genevive

to reiterate, in a slightly re-worded way ~ i *think* that Joseph Smith was murdered because of his reintroduction of the divine mother into gospel and his reinterpretation of the bible. that he did these things is indisputable. there is much evidence throughout history for the cover-up of the divine mother/feminine. Dan Brown’s books contain factual examples of this. Vern Swanson wrote a non-fiction LDS book that is related to Dan Brown’s theories. these are my conclusions about Joseph Smith and his murder, given the extensive effort through the ages at eradicating all ideas of the divine mother in historical and religious doctrine. if you disagree with my conclusions, that's understandable. if you wish to find further evidence for them, please go forth and seek. if you wish to disprove what i have concluded, i encourage that as well. Joseph Smith knew that Heavenly Mother exists. he knew that there were items missing from the bible through mistranslation and editing. just as many others were murdered for their revelations of the divine feminine/mother, so was Joseph Smith. i doubt that those committing the murders would admit that though, as that would be validating the revelations that they found so threatening in the first place.

my original post ~

i made no complaint. i laughed at your obtuseness. i'm not interpreting anything about anything you said, and i am not being combative. you are not repeating what i said correctly -- you are making stuff up. you said that i recommended the books and i repsponded that i did not recommend them, not that i don't recommend them. there is a big difference involving the tense of the verb and the meaning of my words. you are misconstruing them on purpose for the sake of a ridiculous and irrelevant argument. i said it's what i thought, it's a conclusion i have given some of the references that i made. there is no burden of proof; this isn't a court of law. i don't care whether you believe my conclusions are not. if it's that earth shatteringly important to you, you find proof of error. go ahead. i haven't attacked anyone. didn't attack you either. i responded to your insults by suggesting that the reason you enjoy insulting people here so often is due to your low self-esteem. making yourself feel superior by doing so. that's what i think, and it isn't an insult. should you disagree, so be it. i didn't assert that you were low, and i'm not pretending anything. we all have personal dysfunctions, did you know? again, i made no complaints. this habit of yours of making stuff about people and what they say is trite and annoying. i suppose as long as people such as i continue feeding your need though that you will continue unabated. oi. your condescending attitude says everything Snow. i would suggest you stay focused on the subject and refrain from insulting people for the mere reason of disagreement. you disagree with my thoughts and conclusions. fine. say so and let it go. my thoughts stand on their own merit. if you need further evidence you find it. if you disagree with what i say, try stating that with consideration, not dripping sarcasm and demeaning insult. then find some place else to go wallow in your own self-aggrandizement. am i taking about you? sorry, wasn't aware of that. i respond to your questions in the manner that you respond to mine, which has nothing really to do with the topic at hand. and no one has a 'fixation' on you. others notice your extreme contention for the sake of contention as well. it's annoying, rude and unnecessary. it may be that it boosts your ego, and assuages your low self esteem, but that's rather sad that an adult man such as you has need for that. for that, i am sorry, and i wish that you will be able to find the self-fullfilment that you so desire. but going about it the way that you do here, in the demeaning and insulting fashion that you do, will not accomplish that.

ah well...these all are just maneuvers to railroad a legitimate and very worthwhile topic onto a track of irrelevance and personal backbiting. i am very sorry Gaia ~ your thread is very well done and researched. i just thought i'd add some corroborating thoughts. i didn't expect that they would cause such ill temper and unwarranted bile. i do apologize. you have an excellent premise, and i wish it would not be destroyed in this manner. i admire your graceful responses. i did try. i didn't intend for this to go on with pages of petty argument, when the subject matter is so timely and well thought out. though i'm positive this effect is intentional....still it's distressing that the most intelligent and worthwhile threads get so trashed, with senseless disrespect and sabotage. i apologize again for contributing to this.

someone who lives in a glass house probally should not be throwing stones???...... bravo!

edited to make quotes appear legible ~ genevive ":animatedlol: nope. didn't say that either. i said i referred to them in my mention of them. i did not say that "i don't recommend them." why is this of such crucial import to you? you've made it very clear that my opinion means less than nothing to you. it appears that you simply enjoy contention. but that's nothing new is it?" Snow "It's a simple matter of mathematics. Either you recommend them or you do not. You were very clear that you don't recommend them. I have not mistaked your position in the least." haha....you enjoy fighting for no reason don't you? why didn't you answer my question? why do you care so much whether i recommend these books or don't. recommendation or non wasn't a factor in my original post. you said "have you read these books that you recommended?" i neither recommended nor did not recommend them. my position on their recommendation wasn't the issue. if you had asked me whether or not i recommend them, that would be different. then i actually would have a chance to make clear a position on them. as it is, i merely referrenced the books in support of a conclusion. i made no effort to define a position on whether or not i recommend them. why in the world are you so boorishly pedantic about this? genevive how do you know? Snow It's called study genevive. lol. it's called disagreement Snow. you have no proof of your "studies." genevive is there any scholarly documentation that states explicitly that this was not the reason, or among the reasons for his murder? Snow Gee - neither is there scholarly documentation that explicitly denies that the 4% of all Maytag washers are manfactured by minature transexual cyclops from Greenland. Not really much of a point genevive. nothing i say is to you Snow. so what? genevive i haven't ignored anything. instead i've thought about it for quite awhile. i don't mind that you don't agree with my conclusions. i wouldn't expect you to. i do wonder though, why you waste your time on them. Snow You haven't ignored anything... except history and the facts. my conclusions do not contradict history and the facts. Snow Why not just post honestly and say - 'yes, I know that it is contrary to the known evidence and they is little of no factual evidence to back this up... nevertheless, in my heart I'd like to believe it may be possible in some unknown way that JS was killed because..." why don't you practice kindness and a communication style that is non-condescending, inflammatory and hate-filled? it's not what i'd like to believe, it's what i've learned from my own studies, which are in no way inferior to yours. my conclusions are not the same as yours. so? Snow No one could complain about that, but to pretend that there is a legitimate basis for your dreams is nutty. are you complaining about something? what is it? that my conclusions don't agree with yours? i'm not pretending anything. i don't mind that you insult me. you do that to quite a few people here, i suppose to make yourself feel superior and assuage your low self-esteem. i'm sorry that you find it necessary to stoop so low. you must really dislike yourself. Snow ... or on the other hand, let's hear some evidence to support your belief that the mob that killed JS killed him because they didn't like his feminist ideals. Go ahead with some names, dates, facts. didn't say anything about feminism. i was discussing the divine mother. my conclusions are very sound. that they make you so extremely uncomfortable speaks volumes to me. why not just ignore someone whom you despise so much?

nope. didn't say that either. i said i referred to them in my mention of them. i did not say that "i don't recommend them." why is this of such crucial import to you? you've made it very clear that my opinion means less than nothing to you. it appears that you simply enjoy contention. but that's nothing new is it? how do you know? is there any scholarly documentation that states explicitly that this was not the reason, or among the reasons for his murder? i haven't ignored anything. instead i've thought about it for quite awhile. i don't mind that you don't agree with my conclusions. i wouldn't expect you to. i do wonder though, why you waste your time on them. also, there are plenty of other sources than Dan Brown's for evidence of the cover-up of the divine mother throughout history. i simply mentioned his work as well-known, popular scholarship on this subject, with corresponding LDS literature.

ok....Leonardo DaVinci manuscripts and paintings, numerous ancient cathedrals througout Europe...the Catholic church, the vatican, art historians, religious scholars, sacred geometry, et al.....and, it seems that i have considered the source. i find the vast sources of 'the source' very compelling, and not simply commercial. it will be intersting also to consider 'the source' of DB's next novel -- the LDS church.

yet they are facts. not made up. not false. not selective....and very well researched.

i didn't recommend them. it's my belief that Joseph Smith may very well have been murdered due to his success at re-introducing the Divine Mother into the gospels and in his re-interpretation of the bible. i referred to the Dan Brown books as illustrations of how this cover-up of the divine feminine and mother have been covered up throughout the ages, including the murder of those who have this knowledge, such as JS. i included mention of the Vern Swanson book, non-fiction, as LDS scholarship related to the non-fiction ideas found in Dan Brown's work. i did read the books of Dan Brown's. i haven't yet read the Vern Swanson book, just reviews of it, as it's an enormous book, filled with over 20 years of scholarly reseach, and way beyond my budget. i'm sure i will acquire it soon though.

Hi Gen, I just want to make sure... You know that Angels and Demons and The DaVinci Code are fiction, right? hi 6pack ~ yes i do. Dan Brown does point to, in a detailed manner, the number of non-fiction facts on which he builds his story surrounding the fictional character Robert Langdon though. HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE? The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history. BUT DOESN'T THE NOVEL'S "FACT" PAGE CLAIM THAT EVERY SINGLE WORD IN THIS NOVEL IS HISTORICAL FACT? If you read the "FACT" page, you will see it clearly states that the documents, rituals, organization, artwork, and architecture in the novel all exist. The "FACT" page makes no statement whatsoever about any of the ancient theories discussed by fictional characters. Interpreting those ideas is left to the reader. THIS NOVEL IS VERY EMPOWERING TO WOMEN. CAN YOU COMMENT? Two thousand years ago, we lived in a world of Gods and Goddesses. Today, we live in a world solely of Gods. Women in most cultures have been stripped of their spiritual power. The novel touches on questions of how and why this shift occurred…and on what lessons we might learn from it regarding our future. HOW DID YOU GET ALL THE INSIDE INFORMATION FOR THIS BOOK? Most of the information is not as "inside" as it seems. The secret described in the novel has been chronicled for centuries, so there are thousands of sources to draw from. In addition, I was surprised how eager historians were to share their expertise with me. One academic told me her enthusiasm for The Da Vinci Code was based in part on her hope that "this ancient mystery would be unveiled to a wider audience." http://www.danbrown.com/index.html the above information is from Dan Brown's website. i agree with his statements about the facts in his novels.

yes they did. i'm not lying, in spite of your insinuation.

great thread. i was so amazed when our missionaries told me that indeed there is a Heavenly Mother. :) a very delightful thing indeed. a few thoughts i have regarding the controversy surrounding her...as some have mentioned in this thread, that evidence of her existence is missing in doctrine and the scriptures... well, Joseph Smith maintained that the bible was incomplete due to editing and misinterpretation over the millenia. i believe he knew that large parts of information were missing or wrong in the bible for the purpose of hiding the truth of Heavenly Mother and the divine feminine. JS has his own Inspired version of the bible -- his own interpretation. for example, he noted the erroneous translation of Exodus 22:18, "thou shall not suffer a witch to live." the proper translation, according to JS, is "thou shalt not suffer a murderer to live." for these reasons, i think, Joseph was murdered. this is strong stuff, reinterpreting the bible and introducing doctrine that includes the Divine Mother. you can find a lot of evidence for this in Dan Brown's novels Angels and Demons and The DaVinci Code, the covering up through the centuries of the divine feminine in religious doctrine. in fact Brown's next novel will include a lot of references to the LDS church. he has done research for this novel at the temple in SLC. there is a mormon version of the DaVinci Code as well, non-fiction ~ "Dynasty of the Holy Grail -- Mormonism's Sacred Bloodline" by Vern Swanson. The book postulates that Mary Magdalene was an Ephraimite, while Jesus was of the tribe of Judah, and that Lucy Mack Smith, LDS founder Joseph Smith's mother, was a direct descendant of the supposed wife of Jesus on the maternal side. Joseph Smith Sr., on the other hand, descended directly from Jesus on the paternal side, making Joseph Smith Jr. a direct descendant of Christ from both sides, one of the reasons he was chosen to restore the Church of Jesus Christ. The union of Joseph Smith Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith brought together the Ephraimite bloodline of Mary Magdelene and the Judaic bloodline of Christ to give birth to a modern prophet, he said. It also fulfilled a Biblical scripture that Ephraim and Judah, two warring tribes, would unite in the last days. (Isa. 11:13) "I'm not saying it's fact. It's speculation, but not without some evidence," Swanson said. "He had a right to restore (the church) because he is an heir of the bloodline." http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...l=da+vinci+code all in all....a lot of very interesting ideas. that there was and is a deliberate and ongoing coverup of the divine feminine in religious doctrine is indisputable. it does exist, and to pretend that it doesn't perpetuates the deception. Joseph Smith was aware of this deception, and sought to dispel it also, i saw Vern Swanson's book in my LDS bookstore. that's how i discovered it.

yes, God must surely hate whores, and most certainly those who are the most horrible whores in the opinion of others.