JohnsonJones

I went traveling a bit over the holidays. The areas I went to do NOT have the freedoms that we have in the US. I did not do anything illegal and did not get into any trouble, but there was an incident that made me grateful for the freedoms I have in the US. As I went on my day to day activities there, I recognized many freedoms they did not experience that we take for granted in the United States. I am SO grateful for my freedoms that I have here. I am so grateful I was born into a place where we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. These are principles that are not enjoyed in some other nations. I recognized how much I love having my freedom in these areas. Normally I like to type longer (as many know, I am somewhat of a long poster), but... I also picked up some sort of nasty bug. I am down and out for the count. I came here to say I'm back, but unfortunately I will not be able to peruse all the threads that have popped up during my absence. I have a lot of catching up to do on these forums, but first I have to get better. The doctor gave me some pills, so I should be better in a week or less (or I hope I will be). That's the other dredge of going to other places, you get exposed to things that you normally might not get exposed to at home. I am not doing well at the present and it's all I can do just to sit and type this out. I do want to catch up on the goings on in the forums though...eventually. Hope you all had a very merry Christmas and have a happy New Year!

As I've repeatedly stated, we DO know. I have not stated anything different. However, as it is controversial and can bring all sorts of disagreements and other things, I think it best to simply point people to LDS church links. These are NOT one and the same thing. My answer is we do know. However, my action is to not discuss it in detail in this thread currently. Instead, it is to simply point people to the LDS church links regarding the subjects and let them read that.

I'll PM you. It's too hot in here already and I don't need to be burned at the stake yet...

Yes I do think we actually know, but this can spiral into a very controversial subject. At times I might go into detail, but at other times...like this one, I think what LDS historians may state would not sit comfortably with many people and possibly bring out anti-LDS sentiment, people trying to convince others of things or worse. Furthermore, this is one subject that can highly disturb people. The Essays are the church's best attempt thus far to put out secularly historically accurate information in regards to various church subjects, including some very touchy subjects that tend to make people react in very emotional ways. They have been gone over by individuals trying to be somewhat balanced in their views of LDS history and present an accurate view from the vantage point of a Mormon. It does not make it perfect and it does not make it gospel, doctrine, or anything but an essay on subjects relevant to the LDS church on the LDS's website. In regards to your OTHER question though... YES...I DO accept the Church's official statements in regards to my current understanding of the gospel and doctrine. Does that make me fanatically LDS...well...maybe.

Oh, but you don't understand. I LOVE my books. Ever watched Farenheith 451? I'm that individual that would rather burn with my books than see them burn!!! Okay...spiritual weakness on my part. I should not be so attached to worldly things.

So my son corralled me into seeing this tonight. He thinks it is excellent. I won't give out too many spoilers, but the beginning of the movie really seemed about par for the course in regards to it being pretty bad writing at first. Much like the Prequel movie, the first of them with the Young Anakin. I was groaning at how bad the writing was. It eventually gets somewhat better, but I think they made it a wee bit too long for the non-Star Wars fan. Minor spoiler here...It just went on and on... right as you thought they might be getting to the end...nope. Luckily, they had a little 5 year old that they took that had to go the bathroom twice...saving me from having to endure it the entire time. For the record, from them and their family, a rabid Star Wars family I think, they loved it. The 5 and 8 year olds say it was their favorite Star Wars. It is a tad violent, but mostly heroic stuff type violence. Some alcohol (or what appears to be alcohol), gambling and other vices (but not really immorality, which is a good thing) were shown. My son obviously didn't see any problems letting little children see it. There may have been a point or two that I may have hesitated, but then I may be biased because it's a space opera and not a western (I probably have lower standards when watching westerns I suppose, that's not a commendable trait about me by the way...that's a weakness of mine). Another Small spoiler...There were parts that absolutely reminded me a little bit of the Phantom Menace (first of the prequels) in catering to little kids to a degree, but no annoying JarJar characters (that I could see, but there was catering to kids). It is what it is. My son's family absolutely loved it and the little kids were hyper on the way to drop me off. Glad their parents get to deal with them tonight. I don't think it's going to change any Non-Star Wars fans into Star Wars fans though. Still not a big fan myself.

Wwwait a Second!!!! Why don't we hold off on burning the Historian and his books just yet... I'm not so sure I'm wanting to be burned at the stake with all that stuff quite yet...I may be just around the corner to death...but no need to hurry it along... I just posted a link to an LDS article...other than that I claim I haven't been involved in this thread all that much in regards to this subject... No need to get hot under the collar (or, more to the point, make me hot under the collar as the rest of me burns up!!).

I can feel sympathy, and I can try to accommodate them, but when there is another option (a bathroom or changing room where they can be separated from others if they so choose), but insist on making my wife feel threatened or unsafe...that's about where I draw the line. Perhaps I'm over protective, but when my wife is feeling unsafe or threatened, for some reason I'm going to take her side and not agree with the aggressors. I don't have a problem saying perhaps they should have someplace safe to go (trans individuals have a higher percent of harassment and assault then many others), or to have a separate bathroom or changing room, and I can sympathize with that desire. It's only when they insist on making others feel threatened or unsafe (whether it's a reality or not that they are actually threatened or unsafe, the fact that the FEEL threatened or unsafe is what is going to make my hackles rise) that I'm pretty much opposed to what they are pushing. No one should have the right to force themselves onto another...and that includes emotionally in that aspect. Some women may feel safe in those instances, but there issue is NOT so important as to override all women who may feel unsafe in these situations. I admit, I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, so I don't know all there is about transgendered individuals. I am open to their ideas that they state, and can sympathize...right up until the point where they start their emotional assault on those that are family. Yes, I'd go out of my way to protect my spouse... I am for them having equal opportunities and not being judged in how hard they work or other areas just because of their choices. They should have equal choices and opportunities...however...if they choose this path...and want to have a separate facility...let them. But don't let them intimidate the women in our lives (for the most part, I think most men don't care who is using the restroom and many even try to ignore someone else is even there), especially when they are in locations where they feel their most vulnerable and exposed. Other than that, I'm open to letting them have all the rights they desire (and as I said, I'm even think letting them have separate areas to change, use the restroom, etc. if they so desire is okay). Please Note though: As someone stated above this is NOT the opinion of the LDS church per se. Those who have these feelings may be deeply disturbed in the LDS religion...and if they proceed with actual surgery, it is something that can put your church membership in jeopardy.

I'm not sure what I think about transgendered individuals. In my aspect of a male in regards to those who are male and claim to be transgendered... I will say the common excuse I hear makes absolutely no sense. A boy claims that they feel like a girl Oh...REALLY!!? And how exactly do they know this? Why do they think they know what a girl feels like? It seems to me, if you are a boy, you know what a boy feels like. You may think feeling like a boy feels like a girl...but since you are a BOY to begin with...how in the world do you even begin to know what a girl feels like. How do you even know if it is even any different? Just because one may say they like wearing dresses or enjoy the color pink, or any other ridiculous and stereotypical reason (which in truth, probably are VERY insulting to those who really ARE girls) does NOT mean one feels like a girl one bit. There are plenty of girls who hate the color pink and hate to wear dresses. Stereotypes do NOT define whether one is a boy or a girl. Now, I am actually open to the idea of someone actually being transgendered...what I am NOT open to are ridiculous stereotypes that put down REAL women to try to make some ridiculous and unprovable idea that this man feels like a woman. However, if there really are those that feel that way, and an operation is a way to help them cope...it's their body...let them do it...but let them be HONEST with themselves and with others. These individuals will NOT have menstrual cycles and will never experience that. There are many other things that they will not experience as woman who are born as women do. Now, it is not universal, but many women feel like my wife does. They do NOT want someone who is still a male but dressed as a female in the same restroom as they are in. It makes them feel unsafe. NOW...any transgendered individual who was a man claiming to be a woman who cannot understand this fear...I'll tell you right now...I have STRONG DOUBTS that this individual has any CLUE what it feels like to be a woman AT ALL. Any claim they have in that arena is an absolute LIE in my opinion...because if they did, they'd understand the objections women have to such individuals going into the restroom. That said, I am open to the idea that there are individual that suffer from this thing...whether it is called Gender Disphoria, or if it is something else. I think that the Lord made us male and female and that in the eternities, what we are born as here are what we will be there. In this life though, we are free to make choices. If someone is suffering from certain things, and doing such acts will make them suffer less, than I could be convinced it may be a good thing. However, I need GOOD reasons and GOOD excuses, rather than things that show that the individuals obviously do NOT understand the very gender that they are claiming they are supposed to be.

I think historians and the LDS church and others have a good idea of why it started. However, this is one subject that becomes far too controversial with many to really discuss in an intelligent matter normally. Because this is so, at times the best thing (but not always) to do is to refer an individual to the church essays on the subject and leave it be. I'll simply post this... Race and the Priesthood It will not satisfy everyone...but here it is.

This is it. David was given many wives from the Lord, but he was not satisfied with what the Lord gave him. Instead he took Bath Sheba (who was another's wife) and not only was that an abomination, but then proceeded to have her husband killed (basically murder in the first degree after all he had known from the Lord). Solomon in like manner was probably given many wives, but he had (as per myth) up to a thousand wives. Many of these were not with the gospel or Hebrew, and eventually these wives led him away from the Lord into Idolatry. This too was an abomination. The wives which the Lord gave him were justified. Those that he took himself for other reasons (treaties, oaths, just because he felt he wanted another wife) were an abomination. The lesson is that polygamy is ONLY justified when organized and placed there by the Lord. Without his guidance telling what and when, and under his covenants and power, it is an abomination. Thus today, those practicing polygamy are participating in an abomination before the Lord.

I was thinking on some more speculation (not doctrine, not my opinion not really even what my thoughts or what I think, but wild complete speculation, but that relates to the temple ideas, but doing it sort of like parables...aka...using something that is completely out there and different, but if one can catch on they may understand it)...and then, instead ran into something revolutionary today in my reading. So, I've been reading various accounts of Joseph Smith's life and Joseph Smith by those who knew him. Some of the stories are exactly what you'd expect. They had a great deal of love and trust in him, and he seemed willing to visit and interact with any who were willing to converse with him, from the littlest child to the oldest man, from the richest and most powerful to the most poor and humble. However, I ran across something new and unexpected in my reading today. Now the following is me thinking, and in some ways more a stream of thought than actual stabilized solidified thoughts on the topic. This is something new and I'm thinking about it. Joseph Smith relayed in part how he translated the Book of Genesis (if I understood the story correctly)...and it wasn't what I was expecting. He utilized the stones and opened the book as if to read it, but he didn't read it. Instead, he saw the events as they happened and how they happened. He saw it and understood it. Thus, the difference between our reading and understanding or the worlds, and his, could be different, for he actually saw and knew what happened...no guesses. However, this is VERY different in the idea of translating than what I have ever imagined. Hence, you could say his Joseph Smith Translation (what we have of it) is actually his clarifications on the translations. As he knows what the intent was and how they were writing it...he was thus instead clarifying what actually happened??? It's something I'm still trying to go over in my mind to figure out just what it was I just read. I'm pondering it in some ways trying to make sense of it. This was ONLY in regards to Genesis, but it makes me wonder if this also can be the exact way he also did translation of other things, or at least in part. In this way, even as he was seeing words or how words and things were supposed to sound, if he did something similar with the Book of Mormon, he would actually have seen the book (or the events in the book) rather than just a straight up translation of the words. This actually coincides with another account I went through a few days ago (but more commonly had among members) by his mother where she said that he would tell them all about the inhabitants of the land and how they existed and dwelled back in those days (of the Nephites and Lamanites). One would wonder how he would know such things beyond what is said in the Book of Mormon itself, or what can be gotten via words, but if he actually SAW it as revealed before him...that's a HUGE difference. It changes the perspective of what we might consider a translation. Is it a translation, or a revelation, or a vision? If he saw the words written, but even more if he saw the events and how they happened and understood the why's and what's...that would imply that he may have actually seen Lehi's vision and was intimately aware of what it was and how it was seen. It may mean something else as well. It may mean what we have written down, may not be exactly what was written on the plates. If he was seeing the events, rather than a direct wording, it may be that what he was to write or say was revealed to him, but may not have been exactly what was on the plates themselves? I know this seems odd, but I'd refer to a set of scriptures that have disturbed some Mormons previously. There are parts of the Book of Mormon that seem ripped directly from the King James version of the Bible. People wonder at this wording, and some have explained it in the past that as he was very familiar with this already, he used this wording. What if that's EXACTLY what happened. That he saw these things and though he was inspired of what to say or write for the Book of Mormon, in this instance, what would have been said was so close to what was already stated in the King James Version of the Bible, that it was just easier to have that written down then fishing for words or trying to find the words for every word that was said. In otherwords, it's a divinely inspired book, given directly by revelation more than a simple translation as some may think. Thus it is directly from the Lord by the Spirit and the instruments (urim and thummim) utilized in doing so. Which leads to another interesting book many have pondered about. The Book of Abraham. As per many Egyptologists who have studied what is claimed to be the remains of the scrolls which Joseph had (we have about 15% of them, but no confirmation they are actually the same scrolls. We think they are because the facsimile's damage correspond to that which seem to be in the Pearl of Great Price's facsimile's in regards to differences, and that they were attached to a piece of paper that stated/notarized that they were from this document), they will say that it does not appear to be the Book of Abraham. Instead it appears to be the Book of Breathings. Various ideas have been posted in various areas for and against this, as well as, if this is true, how the Book of Abraham came about from something well known to be the common funerary text. I have thought that it had something more...perhaps something on that other 85%, or even more likely, something derived from the scroll, but not evident (much as some of the wild speculation above, or what I may put later). Joseph Smith had put letters and such on the side of the scroll which really didn't correspond to anything. Some crazy individuals who dislike the church try to say this was Joseph's interpretation, but that makes less sense than any other theory out there. Those translations do NOT correspond to what we find in the Book of Abraham, so anyone claiming that was his translation has no idea what they are talking about...In MY OPINION. (and lest anyone think this is a NEW form of attack having been developed since the scrolls were rediscovered, this is not true. The initial attack that the facsimile's meant something completely different and were funerary texts derived in the 1850s and 60s...so it's been going on a LOOONG time and this view backed by Egyptologist who bothered to study it starting in 1856). My thoughts were that there were deeper meanings within the Book itself...that though some parts book itself was commonly understood, it was more similar to the parables, or even moreso as the Jews would put them, the Types and Shadows in the Bible where though the story may be one thing, it is representative of something so completely different that one who is not familiar with the story would never understand nor catch what was actually being discussed as well. I think the idea that Joseph Smith saw, rather than read, some things, can have large implications in regards to how the Book of Abraham may have been revealed. For starters, if someone says they know how ancient Egyptian was supposed to sound, they are probably lying. We have NO idea. In fact, most of our translations come via transliteration where we learned the language in relation to another language's usage (aka...the rosetta stone), and hence our inflection would in fact come from ANOTHER language than Egyptian. It MAY be that Joseph Smith heard the actual words and was trying to sound them out in regards to spelling? or how they should appear if written in English? What's more though, is that it could be that this scroll was actually written by Abraham...and then laid upon this individual as a funerary script. We don't know who actually did the writing. However, it may be that Joseph Smith tried to make sense of what he was seeing in regards to what he saw in the scroll (and hence his efforts in the margins, I believe this is available at the Joseph Smith papers). If Joseph Smith was actually seeing the events of the Book of Abraham, or what was happening, it is possible that he would have seen the true events of what was happening, rather than the mere rote (or the words written for ceremony and exercise of it in burial) of the words. Hence, if it was something deeper, hidden from those who did not understand that culture or the individuals involved, then it may be he saw the deeper meaning, the true meaning rather than the outward appearances. In this idea, it may be he never even knew what the outward words said, and hence his efforts (which make no real sense in relation to his translation) to try to correspond what he saw via revelation to what he saw in the scroll itself. If what I read was in relation to how Joseph Translated though, it may be that the Book of Abraham is directly revealed by the Lord in the same Manner as other translation of Joseph Smith via seeing the actual events with a deeper understanding of what and why it was happening as by the spirit. It makes me wonder if we actually saw the gold plates and could do a literal translation of them, if it would directly correspond with what Joseph Smith wrote down, or if there were times where one thing was written, but a deeper meaning left inside that was then what Joseph Smith actually saw and understood (for example, when Nephi asks to see the same things his father saw...that's not exactly what seems to happen in the book. Instead he actually has the angel reveal what things mean...it could be that Nephi wrote down he saw what his father saw...but Joseph in revelation saw that there was far more to this and what Nephi actually saw and thus wrote down what the Angel told Nephi). Or it could have been just a straight translation also. However, if he had books revealed more by seeing them (as in the events, actions, and what was actually occurring and understanding the why's and whats via the spirit)....it leads to a far more interesting type of speculation on the books themselves, and how things such as the Joseph Smith Translation and other such things may actually be MORE accurate in regards to what he was trying to state and say than just a mere translation may be. They already are revealed by the power of the Lord, but in someways, if this is how he translated, it makes it not just a translation, but almost a pure and divine revelation and direction from the Lord. Who knows...just a thought of the moment. As I said, this is just stream of thought right now...nothing solid...just pondering it. But it's leading to some interesting thoughts. I think the official stance of the church and what we hold to be the truth is that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham is also a direct translation. The book of Moses is from his translation of the Bible, and he was also working on a translation of the Bible.

LDS Canon Fair Mormon on how New doctrine is established The Doctrine of the Church that is therefore considered official is that found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. These would include manifestos in the D&C. Our Doctrine itself, does not change. However, new things may be revealed. Our Doctrine is what the Lord has stated. All other items are merely our interpretations of that Doctrine. Not everything a prophet or General Authority may say is doctrine, only that which is approved by unanimous vote of the First Presidency and the Twelve and then accepted as such by the membership of the LDS church (though it does not have to be unanimous among the Saints). HOWEVER, though that is the accepted doctrines within the Canon of the LDS church...the REAL doctrine is what God has stated, not what man has stated. Our Basic measuring stick is that found in the Scriptures in what the Lord has stated.

Well, Rouge One could in theory be about Red One, which if I remember was probably the Leader of the Squadron Luke was a member of eventually in the first Star Wars film. They always referred to him as Red Leader though, so maybe there was another Red one, but I'd imagine that Red Leader would also be Red One. Red Five (I think that was Luke's callsign) would have to get killed, either by a mistake by Red One, or by not following what Red One told him (similar to what Luke did in Star Wars, but the first Red Five wouldn't have the force so be killed, leaving it open for Luke to Replace him). If that's the case, even if everyone else dies, at least that one guy (Red One/Red Leader) needs to survive...as the movie would be all about him. Is that what happened?

Well, my kids Cajoled me to see that last Star Wars film, (The Force Awakens?) with them (and they are hinting that they are going to take me to this new one coming out. I think grandma is going to decline this time around). I don't get some of the excitement on these new ones. It seemed like they just repeated the old one with new characters for the last one. I can only guess that it's new kids who never knew saw the original movies that are really excited about this new movie, then I see my kids and they seem over the top with excitement. I can only imagine it will be like that new Maginificent 7 movie that came out. I got all excited about it (plus Westerns are almost never put out in mainstream movie theaters anymore), and then found the original was better in every way (no one beats the King of Siam). On that note, found this...but a warning, it's a little adult (The Magnificent 7 has some adult themes which may offends some, my wife doesn't like watching the movie as it's too violent and a few of the adult themes) and it shows a lot of violence. Sometimes, at least with the original trilogy, what I think people like about Star Wars is that it's basically a Western in Space, but instead of an expert sheriff gunman or marshall, you have a Jedi...and instead of a master horseman you have the Han Solo/Lando Calrissions(sp?) (who just happen to be the gamblers as well). I suppose, from what I've seen of this new Trilogy, they are trying the same thing (as I said, it seemed to basically be a repeat of the first movie but with new Characters in this new series they are coming out with). I didn't really care for the prequel trilogy Lucas made, though the last one (Revenge of Kathleen Kennedy-jk) wasn't bad. I think part of it may be (beyond what seemed to be really bad writing at times) was getting away from the entire theme that westerns (and the original Star Wars) revolved around. What would have really made the Prequels really awesome is if they had redone the Magnificent Seven in the prequels, where Obi Wan was one of the three survivors (along with Yoda of course), and they had a showdown of sorts where the other Jedi get killed trying to prompt the rest of the city/town to rise up and defend themselves. I wonder if Mormons are a little more hardcore and crazy about Star Wars then the rest of the world (sort of like Newsies...Mormons seem to rave about the film and musical, but almost no one outside of Utah or other heavily Mormon areas even remember it!).

Absolutely. My course I figure they traveled in highly corresponds with the ideas most Mormon Scholars map out prior to their eight year sojourn to be honest. They don't have to travel that far to get into hills or mountains from Israel and yet not be in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula. However, in Chapter 17 of Nephi he specifies that they travel Eastward. Not northeast, nor Southeast, but as he states in verse 1 And then adding after this is the verse where it states... If they did this on the Southern edge of the Arabian peninsula, if you count traveling down the coast in an South-South Eastward direction, then you would need to say they traveled in a North-Eastern direction after that. If they traveled where the Utah Mormons say they did, they are saying it took them a short while to traverse the length of the peninsula, and 8 years to travel a quarter of that distance. It's mysterious if they did this, as they would have travelled at an incredibly furious and fast pace up until this point...and then suddenly slowed down so slowly as if they were not walking at all comparative to how much ground they covered (even today, that distance is a HUGE distance from the Northern end to the Southern end), far more than what many think). What's worse, is that Lehi thus spends 8 years in the heart of the Saba Empire perhaps even towards the capital for an extended period...even for a spice trader...probably not a wise idea...made even worse if people are hunting them down from Jerusalem. If they went more towards the middle of the peninsula, that is suicide. Considered suicidal by some even today without the proper guides and approvals by the right people (so you don't get killed). On the otherhand, if they traveled at a reasonable pace, however, covering a LOT of distance still, that doesn't put them in the Arabian peninsula when they head eastward, and there are continuous trade routes at least to the mountains around the Indian peninsula during that time period that could keep them moving if and when they needed to without overstaying a welcome. Even then, eight years is a LONG time to traverse that distance, but not unreasonable. Once on the Eastern arena of Asia, the distance to travel by sea is not as far, there is actually a current that leads to the Americas from there if they take it (and they used currents even in the age of Sail, over two thousand years later), and a lot more materials to actually build a ship rather than grasping at straws in regards to an oasis or site by the sea as the Arabian Peninsula theory does. There are also markers in that direction that could also indicate a party such as Lehi's passing, and religious things that could be notated in regards to various religions and religious ideas that were born around 600 BC. If Utah Mormon scholars would look that way, they actually might find MORE evidence in support of Lehi's travels than they do scouring the Arabian Peninsula. Many don't even think to look though. It doesn't mean the Arabian peninsula theory is wrong...it may well be correct. I have problems with it from a geographical and historical viewpoint. Historically, that route should mean Lehi and his family were slaughtered unless Lehi took a small army with him, in which case we should find elements of some rather major battles from him in the future. I don't know why they were so scared of Laban in that case, as he would have been a lesser threat then the tribes of the Peninsula. Lehi could have been a trader, but that doesn't necessarily mean the tribes and empires would grant him any great amount of time to actually dwell (rather than trade with) with them unless he had some larger contingent to settle. Finally, the sea routes are not conducive to a trip from the South of the Arabian Peninsula to the Americas. You have to jump currents and sea ways VERY often, sometimes counter to winds that are flowing against you. Even with a pointer showing the exact direction to go, it would be very hard. Even with modern equipment and modern built sailing ships it is still a challenge for those who try it, and you still see people die even with GPS and modern ship sturdiness. That said, this is the secular historian in me saying this. We still know very little about the Saba empire and much of it is still guesswork. This could be a reason Utah Mormon Scholars have latched on so strongly to the Arabian peninsula idea. In addition, there are so many things that secular history and archaeology have that seemingly contradict what we learn in religion, especially Christian religion. The entire book of Genesis is discounted in Archaeology and history does not back the Genesis account. History portrays a very different picture of King David (if they even say he existed) than the one in the Bible, one that is a ruthless dictatorial king greedy to expand his empire and wealth. History also seems to disagree with the Book of Mormon. In this, we cannot base things off of secular history, because if we know that the Bible and Book of Mormon are the word of God, than we know that secular history obviously has some things wrong and we still have a LOT to learn. In that light, it could be very well that I'm mistaken, and that the Arabian Peninsula theory was right all along. Secular history is rife with being re-written at various times as either a new conqueror comes with a new perspective, or new information is found and revealed in the field of history or Archaeology that makes all of us realize what we thought was wrong, and what the Bible at times stated is actually right..

AS I said, what I stated is NOT doctrine. However, it IS my way of talking about things that might come up in the Temple, without actually talking about the temple. It's a very round about way of discussing it, because what is in the temple, I don't discuss outside of the temple. Instead I try to find a very round about way of discussing it. HOWEVER, that said, as it is presented, it is definitely NOT doctrine. Hopefully I made that obviously clear. However, those who may be able to make the connection might see what I was focusing on. I brought it up both to discuss this disturbing trend of Liberal Feminism in Mormondom which bears a very strinking similarity to the Asherah worship of old (which repeatedly is talked about in the Old Testament as Kings and Leaders try to stomp it out, or Israel gets condemned for practicing it), but also to discuss where similar ideas have been talked about in the past. However, this is presented directly in conjunction with the ideas Brigham Young talked about at various times, but which we normally don't discuss, and those who are against the church absolutely avoid (normally because they don't really support their narrative) OR present in such a changed manner that they bear no resemblance to what was being taught in the first place. Now, off topic and onto a side historical topic regarding ancient Semitic religion... Asherah was the wife of another, otherwise known by other honorifics (one which basically is a root so holy that I personally don't mention it normally if avoidable because it is a name we hear it in the Temple in regards to the Father). Anciently she was actually identified as the spouse of the Father in Israelite religion. This is not secret, nor hidden. [Editing this down to make it easier to understand, as reading through my original post here - think it probably was confusing to those not familiar with the subject]. I'll make it simpler and less confusing, but less accurate to the historical studies most likely due to that. She was originally known as Atirat, and spouse of the ruler of the Pantheon, where as Ba'al Hadid was different and known as that who rules over thunder, or the Storm god (little g here). In the earlier Ba'al Cycles, these are separate entities, and though Atirat is Asherah, she is not the same is Astarte at this point. There is conflict between the sons of the Ruler of the Pantheon of which some feel is the origins of the Israelite religion(they seeing the story of Ba'al as similar to that of a Messiah figure by some historians). In later Semitic religions you see the melding of Ba'al and others, but originally this was not so. My personal idea is that the Urgartic myths are probably more towards the origin (but not the origin stories itself), and it is here that the Israelite and the other religions diverge with the Hebrews keeping the true religion and the others changing it (hence the change of Ba'als significance in later religions compared to the ruling deity of the pantheon previously). IMO.

As we find out more about the Saba Empire, I think we may find more and more that show it very unlikely Lehi spent any large amount of time dwelling or even travelling in the Arabian Peninsula, but we all have various ideas. I've thought it was this way ever since I found out something that basically meant Lehi probably would have been killed outright if he had stayed very long in the Arabian Peninsula as someone who was not a tribal member or a citizen of that area. It could have been better if he were a spice trader, but that leaves a whole lot of other questionable ideas (far more than if he simply went South East in a more easterly direction than southerly) in regards to his actions. As a Historian, I probably tend to side more with the secular historians in this instance of traveling rather than the Utah Mormon ideas which don't normally correlate with the secular understanding of the area. Of course, Lehi could have been a particularly rich spice trader, but then how he found time to be in Jerusalem or was even concerned about it, would be questionable. We don't know, not enough information is given. The better route would have been away towards the East, away from Jerusalem if they were trying to flee after slaying Laban though, because it is thought that there were enough connections between the areas that a wanted man up north, would be a wanted man eventually down south (not that there weren't those that probably fled, but they probably didn't flee with their families on that route for various reasons, very similar to why a wanted man in Canada would probably do better to flee to China or somewhere in Asia like Turkmenistan or elsewhere than to the US capital of Washington DC). My opinion just differs from some of the ideas presented by some Mormon Scholars in this regards. Of course, kudos to those that think that those scholars ideas are spot on also.

I am going to touch upon something that IS NOT DOCTRINE. It has NO PLACE in LDS DOCTRINE. Some of it, as understood by many (which is wrong in their understanding, but some consider it one reason why it is disavowed as doctrine is due to how it is commonly understood) is absolutely AGAINST LDS doctrine. So why am I going to discuss it? Because it's an interesting facet of Mormon culture, and one that if we understand, it might actually help enlighten others understanding. This is a LONG post though. It was mentioned recently that there was a very small group of feminist Mormons who were Asherah worshippers. This puzzled me, but this is not the first time I have run into this idea. A common thought among many Mormons, even those who are not part of this small group of liberal feminists is that we have a Mother in Heaven. Many Mormon Feminist feel that that logically a Heavenly Mother would be equal with a Heavenly Father and thus worthy to worship. Many have wondered what name she has. This is actually no secret, but I feel it is different than what many of these who are part of these Asherah worshippers think. Now, Daniel C. Petersen wrote an article in the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies on this subject in regards to Lehi's vision and Asherah, and at a later point I'll refer to some of what he wrote. His article can presently be found here... Nephi and his Asherah Before we get into this, we need to discuss something else, which is ALSO NOT LDS DOCTRINE. Just to be clear, what follows, though part of LDS culture is absolutely NOT LDS DOCTRINE AND NOT PART of the LDS doctrine today. I stole this example from someone else, but I can't recall exactly who it was, but it makes a LOT of sense. If I asked you what was Joseph Smith's birthday, or what date he was born on...what date would you give me? If I said it was July 12, 1771, would any contest this? That means, in the year 1820, when the first vision occurred, he would have turned 49 if my estimate is right. Does that sound correct to you? He would have been around 58/59 when the Book of Mormon was published. He would have been 58 when the LDS church was established, and turning 59 shortly thereafter. He was referred to commonly as Father Joseph by Brigham Young. Is anyone tearing their hair out at this point, and screaming. What I stated above is absolutely correct if I got my dates correct. Joseph Smith Sr. WAS born on July 12, 1771. His name was Joseph Smith. HIs son, was Junior. His son's name was ALSO Joseph Smith. His son was born in 1805 (Dec 23), was 14 when he had the First vision, published the Book of Mormon when he was 24, and organized the LDS church in 1830. It was common for Brigham Young to refer to Joseph Smith jr. as the Prophet or as Joseph...and common for him to refer to Joseph Smith Sr as Father Joseph. Why do I bring this up? Brigham Young also presented another commonly misunderstood item. Some of it can perhaps be due to transcription errors, but some of it is probably accurate to what he stated. This is commonly referred to as the Adam/God theory. Joseph Fielding Smith (doctrines of Salvation) and Bruce R. McConkie have noted that Brigham Young did not mean what many think he means (that the Adam we commonly think of Adam in the Bible in the Garden of Eden who was cast out was the Deity of all, and the same individual). He, of all people would know that these were two distinct and independent individuals. He knows the distinction between the Godhead and his creation. So, what did he talk about when he stated that Adam was our God? This distinction can be seen at times in the same way that the distinction between Joseph Smith sr (Joseph Smith, referred to Father Joseph by Brigham Young) and Joseph Smith jr (or Joseph, or the prophet) were referred to by Brigham Young. When in his discussions, he refers to Adam as Adam, and Adam's Father...as FATHER ADAM. But who is this Father Adam? Although we can find this in the writings by Bruce R. McConkie, this is something I had found in the Scriptures long ago, and had it further reinforced when discussing this with an individual called Joseph McConkie (son of Bruce R. McConkie and Grandson of Joseph Fielding Smith, but as a Professor of Religion at BYU when I had my connection with him). In Luke, chapter 3 it gives the Geneology of Jesus all the way back to Adam and his father...and it states... So what does this mean. Brigham Young was literally stating that Adam's Father (who created him out of the dust as per Genesis) was God. He was stating that Adam's FATHER's name...was ADAM. Adam thus has some interesting connotations. It is also the name of the First man, but then, who is the first man? The first man in our mortality in the flesh who was cast out of the Garden...is Adam. His Father, thus, could also be the first Man, but an exalted and holy Man who also can be known as ADAM. It can also be, as shown by C.S. Lewis in his work when he calls children sons of Adam, a reference to Men in general, in that ALL men are Adam, sons of Adam, or called under that name of Adam. How does this relate to the above topic that I started in regards to Asherah? In the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Daniel C. Petersen touched upon who Asherah was. It is easier to quote the summary at the Neal A. Maxwell's institute than for me to explain. Nephi and his Asherah Maxwell Institute link The name derived from Asherah's husband should be recognizable to some Mormons. Furthermore, the worship of Asherah was notated in the Bible. She is associated normally with a worship in groves or in trees. Solomon allowed her to be at least mentioned in the temple (Some say worshipped) by his concubines, HOWEVER, we also know that the worship of her was normally not condoned. In fact, there are times when the Jews would start going to groves (which were seen as representative of her) or forests and occupy their time in worshipping her rather than who they should be worshipping (God the Father, who is the God of Heaven and Earth and the Father of Jesus Christ and the Supreme God over all things). The groves would have to be torn down, the altars in the forests destroyed, the woods obliterated, all to try to stop this false worship. However, she was well known, and this a wife and husband concept as deity was NOT a foreign concept to the Israelites or the Jews. So, then, what would her name be? In the same light that Brigham Young referred to Father Adam, it is probable that Father Adam's wife, who is Eve, is also called that. It is probable (and this is my hypothesis), that all Women (I believe C.S. Lewis stated at least once, a daughter of Eve) could also fall under this name, and it may be that the Wife or Mother in Heaven ALSO is called under this name, for she would exemplify it even more than Adam's (the son's, or the one who was cast out of Eden) wife Eve would. This should be no surprise, nor any real hidden thing to anyone who studies or reads anything with LDS or Mormon literature (or contemplates upon the Temple Ordinances). Hence, if one is wondering what the name of our Mother in Heaven is, it most likely would be considered Eve in my estimation. In this, instead of Asherah worship, it should be Mother Eve worship. HOWEVER...just as we see in the Bible, worship of Asherah was almost universally condemned. We do NOT worship a Heavenly Mother, we do not pray to one, and doing such is akin to idolatry, as commonly seen in the Old Testament when they started to do things like this. The LDS do NOT worship in this manner, and it is a fallen stand in worshipping. As I said, the totality of what I discussed above is a hypothetical and ABSOLUTELY NOT LDS DOCTRINE. It should NOT BE CONFUSED with it as such, except for the fact that we do NOT worship a Heavenly Mother and it is (or should be) considered a sin as per Idolatry or Idol worship. We, as Mormons believe in worshipping as per the Aritcles of Faith. I quote the First, Third, and Eighth articles of Faith. We believe in God the Eternal Father, and in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of gospel. We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the Word of God. This is what we believe and in this we worship, not a Heavenly Mother. I thought it interesting to discuss that facet of Mormon culture, however, as I thought it may be enlightening, or at least interesting.

I think the thing was if you read 10 pages a day, you can read the New Testament in less than 3 months.

Well, ironically, I've heard that the Book of Mormon is the strongest support of the trinity ever written...at in least one individuals view (they were not Catholic though, they were protestant). It gets even stronger in it's support in the Book of Mosiah. Some of it is because of very delicate nuances that separate the hardcore Trinitarians from the LDS views...but if one isn't a hardcore Trinitarian, oddly enough, there are times that the two different views may seem a LOT alike...though different.

Okay, I've now watched over much of the movie. I had forgotten about this, but as I got further into it, it seemed familiar. I had actually watched this at some point previously, though it probably was some time ago. (This is what happens as one gets older, memory starts to fail, and you forget things at times). This is definitely NOT a historical film. It definitely does NOT talk about the life of Joseph Smith in an indepth manner. It skims over his life and skips many things which some could consider major events in his life. Even at the beginning of the film, where it talks about his childhood and nothing really extraordinary, skips a rather extraordinary story about Joseph Smith. When he was a child, he had an infection or illness of the bone. The only way to cure him, according to most doctors of the day, was to amputate the leg. His mother (whose words they use as a narration tool in the film) knew and noted about this event. She did not want her son to have his leg amputated and went through great effort to do anything she could to find an alternate solution. They found a doctor who had an experimental idea, and with some askance, eventually agreed to try this operation on Joseph Smith jr. He proceeded with the operation. He offered Joseph Smith Whiskey to dull the pain, but for whatever reason Joseph Smith decided not to take the whiskey and endure the full pain. This type of pain has had a psychological effect on many children who endure such types of pain at a young age, and in all cases it normally leaves a deep and indelible impression upon them. It is very likely this had a major impact on Joseph for the rest of his life...whether this is what caused him to be as humble and honest as his father and mother would vow in why the trusted his story so much, or other things...this operation had to have had a great impact on the Young Joseph. The operation was a success, but it was noted about the screams of pain and agony that Joseph exhibited. However, this movie doesn't even touch upon this event in any real manner. Such a major event of Joseph Smith's life is completely glossed over. Why? I do not believe it is because they are hiding something, but as a religious film, it's purpose is not to go into the actual details of Joseph Smith's life. It's real purpose is to explain LDS concepts to people. It utilizes the formation of the LDS church and it's early years as the vehicle to do so. With Emma, the reason I think she is included is to make it so people can relate more to Joseph Smith. By seeing that he was someone who worked hard, got married, and did other things that many of the rest of us do, they make him a relatable character that we can empathize with. In doing this, we are more likely to listen to what he is saying and actually hear the LDS ideas that the film is presenting. Because it is the conveyance of LDS beliefs that is the focal point of the film, most of the events of Joseph Smith's life are not even touched upon. It may have his name in the title, but it is not the real focus of the film. The focus of the film is to tell about the LDS church's fundamental ideas and it's gospel, but to relay that in a way that you are not completely bored. I think the film DID grasp something that is very MUCH in the spirit of Joseph Smith, and one that people may not normally grasp. Joseph Smith was incredibly charismatic. He had a way of convincing people to trust him and believe in him as well as to follow him. Some will say that this was entirely because the Holy Spirit was with him and this may be true, but I tend to think a historian would see it as a different way. He was not a preacher that stood apart. He worked right alongside those he taught and preached to. He farmed, he would go to the poorest of the poor and do all he could to help provide for them or assist them in their time of need, and presented himself very much as the everyday common man. He was someone people could rely on and trust. It was THIS approach that won many people over, as they felt this was someone who KNEW what they went through, and participated in the same troubles that they endured. He was one of them, and that made them trust him. I think the film relates this VERY WELL. I actually REALLY like this film, it's much better in discussing his first vision then the recent release (made by those who I think must have forgotten everything they learned at film school with it's stilted talking and meandering dialogue...just my opinion on it). I think it makes Joseph Smith far more relatable. However, I will say it's definitely NOT a historical film by any reach of the imagination. It is purely a religious film to relay religious ideas. At least, that's my take of it. But, the film itself, I love the film. It's a great film. I think it's a great way to reinforce LDS teachings and to think about them in various ways.

This sounds very hard, and far beyond anything I could truly advise you on. Others have wisely said things already. I can only say is that I too would say if you can see a counselor, see a marriage counselor. You probably have already been praying very hard, but that's the only other thing I could advise you to do. I am so sorry you are going through these hardships

Backing up a little before the fireworks began. This is more a SIDE TOPIC than directly addressing the main topic. There are some things between the two sects of Christianity which don't really have a parallel that are easily explained between the two. In some situations, this makes it hard to explain how holy one thing may be in one religion, comparatively to how holy it is in another religion. I think this applies to the LDS temple idea and the Catholic Eucharist...but I think aside from the confession topic we are discussing, there COULD be something that is comparable between the two. In dogma and practice, the Eucharist should be the pinnacle of all the sacraments in the Catholic religion. I would say it even holds a higher holiness than what the sacrament does for the Saints in the LDS religion. In the Catholic religion, the Priest is literally serving the last supper as the body and blood of the Lord. Unlike the LDS and protestant faiths where it is seen as symbolism, a reminder, a covenant between the Lord and man, it is seen as even more. It is literally the Lord in the flesh there as the eucharist to those who receive it, and as such, should be respected and held as holy as the Lord. The Priest literally has this power to do this, to bring the body and blood of the Lord as the membership participate in the sacrifice as he commanded his disciples to do before his crucifixion. It is the very essence of the center of worship and the epitomy of what it stands for. Unfortunately, in reality, it is normally not held in that high of a regard by many. It seems the most devout will realize and hold this in their mind, worshipping in all holiness and respect, but many that I've seen (especially in the younger generation) do it in a light minded or light hearted manner. I've heard all sorts of jokes and other inappropriate actions from Catholics that do not take it as seriously as they should, seeing it more as a common event because of how often it is done (which should emphasize it's importance rather than what they act upon it as in these instances) rather than one of the most valued and holy acts available to a Catholic. There are those who hold it in as high a regard as they should, and for them it is among the highest of the sacraments that they are honored to participate in, and the center of the worship of a week or holy day. Unfortunately, I see this more from the older generation, and a LOT of the younger generation take it more as a common experience that is not taken that heavily, and instead treated very lightly instead. I'm not sure, but I think there are a few in the Catholic religion that have noted this trend and are somewhat worried about what it holds for the future of the next generation (not the church, to be specific, but of the faith and worship of the younger generations). The LDS have their sacrament, but I don't think there is anything in the LDS church that really is comparable to the Eucharist in that light. It is something that is for all to partake, but it is also one of the most holy things that one can participate in, which is something the LDS really don't have as an ordinance. The Sacrament can be seen in that way, but it is not seen as the Catholics do their Eucharist, where it is literally the body and blood they are taking. On the otherhand, the same would apply to the LDS temple ordinances...I don't see anything that one could truly compare it to in regards to how holy the LDS have it in regards to Catholic sacraments. A comparison MIGHT be made in regards to what many call the Holy Orders, which is still seen as somewhat odensome by both younger and older. It is one where only a few partake of them and join in this particular sacrament. In this, the Holy Orders can even be seen as selective, as only those who vow holiness and endure and then partake of the Holy Orders are accepted. In this Sacrament, you have a similar experience to what one would do to become a member of the Higher Priesthood in the LDS church to become an Elder and then go on a mission. Not all men become Elders (I think the estimate right now is somewhere between 20 - 25%)? in the LDS church. It is more common in the LDS church than those who partake of the Holy Orders, but in some ways, though by adding the going on a mission protocol (which is basically becoming a full time LDS minister for 2 years) can at least make it somewhat comparable. Most who do this, are those young men who go into the temple, which is why I bring up that this could possibly be a comparison between the regard one gives to one who is accepting the Sacrament of the Holy Order in comparison to those who may make the sacrifice to go to the LDS temple. Temple Marriage could be seen as a good comparison between the LDS faith and the Catholic Eucharist, to be honest...in some ways. For a Catholic, the Sacrament of Marriage is also under the Sacrament of Service, and as a Priest is married to the Light, the Couple are also married and as such, if both are members, are married in the Lord. Hence, divorce is as if one is divorcing one from the Lord (a perspective many American Catholics miss these days as they also take this sacrament too lightly and divorce too often without the church approval). However, this could also be seen as a similar parallel, as the LDS who seek marriage and are worthy partake in the Temple Ceremonies. Ironically, this ordinance is seen by many as the crowning ordinance of the LDS church...but the divorce rate is far too common. For most Catholics, divorce is illegal, a direct offense to the Lord. It would be better to die than to divorce, especially for anything as petty as most divorces are done for. I suppose this is also one arena that I actually hold to in my life (at least thus far)...divorce is never on the table and never considered and option for me. For LDS, this is one of the highest ordinances, but in reality, many LDS do not seem to take it that seriously. Divorce is on the table ALL TOO often. You have those that DO see it as holy as it should be, but there are so many divorces in the LDS church that at times, the percentage of divorce is close if not the same as the world around us. In this, one could make a parallel to the Catholic Eucharist. The Eucharist should be the highest epitomy of worship, but in reality, especially among the younger generation it is not held in that high of an accord. In the LDS church, the Temple Marriage could be seen as the highest epitomy of the ordinances in the LDS church, and in dogma and doctrine it is very close to that. It is supposed to be the holiest act a man and woman participate in, and if one holds to it, the promises of one participating in it are the highest rewards given by the Lord. However, I see too many take this ordinance far too lightly, both men and women willing to toss it aside at the slightest infraction or intolerance, even after years of marriage. In most cases it seems, just like the world, it is due to finances, selfishness, and other minor things rather than major sins or other pbstac;es. In that light, when viewing how holy and important each of these ordinances SHOULD be (and some in each religion DO realize this and hold these sacraments and ordinances as being that holy), but how lightly they are treated in regards to many in those religions, I'd say that the way people treat and act about them compared to how they SHOULD treat and act towards them, could be a good comparison. I would think that there are enough differences that it is hard to really compare the actual holiness of the Catholic Eucharist to anything a Mormon could conceive, and likewise the LDS Temple ordinances to anything a Catholic may participate in...but how holy these things are compared to how they are TREATED in their respective religions, I think could very well be a good comparison, at least in MY OPINION based upon WHAT I've SEEN.

I have not seen the film yet, so I cannot actually comment from one perspective or another. I saw that it is actually quite long, and I have to go to Youth tonight, and had to work earlier. From what you describe though, as a Historian, it does not sound like it may be inaccurate. As per some of the LDS views, it IS accurate. He did not live with them in that view, as they were NOT his wives in this life...they were his for the next. At least to some Mormons. Is this the truth...well...I suppose it depends on who you talk to (history can be terrible for some people...as you find out, there is never just one point of view...there's always more...normally half a dozen to a million). The problem is most historians are not interested in this stuff. The few historians that study this professionally are all normally very LDS, or very ANTI-LDS. The typical Historian really doesn't have an interest in that amount of detail into Joseph Smith's personal life. I don't even have any professional credits in this arena as my focus is in other areas. I only have a hobby in LDS history, nothing else. That said, even as it is rather long, it seems that covering this idea isn't something that unusual for a Historical film of this sort...though I'd probably classify it more as a religious film rather than anything that is really all that historical...just from the little I saw. Now, as I haven't seen it yet, the following is just my guess. I imagine the focus of the film is religious rather than historical. The point is probably toward the viewer in that the Gospel is the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ and how Joseph Smith brought that about. Because it is more about the how the LDS church came about and Joseph Smiths involvement, it probably isn't going to go that much in depth about his life. Hence other things such as his military reserve/guard service, his political involvement at various times of his life, or his involvement in economic and banking arenas (which I've seen are very troublesome for many who have no troubles with polygamy) are probably glossed over or not even mentioned. This is because these would detract from what the film is trying to convey. Instead of addressing these types of issues, it's focus is on something different. I'm not sure, as I haven't seen the film, but that would be my guess as to why it's not really mentioned. It's not part of the point (as a religious film, as I said, from what I saw, it's more a religious film rather than a purely historical film) of the film in the first place. I'll try to watch it when I get the time though, then I could probably give you a much more accurate idea of what I think. It could be I'll see exactly why it disturbed you, or it may be that I'll have a better understanding of why they didn't mention anything. I won't know until I actually watch it though.