavenly Mother is speculation or just personal experience because there is no official doctrine in our canon about Her that I am aware of. (Other than the recent Family Proclamation that mentions Heavenly Parents in the plural.) My own conjecture is that in our traditional family roles of father, mother, son, daughter, we are approximating as near as we can on this earth the way it is in the highest heavens. Those who have contemplated at length about what they will be actually DOING in their exalted state I think will soon come to the understanding that we will be functioning as PARENTS, creating and raising spirit grandchildren for our own Heavenly Parents. That's probably not for everyone, but personally I could think of no greater joy than being a PERFECT husband and a PERFECT father... That's how I see it.

Listen to the new "Mormon Channel" radio online: Mormon Channel

Senior missionaries serving full-time do not have the restrictions you list. But yes, it's common for the young missionaries to live with such rules.

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents..." (note the plural parents). Family Proclamation (equivalent to canonical scripture) LDS.org - Family Chapter Detail - The Family:A Proclamation to the World

I think it would be a very difficult task to change anyone's mind to thinking that Brigham Young was a monogamist! He is famous in America because of the fact that he had so many wives. The Correlation Committee I think is probably deliberately not emphasizing polygamy because it's contrary to current church policy and thus not something that needs to be discussed in our Sunday meetings.The guides may have been informed by their leaders not to bring up the subject, but my guess is that they will respond truthfully to any questions that are asked of them. But sure, polygamy is not popular among today's judgmental masses and it's associated with 'break away' Mormons. So the church is no doubt trying to disassociate in the media from connections to groups such as FLDS. If polygamy was popular, my guess is that it would help people such as Mitt Romney win elections. There'll never be any denying our historical roots in plural marriage though. Nor the fact that it ceased because of threats from the US government and military.

This is an interesting subject, one that will never go away because of the involvement of the church in polygamy early in its history. So I thought I'd add a bit to the conjecture. The following are a few thoughts of my own for all they may be worth, just a mere speculation: It is indisputable that in the early days of the restoration even prophets and apostles had more than one living wife. I think we can logically conclude from that that polygamous relationships are among the true orders of heaven. My own thinking is that for those who eventually qualify for exaltation, men who so desire will be allowed to live forever in a family with more than one woman who is willing to share her love for the same man with other women. My guess is that those who get their exaltation (both male and female) who do not want to be a spouse in a family where there is more than one wife, will not be forced to do so. There is a saying that 'life cannot be contained.' The whole purpose of the universe may be to create and sustain life?? At the human level I suppose one could think of it as eternal "intelligence" wanting to be embodied. If that is correct, the first step is possibly exalted beings creating spirit bodies. Those spirit bodies could I suppose be occupied and animated by "intelligence" similar to spirit bodies occupying and animating physical bodies. If that is correct, then it would be extremely important to as yet unembodied "intelligence" that more and more qualified males and females be exalted, so that they can raise up more and more spirit children who will continue the cycle of life. Thus, everything at the level of God the Father and His spirit children would be just a FAMILY affair! Perhaps, as the literal sons and daughters of God, we already know how to create planets etc., that's not really important. Maybe all we really don't know is how to have "eternal increase," how to create spirit children. Apparently only some of us will ever know that because there are many pre-requisites and no doubt not everyone wants to be married and raise children forever. Thinking about plural marriage must be very difficult for many women. I think I can understand the strong desire of many women in this western nation to have just one living husband. (And many men to have just one living wife.) But what is most important I think (if I am on a correct line of reasoning) is to have CHILDREN! That is what keeps the cycle of life going. That, having spirit children, moves more "intelligence" into the probably deeply desired (assigning human characteristics to intelligence) life cycle. What do you really think you will be doing forever if you are among those who eventually qualify for exaltation? Have you thought about that much? My guess is that there are many faithful Latter-day Saint men who could think of nothing more joyful than to spend forever being a perfect HUSBAND unto their wife (or wives) and being a perfect FATHER. I know we can be bound only to what's written in our canon. But as a man I find the following quote from Brigham Young to be thought-provoking, even though in our time it must remain only in the realm of inner thinking. I am not teaching this, it is not doctrine, it is contrary to the current policies of the church, I am merely publishing a quote from Brigham Young that could be of interest to the men who are reading this thread. And it might help women understand faithful LDS men a bit differently?? (Please don't shoot the messenger, what I've written is just a mere speculation, but the following quote is accurate.) "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son; but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings offered unto them, and they refused to accept them." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, p.268 - p.269, Brigham Young, August 19, 1866) Journal of Discourses : Compound Object Viewer

It is my understanding that it would take "wagonloads" to transport the entire Nephite library. So one man could not have taken care of that. As Mormon retreated to the place agreed upon for the final battle with the Lamanites it is most likely that he moved the records from the hill Shim to Cumorah of the Final Battles (not located in New York.) It is most likely that those two hills are not far apart. Jerry Ainsworth is almost certain he knows where both of those hills are, but there is no proof.Mormon was a prophet of God. My guess is that he knew exactly the role his son Moroni would play in bringing forth the Book of Mormon in the last days. It is highly improbable that Mormon just wanted Moroni to "have something to read." My understanding is that Mormon traveled with Moroni for quite some time after the final battle. A lot of people think Mormon was buried near Cedar City, Utah, but there is no proof of that, just some ancient "signatures" carved in rocks and a few other signs. Mormon did not remove his abridgement "of the same time period" as you speculate. That was the part that was given to Martin Harris and lost. The Lord knew that would happen and so he instructed Mormon to add additional plates to the record Moroni carried and eventually buried in New York. Those are my personal understandings, I could very well be incorrect.

My name is not Jerry. Perhaps I did not make it clear that I was copying and pasting an email I received from Jerry Ainsworth author of "The Lives and Travels of Mormon and Moroni." Jerry and I are the founders of Mormon Sites.Mormon Sites - rising from the dust...

I'm not sure I understand what is being asked, with this question. I'll therefore respond, based on what I believe is being asked. In Mormon 1:3-4 Ammaron instructed Mormon, when he was "about twenty and four years old," to go to the hill Shim and retrieve the plates of Nephi and continue the record of the Nephite nation. Mormon 2:17 indicates that Mormon did as Ammaron had instructed him, continuing the history of the Nephite nation. He does not give the date that he retrieved these plates from the Hill Shim, so whether he was 24 when he did so or not, we do not know. Mormon 2:18 then indicates that on the abridgment that Mormon made from the plates of Nephi, "I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations, for behold, a continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes..." In 3 Nephi 5:10 Mormon tells us that he made the plates for his abridgment, with his own hands. Mormon does not tell us why the Lord instructed him to write the abridgment, other than he excluded a lot of the very abominal things the Nephites did, but given the history of the plates, which we now know, I would assume he was told to make the abridgment for the following reasons: 1. It would be extremely difficult for he and Moroni, to say nothing of Joseph Smith, to carry around the complete records of the Nephite nation, which could have comprised hundreds, if not thousands of plates. 2. There were a number of extremely wicked things that the Lord did not want shared with us, the gentile nations. 3. In addition to the omission of these wicked behaviors, the oaths, etc, of the secret combinations were excluded, (see Ether 8) 4. The were specific things the Lord wanted the future gentiles and remnant to know, things that were related to the fullness of the gospel and future events of the world. He did not want to turn us into historians, but into scriptorians. 5. Given the difficulties that current Israel has in reading and understand the abbreviated account of the Nephite nation, The Book of Mormon, I suspect the Lord assumed even fewer of us would read the full account of all of their history, which could have resulted in hundreds of volumes. Those are five guesses as to why Mormon was instructed to write the abridgment, which his son completed. I suspect other people could find many other equally legitimate reasons. Jerry

Excellent, I greatly appreciate your candor. Your site is immensely improved in my opinion. I think you now have a much better chance of recruiting people to your cause now that it doesn't seem so radical, but it's going to be a long and hard push is my guess. It's good to see people actively following through with their dreams, each of us has unique purposes for being on this earth at this time. I wish you the very best with it.

Ok, thanks. You appear to be much more open now. I got the impression from your former site and posts on this board that there were actually quite a few members in your group.Are you the same person who used to write here under the same pseudonymn? (optional question of course) Are you yourself the chief creator of the "New Nation of Deseret"?

I understand that you are just in start-up phase but I'm curious as to how many people are already members of your "Council of Fifty"?