hagoth

Well, the unconstitutional problem of undeclared war goes back long before WW2 and even predates Joseph Smith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War And, speaking of breaches of the Constitution, Congress and the President Adams even passed a law back then making it illegal to say anything critical of the government during the duration of that undeclared war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts

Hi Swart, Years ago, my wife and I were fortunate enough to spend several days in your beautiful country (on our way further north). I have a little bit of Dutch ancestry, when some of the English Puritans stayed there and intermarried before going to Plymouth colony. Almost all of our time in the Netherlands was spent in the Friesland province. We attended the branch at Leeuwarden, where everyone was very nice, and one kind family even invited us to join them for Sunday dinner. The next day we visited the local museum that had what was believed to be the longsword of the freedom fighter Grutte Pier. What I found additionally interesting about him is that he reportedly had his captives repeat a shibboleth to distinguish Frisians from infiltrators. At one museum in Friesland was an old artifact of two human figures, one of which was kneeling, that looked distinctly like the laying on of hands. Later, at a bed & breakfast in Friesland, (at a quiet farmhouse), the owner allowed us to borrow his rowboat, and I rowed my wife a mile or two up the canal to the nearest village for an afternoon outing. It was the most peaceful, enjoyable day of our entire trip. While in the area, we also visited the place where Boniface was killed, and a few locations related to the history of Menno Simons. Although we only had time to see a small portion of your country, we completely loved it. Enough rambling for now. Welcome to the forum!

Gentlemen, are we perhaps conflating things unnecessarily? Are Zion, [LDS] Church, and Kingdom always intended as one and exclusively the same thing? I respect you both, and don't like to disagree with you, but please consider the following: From D&C 123 And also it is an imperative duty that we owe to all the rising generation, and to all the pure in heart— For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it— Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven— These should then be attended to with great earnestness. Let no man count them as small things; for there is much which lieth in futurity, pertaining to the saints, which depends upon these things. From that context, I take it to mean that the pure in heart, to which an honest account is owed, includes those of all sects parties and denomination "who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it." Also, there is the following: According to fairmormon.org, there was a leadership body established in Nauvoo and later in Utah that was frequently called the Council of Fifty, but more officially called, by revelation "The Kingdom of God and His Laws, With the Keys and Power Thereof, and Judgment in the Hands of His Servants, Ahman Christ". This "Kingdom of God" was "separate from, but parallel to, the Church." Wikipedia, citing Ehat says, "According to Mormon teachings, while Jesus himself would be king of this new world government, its structure was in fact to be quasi-republican and multi-denominational; therefore, the early Council of Fifty included both Mormons and non-Mormons." Based on all this, are Kingdom, Zion, and LDS Church always and exclusively intended to mean the same thing? Based on the above, I respectfully suggest that something more inclusive is at times intended. Perhaps the pending publication of the Council of Fifty minutes in the Joseph Smith Papers will shed additional light on that matter. With this further context, what are your thoughts?

It might even be an overstatement to assert that the dichotomy of two churches presented in that chapter only relates to LDS vs. non-LDS (or something of that kind). To assert that also would apparently also assert that every LDS member of record, (including both faithful and rebellious) belongs to the Church of the Lamb of God. And one would also thereby be asserting that every good and faithful person of other denominations does not belong to the Church of the Lamb of God. The church manual on that chapter concludes: "Explain that Nephi’s vision provides an overview of much that has occurred and will yet occur in the history of the earth. It also shows us that we must choose between only two options: following Jesus Christ or working against Him and thus following Satan." Is it fair to believe that there are faithful members of other faiths who are following Christ to the best of their ability, and who thereby also belong to the Church of the Lamb of God? In an Ensign article that encompasses some of this topic, Stephen Robinson says: "Babylon is the antithesis of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem or Zion. Just as Zion is wherever the pure in heart dwell (see D&C 97:21), so Babylon is wherever the wicked live. Latter-day Saints don’t seem to have any trouble understanding that Zion is a spiritual category that may in different contexts mean Salt Lake City or a branch in some outlying area of the world or Far West or Jerusalem or the city of Enoch or the New Jerusalem. Why, then, is it difficult to understand Zion’s opposite, Babylon, in the same way? This variable identity is what Jacob teaches us in 2 Nephi 10:16: [2 Ne. 10:16] “He that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.”" So can't Zion, or the pure in heart, include people of other faiths? Stephen Robinson later says, "individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records." https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/warring-against-the-saints-of-god?lang=eng Thoughts?

When I was young, my father brought me to Gettysburg museum and Gettysburg cemetery. Both sites left a lasting impression on me.

To which portion of Revelation 11 are you referring? Are you referring to this?

Hi again Richard, Glad to hear things are changing for the better, as you mentioned in your opening post. For what it's worth, please do resume attendance in your ward soon. You'll want ongoing inspiration for whatever endeavors you're engaged in, creative or otherwise. When you go, I'd also encourage you to reach out to others in your ward who appear to be in need of company, rather than wait for others to reach out to you. Regards, John

Great to hear! I can't imagine why his email wouldn't be private. I hope he's intrigued by your suggestion. I look forward to hearing your update. :)

As Joseph taught: "We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true Mormons."

Agreed. Agreed.

Hi Liz, I once shared a book with a young LDS woman, like you, but who had been raised in a Seventh Day Adventist family. She had noted that there had been years of friction and hurt between her and her family over her LDS conversion. The book I shared with her told about the roots of the Seventh Day Adventist faith, a Bible prophecy movement in the early 19th century, led originally by a Baptist preacher named William Miller, or as Joseph occasionally called him out of respect for his age, "Father Miller." William Miller's writings and preachings sparked a movement which taught that prophetic Bible timelines were going to be fulfilled in 1844. (By way of interest, there was a parallel movement in the Muslim faith half way around the world that taught something similar.) Joseph Smith even invited Millerite preachers to the pulpit in Nauvou. and allowed them to share their message. When 1844 came and passed, and nothing happened that Miller's movement would acknowledge as the fulfillment of the Bible timelines in Daniel and Revelation, much of the 1844 movement disbanded in discouragement. A small remnant consolidated into other movements, like the Seventh Day Adventist church, which still insists to this day that the year 1844 marked the fulfillment of God's promises in the Bible. I, for one, generally believe them - and then some. I believe that Joseph and Hyrum's martyrdom marked the fulfillment of those timelines. The young woman I shared the book with said that reading it healed a lot of hurt for her, when she saw that the chasm separating her and her family amounted to nothing more than, as Joseph Smith had summed up, William Miller lacking a better translation of the Bible. Or, as one leading Bible scholar presciently said prior to the end of the 1844 timeline: "Whoever attacks Mr. Miller on his point of time, attacks him on his strongest point. His time is right; but he is mistaken in the event to occur." I don't know if that book ever helped that other young LDS woman's family, but she said it certainly helped heal her own hurt. If that's of interest as a possible way to bridge an initial discussion with your Baptist family, you can click on my profile and go to the link at the bottom of that profile. Then, after clicking on that link, the first link on the left side of the webpage that comes up will bring you to a free online book that discusses the prophetic timelines in Daniel, that compares and reconciles Millerite/Adventist teachings with an LDS perspective. (The second link on the left side the above-mentioned webpage, if of additional interest, brings you to the free online memoirs of the Baptist lay preacher William Miller himself. I recommend that as a very edifying read, but it's much longer.) My best wishes to you as you prayerfully ponder the best way to approach your family.

Hi Richard, Curious timing. My oldest brother is actually on that list, and is in the UK right now. He should be back in the States next month. He's an experienced playwright, and has a production that is going off-Broadway (in New York City) this summer. (I saw an earlier version of that production several months ago at BYU, and quite enjoyed it.) To contact him, he's the only one on that BYU web page with "playwriting" listed in his credentials. He'll likely have his hands quite full this summer with the project mentioned above, but it might be worth a try contacting him while he's still in the UK or later this year, after things in NYC settle down. Who knows what he'll say? I wish you well!

Perhaps the context of Elder Widtsoe's statement might better explain what I inferred from what he said. His statement was made in the foreword to Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Cumorah-Where? (1947) (The last poster in this thread asked about Sorenson. By way of interest, Sorenson cites this same Elder Widtsoe statement in his more recent "Mormon's Map.") In Cumorah-Where, Ferguson said, "The Book of Mormon, although primarily important for its theology and doctrines, is in a large measure historical... Geography has always been important to the understanding of history. It is important to the Book of Mormon student... If we misconstrue the geography of the Book of Mormon, we may make an entirely consistent record appear inconsistent with itself and with factual findings of science. In some instances worthwhile persons may be dissuaded by our own errors from making a complete investigation of Mormonism. Let us now examine the entire problem, 'Cumorah -- Where?' Data supporting the New York view will be first presented... The Middle American view will then be set out... The weaknesses in the New York view and in the Mexican view will then be discussed. The reader will be left to draw his own conclusions." (For whatever reason, Ferguson chose not to address the Chilean model mentioned earlier in this thread.) From that fuller context of Elder Widtsoe's statement, perhaps you can see how I see his words as an invitation for faithful investigation, (although something admittedly of lesser importance than other things to study/ponder in scripture). For they form the foreword to a book about Book of Mormon geography. I infer the same from his counsel a few years later in the Improvement Era: "Out of diligent, prayerful study, we may be led to a better understanding of times and places in the history of the people who move across the pages of the divinely given Book of Mormon." In both instances, Elder Widtsoe said "may", which implies, in my view, the hope of a worthwhile outcome. So does that answer your question as to what I'm inferring from what he said, in context? But perhaps we read different things out of what he said. If so, please share. What do you understand him to be saying?

A few years ago, I read his earlier work, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. I haven't read his more recent books yet (Mormon's Map, and Mormon's Codex). If you have read any of them, what were your impressions?

I think Elder Widtsoe's statement provides the why. (Your mileage may vary.)

I found an interesting statement by Elder John Widtsoe: "…out of the studies of faithful Latter-day Saints may yet come a unity of opinion concerning Book of Mormon geography." Apparently, rather than idly expecting someone in leadership to reveal Nephite geography for us someday, it might instead be hoped that we each study the matter out for ourselves, and then follow the counsel here. "And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith."

Six or seven years ago, that was the policy in the last stake where I lived. In the few years I've lived in my new stake, I haven't heard a peep about such a thing being a policy.

Hi Mr Marklin, I've read that book more than once, and I don't recall any reference to Chile. I even just did a digital search of an online version, and came up with nothing on "Chile" or "Chili". And in my reading elsewhere, I've never heard anyone cite that book as saying Lehi landed in Chile. After a little extra digging this morning, I did find a different 1914 book, by Franklin Richards, which apparently believed Joseph taught such a thing. If you look at the quote in the link, however, you'll see that he is actually citing the document from Frederick G. Williams, which I referred to in an earlier post. Franklin Richards and his co-author (or whoever revised that 1914 edition) apparently decided to ascribe Frederick Williams' writing to Joseph, for reasons which he/they did not disclose. It should be of some interest that after that book was published, the Church came out with a statement clarifying that we shouldn't make too much of a deal about Frederick G. Williams' document. Or, as Wikipedia puts it: "There is no proof that William’s unsigned, undated writing represents a revelation given to Joseph Smith. An official statement by the LDS Church discourages Church members from making too much of the Williams document." That said, believe what you wish. Regards.

OK, I think I found the source which some think came from Joseph. "...there is a document in the handwriting of Frederick G. Williams, one of Joseph's counselors...which...has been attributed to Joseph...: The course that Lehi traveled from the city of Jerusalem to the place where he and his family took ship, they traveled nearly a south southeast direction until they came to the nineteenth degree of North latitude, then nearly east to the sea of Arabia then sailed in a south east direction and landed on the continent of South America in Chili thirty degrees south of latitude." (Cheesman 1978, 22) One recent author concluded: "Considering how specific this statement is -- giving the degree of latitude for both the location where Lehi set sail and the place where he landed -- it seems much more likely that it was the inspiration of Orson Pratt than of Joseph Smith." I can't speak to how accurate that conclusion is, but there is no statement known to be from Joseph (that I'm aware of) that refers to Chile. By way of interest, there is also an article in the Times and Seasons, 15 Sept. 1842 which asserts that Lehi and his party landed a little south of the isthmus of Darius (Panama). However, two weeks prior, Joseph clearly announced he was in hiding and had temporarily handed his administrative duties over to others. Apparently, those administrative duties included overseeing the newspaper. (That prior announcement was subsequently printed in the same September 15th issue of the Times and Seasons as a separate article.) So the reference to Lehi landing a little south of Panama is apparently not from Joseph either. A few weeks later, on November 1st, there was no issue of the Times of Season produced, even though it was supposed to be issued twice a month, on the 1st and on the 15th of each month. Two weeks later, Joseph officially admitted in that paper: "I beg leave to inform the subscribers of the Times and Seasons that it is impossible for me to fulfill the arduous duties of the editorial department any longer. The multiplicity of other business that daily devolves upon me renders it impossible for me to do justice to a paper so widely circulated as the Times and Seasons. I have appointed Elder John Taylor, who is less encumbered and fully competent to assume the responsibilities of that office..." As an example of how busy he had otherwise been, between Sept 15th and Nov 1st, there isn't a single article signed as being from him as the acting editor. From all of this, it appears Joseph was simply too busy with more important duties to act as editor of a newspaper during late 1842, so I wouldn't put too much weight on anything published in the Times and Seasons during those months. Wikipedia asserts that even during the few months when Joseph was listed as the official editor, the "operation was actually run by John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff." Take it for what you will. Regards.

Why not start attending there, and start opening literature discussion threads here? Best of both worlds.

I'm not aware of any Joseph Smith statement regarding Chile. Can you provide one? Long after Joseph's death, Orson Pratt did make two statements about Chile in the Journal of Discourses. Is this what you are referring to? http://journalofdiscourses.com/12/65 http://journalofdiscourses.com/14/44 Elder Pratt said: "As near as we can judge from the description of the country contained in this record the first landing place was in Chile, not far from where the city of Valparaiso now stands." It doesn't sound, from that statement, that Elder Pratt is speaking from inspiration. Based on his own words, it sounds more like mere intellect at work. So I wouldn't put too much weight into such later statements as this, when weighed against Joseph earlier statements to the contrary. That said, I respect your right to believe as you wish.

Willow The Best Two Years Quigley Down Under A Beautiful Mind Field of Dreams Stargate While You Were Sleeping The Karate Kid (2010) Father of the Bride McFarland, USA Galaxy Quest

Here.

I participate in another LDS forum where content like this frequently gets ridiculed and shouted down by very vocal LDS people who insist the main Nephite lands were instead in Central America. It's surprising how heated disagreements can get over Book of Mormon geography. I haven't reached a conclusion of my own yet, and still have thirty minutes left to go in brother May's initial presentation, but I prefer the more open-minded and charitable approach of this forum.

The Age of Adaline. A much slower-moving movie than I am used to, but both my wife and I enjoyed it very much. Blake Lively was great in her role. And Harrison Ford was phenomenal, as usual.