Johnson's miscellaneous thoughts on LDS culture, tradition and ideas thread

[JohnsonJones]

Not a very long thought this time.  It is more of a short thought.

We had a lesson on Elder Anderson's General Conference talk and something struck me.  At the beginning of his talk he relates the following...

Quote

Many years ago, President David O. McKay told of a beautiful experience he had while sailing on a boat toward Samoa. After falling asleep, he “beheld in vision something infinitely sublime. In the distance,” he said, “I beheld a beautiful white city. … Trees with luscious fruit … and flowers in perfect bloom abounded everywhere. … A great concourse of people [was] approaching the city. Each one wore a white flowing robe. … Instantly my attention … centered upon their leader, and though I could see only the profile of his features … , I recognized him at once as my Savior! The … radiance of his countenance [was] glorious. … [The] peace about him … was divine!”

President McKay continues, “The city … was his … the City Eternal; and the people following him were to abide there in peace and eternal happiness.”

President McKay wondered, “Who [are] they? [Who are these people?]”

He explains what happened next:

“As if the Savior read my thoughts, he answered by pointing to [words in] a semicircle that … appeared above [the people], … written in gold … :

“‘These Are They Who Have Overcome the World—

Some question whether Prophets see the Lord in our modern days.  I think the answer is yes, but they do not share it as much with many because they do not throw their pearls before swine.

I also recall recently that Elder Haight (who has passed away) also saw a vision of the Lord.  I believe our prophets and apostles today still are special witnesses of Christ and that many receive these visions and visitations in our modern day.

 

PS:  And yes, this means my mind wandered a little during the lesson. I'm not perfect yet.

Edited May 9, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[wenglund]

On 3/31/2017 at 10:40 AM, DoctorLemon said:

Actual trinitarianism (as opposed to modalism) is so close to the LDS position you can barely tell the two apart.  

 

 

Right. The difference between "person" and "personage" isn't readily apparent. 

Differences over the meaning of "one" are also on the decline. Social trinitarianism is on the rise among protestants--particularly the parishioners..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JohnsonJones]

I was about to post the following in another forum (learn about Mormons) but I thought it may be a little too deep and out there for that forum, especially since this is more me ponderizing about something than any set doctrine or theology set forth in the LDS church.

In light of section 76 and what it says regarding the Terrestrial Kingdom, I've pondered on this long and hard.  I have a family that, prior to me, did not accept the church.  I know some of them had extensive teachings to them.  What happens to them.  I don't know.  I hope that they are with me in the Celestial Kingdom, but what if they are not (and that I actually GET to the Celestial Kingdom myself)?

In that light, why do we do Temple Work?  AS I said, I think what we do in the Temple is pertinent to ALL the degrees of glory (and that is purely opinion, I could be wrong, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if I were) in some way or fashion.  If we follow the opinions and teachings of Joseph F. Smith and Joseph Fielding Smith we know that the sealing bonds of parents to children extend past the Celestial Kingdom.  They extend at least to the Terrestrial and possibly to the Telestial, as per their teachings, children that do not make it to the Celestial Kingdom can still attain it, but in a lesser degree in the Celestial than those who have earned the right to be there.  The Sealing bonds enable parents to bring their children to the Celestial Kingdom to be with them.  The children do NOT have the Celestial blessings of exaltation, nor the glory and powers of the Angels there, but they WILL be there.

In that light, it seems as if the sealing bonds may be far more powerful than we give them reason.  It could go two ways. (actually three, but the third is what most think the status quo is now).

1.  Those that are sealed in the temple are sealed together no matter WHAT kingdom they end up in.  That means, sealing for all time and eternity, if spouses end up in the same kingdom, they are still sealed together, even if they cannot use the faculties there of for eternal progeny.  Husbands and wives and families truly are an eternal principle for all.  This is an idea I've been leaning towards...BUT

2. Woman may be able to be saved in the Celestial Kingdom if they so choose regardless.  This means that any woman who is sealed, and chooses to be sealed would automatically be in the Celestial Kingdom.  This may be possible because of how things work in the temple, which I cannot go into any great detail here.  However, an idea is as men are reporting to the Lord, woman report to the head of the family (her husband or father) and via that to the Lord in judgment?  I think this is far more iffy, but a possibility.

Or it could be as many think now, Sealing for time and all eternity between husband and wife is ONLY available in exaltation (and this actually follows in line with a lot of what Joseph Smith taught in regards to young woman and men needing to be married or if not, to be servants even if they did go the Celestial Kingdom because of this choice to remain unmarried).

I don't know, just something I pondered about.  I think I'll put this particular post in my topic on my thoughts on LDS culture and teachings and such as it is something I'd like to think more upon and when reviewing that thread (it's where I put stuff that I want to think about sometimes in more depth) this is something that I'd like to think more on, especially when I go to the temple.

[JohnsonJones]

AS the above post, I originally was posting the following in another forum (Learn about Mormonism) but felt that the original comments I posted were a little too in depth for someone just trying to learn the basics of LDS teachings.  Originally it was ABOVE the stuff I posted in the post above this one.  AS I stated, it's probably a little too in depth for that forum and what the individual was asking, in regards to the Lord's Justice.  So, I'm posting it here, it is as follows.

This is a deeper subject than is easily discussed on a forum.  Trying to collate my thoughts in that regard.

In this life, we are too selfish.  We want to know what is in it for us.  Imagine, instead, a life where we LOVE EVERYONE.  We want what is best for everyone we meet or know.  We love them as much as we love ourselves.  In that scenario, why would we want to exclude anyone from attaining the same reward as we have.  In fact, we would wish everyone could have the same reward as we attain.  In that light, whether we can get our friends and family to join us in this life, or the next, we will want them to be with us through the eternities.

That said, there are natural ramifications for what we do in this life and the next.  For starters, as some have stated, there will be those that will not accept the gospel regardless of this life or the next.  There are rules for each kingdom of glory.  The lowest, the Telestial, the only thing that is required is to accept the Lord.  That is it.  However, this is more complicated.  In order to be saved in the Kingdom of heaven (of which the Telestial is part of) they need to be baptized, hence, our baptisms for the dead are for ALL mankind.  Anyone who has ever walked this earth, whether evil or good, need to have that baptism done.  They then are eligible to enter into the Telestial Kingdom where they can see the glory of creation around them and the glorious garden (or whatever is there) that they can rest.  These do not receive the testimony of our Lord, nor his gospel.  But as every knee shall bow, after they have suffered and been administered to by angels, they shall be saved.

The next degree is the Terrestrial.  This can be a bit bothersome, and I am going to give my OPINION here...so if you don't want to be somewhat disturbed (possibly), you can just skip my post.  I am going to analyze section 76 VERY closely here.

Quote

72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

74 Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it.

75 These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

76 These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness.

77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

As you can see, this says some interesting things.  I don't understand all of this in the modern context of understanding.  There IS a possibility, however it means that what we have in this life is DIRECTLY responsible for what we decided and choose in the pre-existence.

What I mean by this, is that WE choose whether we would be born into the churchy in this life, OR would have the opportunity to join the church and do so in this life.  In THAT context, that means that those who do NOT have this opportunity PURPOSEFULLY CHOSE that path in the pre-existence.

Hence, a possible meaning of verse 72 is that those who did not have the law given to them, aka...they choose not to.

Here we also see those who did NOT accept the gospel of our Lord in mortality, but accepted it in the life hereafter.  These were those who may be righteous (and perhaps even moreso than you or I) but decided that other teachings were more correct than the gospel as found in the LDS church. 

This idea can disturb MANY who feel that all there relatives who rejected the gospel in this life will attain the eternal exaltation in the next.  WE DO NOT know.  It is up to the Lord's judgment in that regard.

However, be aware, for the Christian in other religions, this glory is all and MORE than what they teach they will receive.  They will be in heaven, they will be able to be with our LORD (and as much of our Lord as most of them recognize in many ways).  This is the glory that many of them seek in this life, and if they desire more than that later...it is this reward which they worked for, sought, and desired. 

I think to even gain this reward, there also must be work for the dead.  There must be Initiatories, and perhaps even the first part of the endowment, which I will not go into here.  they need some learning and education at least, I believe, in attaining the Terrestrial, and are accepting enough to participate in that reach. 

Quote

 51. They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

And then we see the requirement for the Celestial.  The big thing to see here is that they are the church of the Firstborn.  They are also priests after the Order of Mechizedek (and the rest of that verse).

How does that correlate to temple work and receiving the gospel in the life hereafter.  I think temple work is required for any of those who did not receive these things in this life to enter into any part of the kingdom of heaven, that means, even for the Telestial, there needs to be temple work done for those people. 

In light of modern revelation, do I know who will get to go the Celestial Kingdom in light of these verses?  No, I do not, only the true and only judge can know that.  For all I know, all who accept the gospel in the next life and have all their temple work done for them will be exalted.

Or, it could be different, for mercy cannot rob justice, it can only inject mercy so that justice does not become tyranny.

I do not know.  However, I think it can be a gauge for EACH ONE of us, for in the end, it is each of us that is striving for our own salvation and exaltation.  We need to worry about where we are at, for we cannot control what another person chooses in this regard.  We can only LOVE all men and hope that they all can receive exaltation in the life to come, if possible, and that if not, they receive as great a reward as possible for the good things they choose in this life.

I think I'll put more on my opinion in this matter in my personal thread regarding Mormon culture and such in another part of these forums.

The long and short of it though, is I don't know.  I have some areas of scripture that talk about it above, and it can be a good indication in some areas, but overall, I'm not the one who gets to decide who goes where...and though section 76 is illuminating, I'm not positive in who goes where at the end.  All I know is that for each of us, we need to strive to do the best and be the best that we can possibly be.  I do not think that anyone that earnestly and fervently desires to choose the right and seeks after a reward will be denied access to that reward for the fallibilities of those around us (other men and woman who may make decisions, for example, the woman who fervently wants to marry a righteous man in the temple for eternity, but is never given the opportunity to do so in this life).  That any who see a righteous reward will be granted that reward and glory in the heavens hereafter.

[JohnsonJones]

So, this is the summer.  With Historians, some teach, some do research, and some do both.  I utilize the summer time to do research and things of that sort.  I've just recently spent some time among Indians (as in, from India) and some thoughts in regards to LDS religion came to mind.  The Asian religions are about as far from Mormonism and Christianity as one can get, but at the same time, as I pondered how this life and this world is full of the symbology of the next, I thought of some things...not that these are doctrine in any way, just thoughts I had while doing work.

Many of their religions are based around ancestor worship, or the idea of individual deities of a house that watch and protect that family and house.  Many times this may be a relative that watches the house (or in some Asian religions, many ancestors). 

I thought, perhaps this is relative to something in reality.  We do not worship our ancestors, but it may be that many of those who die who are our parents and grandparents and great grandparents and so on are assigned to look after their children/grand children/great grandchildren in the afterlife.  In this way, we are in some ways, protected or at least watched over by our ancestors.  Hence, even though it is not a true religion, and is false, the religions of the East have a splinter of truth to them that if noted by someone with the spirit, may be of gain to someone.

Another thought was in regards to ants and other insects which have queens and a lot of workers.  IF (and that's a big IF) each woman could have as many children as eternity affords (saying she would want that many children, I imagine there will be no pain of conception/labor, etc involved with the process, and babies are cute...) it could be that entire worlds come from a single woman.  In that light, as a Queen ant is the mother of the entire colony, so a mother would be the mother of all there is.  She would literally be the queen of the entire world, having dominion over it.  In that light, ants (yes, I worked in the dirt somewhat while over there, at a dig site) are also in someway symbolic of the great whole of heaven.

Now mind, these are just thoughts, not something I'm forming a defined opinion over, and definitely not a belief...but things that came to mind as I was working.  I have about a week off and then I am off to do more research (as I said, it is the summer and this is what I do, it's not just free time).  I think that all things manifest the things of heaven, if we but look for them.  That is a belief of mine, that all things that are created by the Lord manifest themselves of him, and show that he is and his gospel and teachings.  Now, how it all works is a mystery to me, and you should probably use inspiration from the HG or people much wiser then I to figure it out, but I think that all things can manifest of heaven if we but look to them and listen to the spirit.

(and I may be mistaken, but it's a personal belief in regards to the world and the Lord).

[JohnsonJones]

Upon restrospect, I was probably TOO Frank in my personal struggles here.  I'm trimming it down to be a little less open, and more succinct.

So, recently in another thread I had mentioned about people's trust issues, and it's one I've been pondering about, unsure of the answer.  Part of what I do in my calling is to go visit people in the ward.  I especially focus on seeing those who are inactive, or that are less active.  I've met very few with the following idea, but it is one that has me thinking and pondering about me and my own role.  I've also seen this accusation spouted towards leadership in some locations across the internet.  For me, it is a deeply personal issue that I've struggled with.

The Basic gist is as follows.

The LDS church tends to choose rich, white, men as it's leadership.

Now, when I'm visiting people and they are talking directly at me and very definitely sound like making an accusation towards me, my first reaction is to defend myself.  I then realize, that if I do that, it's not going to help these individuals overcome this, or get them to come to church, or any other factor.  They have standard statements, that typically all seem leveled at me, as if accusing me of doing something wrong.  They obviously have a definite problem with me and most likely many others in the church. 

Now, when I was younger I held some leadership positions in the church that others did not have that opportunity to hold.  I was especially arrogant back then, and heavily regret how I acted at times.  I regret it to this day.  I have no idea why I was chosen, and wonder if it does have to do with what various people claim.   I know I was not as qualified as many who were far better than I, and many were much older than me who were far more qualified as well.

My reflections on my defense would be first...I didn't volunteer for any of the callings.  I know some people aim to become Bishops and other leaders in the church, and some are successful, but I never did any of that, and never had any desire for it.  This was NOT something I choose or even volunteered for.  I did it because I was called to it.  I don't have a great pedigree in the church itself, so I have no idea how I got into this select group that they think exists...and finally, I have been greatly blessed at times to be better off than many, but I am not fabulously wealthy in and of myself.

I am not the one making this type of decision.  I should not feel guilty simply because of what I was born as (race, or otherwise).  And trying to support my family is definitely something I shouldn't feel ashamed of.

And yet, I still struggle with the accusations regarding leadership and how it is chosen in the LDS church.  It is something I struggle with very hard, even if those individuals don't realize it.  I've seen similar arguments presented on the internet at times and wonder if they got many of the ideas from there (and it's another reason I decided to come back and edit this post so that I give as little ammunition as possible to those who dislike or hate the church if they ever happen across my personal thoughts).  I feel incredibly guilty at times. 

I am sorry that they have this difficulty in their lives.  It obviously makes it hard for them to trust many LDS leaders.  IF one feels that a leader has never suffered or struggled like they have, and hence cannot understand where they are coming from or why they feel that way, I can see why it makes them hard to deal with some situations in the church, and why it makes it hard for them at times in regards to the church itself.  I would love to help them overcome this difficulty, but I honestly do NOT know how to do such a thing.  I don't know the answer, or answers, in this.

I do what I can, which is to continue to visit them as long as they allow me too, to try to express mine and others great love for them, and our hope to see them again at meetings.   It's all I know that I can do, I don't know of any other thing to do for them.  I am sad I can't do more within the confines of what we should do in regards to them, and terribly saddened that they have taken offense.  I hope that if it has anything to do with me personally, they will understand that I, personally, am only trying to be there for them, and if I have done anything truly to offend them, they will forgive me.  Still, I find myself terribly saddened over this type of attitude, and have NO idea how to help people overcome it of myself.

This is still a little long, but hopefully is a little more concise, and a tailored a little less in discussing my personal struggle of the issue, while going into the difficulties some may have with trusting me and others at times.  Hopefully it also discusses in a way more relevant and uplifting to the board, on a particular struggle of mine to trying to help these individuals, and how I do what I can, but really do not have answers or solutions to their difficulties (or mine).

 

Edited June 28, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

Well, the last few hours before I take off again on another trip for a few weeks. 

Recently someone posted a document on these forums, which was an apologist work.  It was an impressive piece of work and was somewhere a little over 90 pages.  While I was reading over it, something struck me (as in, I thought of something, not that I was actually hit).

Like some individuals from my above post, I think many have harsh opinions in regards to the LDS church at times.  I have run across many people that have gotten strange ideas from the internet.  One of the things that brought me to these forums was seeking a place where uplifting discussion regarding LDS topics could be talked about.  In other places, it seems many who hate the church had infiltrated them.  There I saw many interact with them, but very rarely did any convince others of the truth of the gospel.

This brings to mind something that I was taught on my mission.  I was a young man at the time, and we were teaching or talking to those who had many more years of experience.  We were told that we would not convince others by argument, but by bearing of the testimony and the Spirit doing the conversion.

I think that there are many good things written which can benefit the humble individual, and those who are truly seeking to learn truth.  For those, such documents as I read, are useful and enjoyable to read.  For others though, I think the same item told me on my mission is true.

It is the spirit that turns a person's heart towards the Lord, it is the spirit that convinces.  If one is so hardened against the spirit that they will not listen, you will probably have no effect trying to convince them otherwise.  If you argue with them, it drives the spirit away, typically.  The best way then, if the person still has an iota of listening to the spirit within them, is to bring the Spirit into the conversation (and we were told to bear testimony, as the Spirit can confirm the truth of it, and bring it to the room), and have the Spirit do the talking.

In that, we believe it is the Spirit that helps others come to the truth, the Spirit that brings testimony, and the Spirit that converts.

[Blueskye2]

On 3/22/2017 at 3:15 PM, JohnsonJones said:

However, Trinitarians of the Catholic religion and descent (Protestantism) held that when Christ came, he fulfilled the law.  He fulfilled everything for the Bible and thus the Lord no longer appeared to men.  There were no such things as visions, or angels appearing to men any longer.  Prophets were no longer needed because the gospel was fulfilled and completed by the coming of the Lord and his teachings were complete. 

The thing that went counter to this specifically was that Joseph Smith saw the Father and the Resurrected Son.  Even if he claimed he simply saw an angel, much less God, it would have a large impact, because such a thing was believed to not be doctrinally sound.  For those of the Catholic descent, this was impossible to have occurred.  Joseph's Claim that he was visited by God was not only unbelievable by those of the Trinitarian descent, but absolute heresy.

 

Hi there.

Your opening post is interesting, but has a few problems in describing Catholic doctrines and beliefs. I'm ignoring the Trinity discussion because it's wayyy off, and I'm not getting into a Trinity/Mormon discussion (ever).

But regards to this part I quoted, it's not accurate. Catholics have numerous Saints and faithful who have had visions of angels, Mary and/or Jesus. Some of these visions are quite famous and talked about often among Catholics. However, where the First Vision comes into Catholic heresy, is that God the Father appeared, which is, indeed not possible in Catholic doctrine, since no one has seen the Father, and no one could (for a couple of reasons).

Second, regarding prophets, prophecy is not dead in Catholicism. There are again numerous Catholic Saints and other faithful who are considered to have been given the gift of prophecy. There are a number of major differences in how Catholics and Mormons view post Resurrection prophets, which would be a long conversation I think.

I'm not out to derail your thread of personal thoughts on Mormonism...I'll leave it at that.

 

[JohnsonJones]

Something that came up when reading the forum, but felt instead of polluting a thread with this thought, I'd simply post it here.

I personally think those who think they went down the Arabian peninsula don't really know Arabia too well.  I've always thought they most likely journeyed East through Asia.

The Arabian Peninsula theory is based off the idea that there are several areas on that Peninsula that sound or seem similar to words or names utilized in the Book of Mormon.

However, though the children of Israel spent 40 years as Nomads there, does not mean it takes 8 years to travel it.  Nomads could travel that peninsula in less than a year.  To travel 8 years there is basically being pointless in the desert...aka...NOT being led to the promised land. 

It makes far more sense if they actually had a point to their travels, and traveled through Asia until they hit that Eastern Coast...at least to me.  From there, it is a FAR SHORTER trip to the Promised land as well, rather than what would take a LOOONG time otherwise.  I don't think the Lord would have Lehi and his family take an unnecessarily LONG trip over the ocean where supplies could get slim on a voyage that long...even with our modern technology if we don't plan it right.

Instead, having them travel through Asia where food and water could be found, and then leaving at a spot where the voyage would be shorter makes a LOT more sense to me.

Of course, that's not the POPULAR opinion right now (popular opinion is that they went through the Arabian peninsula).  The popular opinion is that they went more south then east, rather than a Southeastern direction (at least until you hit India...then it would have to be either purely east, or they left from that area).  This puts them wandering down the edges of the Arabian Peninsula...and then if one follows the cities and towns that they claim are named after stuff in the Book of Mormon...ironically for a while to the WEST.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

The Arabian Peninsula theory is based off the idea that there are several areas on that Peninsula that sound or seem similar to words or names utilized in the Book of Mormon.

Not so. The "Arabian Peninsula theory" is based on what the Book of Mormon itself says about their journey. There can be much reasonable debate about the American setting for the Book of Mormon, but there can be very little about Lehi's journey from Jerusalem. Nephi catalogued it carefully. The "Arabian Peninsula theory", as you call it, is the only reasonable interpretation of Nephi's own clear words.

[Fether]

6 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Something that came up when reading the forum, but felt instead of polluting a thread with this thought, I'd simply post it here.

I personally think those who think they went down the Arabian peninsula don't really know Arabia too well.  I've always thought they most likely journeyed East through Asia.

The Arabian Peninsula theory is based off the idea that there are several areas on that Peninsula that sound or seem similar to words or names utilized in the Book of Mormon.

However, though the children of Israel spent 40 years as Nomads there, does not mean it takes 8 years to travel it.  Nomads could travel that peninsula in less than a year.  To travel 8 years there is basically being pointless in the desert...aka...NOT being led to the promised land. 

It makes far more sense if they actually had a point to their travels, and traveled through Asia until they hit that Eastern Coast...at least to me.  From there, it is a FAR SHORTER trip to the Promised land as well, rather than what would take a LOOONG time otherwise.  I don't think the Lord would have Lehi and his family take an unnecessarily LONG trip over the ocean where supplies could get slim on a voyage that long...even with our modern technology if we don't plan it right.

Instead, having them travel through Asia where food and water could be found, and then leaving at a spot where the voyage would be shorter makes a LOT more sense to me.

Of course, that's not the POPULAR opinion right now (popular opinion is that they went through the Arabian peninsula).  The popular opinion is that they went more south then east, rather than a Southeastern direction (at least until you hit India...then it would have to be either purely east, or they left from that area).  This puts them wandering down the edges of the Arabian Peninsula...and then if one follows the cities and towns that they claim are named after stuff in the Book of Mormon...ironically for a while to the WEST.

My own thoughts: It was along the Arabian Peninsula.

I imagine it was one of my comments that caused a spark in this comment

1 Nephi 2,4, and 16 reference their journey being along the Red Sea. Chapter 16 is the START of their journey so you could speculate they started at the Red Sea and then traveled east... but doesn't make much sense.

They also did require a Liahona for their journey. If it were along the sea shore they were traveling then why would they need a device to show them the way? Maybe because they would need it later in their journey and they needed to learn the mechanics of it and gain a testimony on it before they needed to rely wholly on it?

It does say that they went "up to the wilderness" and "down to Jerusalem". After looking at some elevation maps, it appears that would NOT be west (granted this could just be a symbolic meaning of the wilderness being a higher place spiritually than Jerusalem). 

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

My own thoughts: It was along the Arabian Peninsula.

I imagine it was one of my comments that caused a spark in this comment

1 Nephi 2,4, and 16 reference their journey being along the Red Sea. Chapter 16 is the START of their journey so you could speculate they started at the Red Sea and then traveled east... but doesn't make much sense.

They also did require a Liahona for their journey. If it were along the sea shore they were traveling then why would they need a device to show them the way? Maybe because they would need it later in their journey and they needed to learn the mechanics of it and gain a testimony on it before they needed to rely wholly on it?

It does say that they went "up to the wilderness" and "down to Jerusalem". After looking at some elevation maps, it appears that would NOT be west (granted this could just be a symbolic meaning of the wilderness being a higher place spiritually than Jerusalem). 

Thanks to you and Vort for the replies.  A more detailed explanation of my thoughts.

It could be.  I believe he states they travelled in a South-South Eastern direction for four days, and then it states for many days (which is undefined) in Nephi 16.  After that, it states they traveled in almost an Eastward direction...for EIGHT YEARS. 

So, there are several theories on where and how they traveled.  The two main ones utilized these days make no sense in comparison to that stated by Nephi.  The first has them traveling in a slightly Western direction, or South-South West.  This is how they arrive at Shazer, or what some scholars think correlates to what Nephi Called Shazer.  They walked a pretty extensive area rather quickly in this instance.  Possible, but not necessarily exactly how we've seen the nomads in the Middle East travel that route.  Furthermore, with the closeness of political lines...a good way to get themselves killed in the ancient times.

However, it does correlate to the statement of travelling along the borders of the Red Sea.  The question then, is how far they travelled along the border the Red Sea and how far.

I would say it was less than a month, as Nephi doesn't even state it was several weeks, just several days.  My thoughts is it was actually somewhere between 5 and 14 days.

The scholars of this theory however, postulate that in this "several days" period, they went from one end of the Peninsula to the next (from the Northern end, to the Southern end).

They then took 8 years to travel the shorter distance traveling in a East-North East direction.

So, in the matter of days, they traveled the length of the Arabian Peninsula, and then took 8 years to traverse the Southern edge?

According to the main theory...Yes.  I personally disagree that this makes any sense whatsoever.  Not only does it disregard the actual directions Nephi states, it also is pretty crazy for the length it goes.

This main theory is an old theory though, and is rather easy to find.  Here is something about it from an Ensign.  You will note that there can be variations on the above theory.

Lehi's Journey on LDS dot org

Some have noted that it's a little hard to reconcile this, and have an alternate Arabian theories, very similar, in which they traveled some distance before getting the Liahona, and then traveled to Shazer, and then travel to the OTHER side of the Arabian Peninsula...and then down again.  Once again, more akin to what Nephi stated, but instead of due east, they still insist on going down the Arabian Peninsula.  It does have the added attraction that there is no defined stop to their journey, as many who apply the above and former theory think, but if they don't stop at the tip of the Arabian Peninsula...that means they either backtracked....or went West.  Even with this theory, it means that they turned from going East, and then went in a SouthEastern Direction.

Another take is that the South-South East direction along the Red Sea is actually the Eastern direction they travel.  So they travel, and then continue down the Peninsula for the Eastward direction (traveling South-South East and then east for 8 years rather than mainly Eastward as Nephi states in his account).

I also have problems with this theory.

The difficulties arise in knowing how far this family was able to travel.  Both theories above ascribe the family travelling a MASSIVE amoung of distances for anyone (much less a family) in a few days time (or several days), while then, slowing that same group down to an interminable crawl for the next 8 years...which to most historians probably does NOT make a whole lot of sense. OR, alternatively, that they did NOT actually travel as Nephi states, doing something different. 

The other idea, when they acknowledge how ludicrous in comparison to the culture in the Arabian peninsula and the travel times, is that instead of traveling as Nephi states, Lehi and Nephi dwelt extensively in certain locations...OR...were like the ancient Israelites...wanderers in the desert for 8 years.  Both of these ignore Nephi 17:1 on it's statements of travel.

However, traveling eastward through Asia does have another account.  This account happened many thousands of years later (or almost two thousand years) but would have utilized similar measures. 

Marco Polo's journey took 3 and a half years.  They were guided by people who already knew the route, and they had a set destination to travel. 

This may be less time than Nephi and Lehi took, but with families, children, and other measures, eight years is more reasonable traveling in that direction, than traveling eastward on the Arabian Peninsula (and verse 17:1 in Nephi makes it clear that they traveled EAST in the wilderness, not South-South East, not East-North East, etc).  In addition, with date estimation, it is estimated they traveled for nearly 8 years GOING east...unless you decide to ignore what Nephi wrote and instead do what some do to justify the above theories where Nephi and Lehi instead dwell by the Ocean for a lengthy period.

Marco Polo also points out a good reason why the overland route was probably better then the Sea route.  When Marco Polo attempted to return, it still took two years and on that voyage returning on the ocean, lost almost 600 people.  Only 18 people survived that sea voyage.

If Lehi's family traveled South-South East for a little while, but were still above the Northern point of the Persian Sea when they started East, that would make more sense to me.  Then, turning East, they have all of Asia to travel for the next 8 years, traveling mainly Eastward just as Nephi states in his narrative.

In addition, it puts them FAR closer to the Americas as they travel, which means a far less distance to travel and less peril on the seas.  Sea Travel WAS perilous in the ancient world, even deep sea travel, and for more than just how the ships were designed, but things dealing with storage of food and water.  Land travel overall, was far safer, even with the perils of encountering different nations and natives. 

A lot of my thoughts deal more with the time they traveled, and how logical it would be to depart on a sea voyage from where some scholars say they did in the popular theory, vs. that of following what Nephi actually states, and with my own experiences in the Middle East and my travels there, as well as the logic of the distances involved with a sea voyage in consideration of various abilities in the Ancient World (which is far more than simply ship building, but involves food storage, and other preparations which would also be necessary for such a journey).

The other thing to look at are the sea currents.  You do not have a sea current (which is what made it a LOT easier for travels by Columbus to the New World and others in before the modern age with our engines and other things) which travels from Arabia to the Americas.  It is more likely to be able to catch one from the Eastern Edge of Asia (though you may still have to travel) than it would be from Arabia.  The easiest way for the Lord to get Lehi's family to the America's via ship would be one of those currents.

Oceanic Currents

So, I don't ascribe to the major LDS scholar's theory of Lehi's path, but instead think it is far more logical to look at it on how they traveled over 8 years.  The Arabian peninsula itself, even travel by the sea, is a FAR harsher place to spend 8 years (no need to have your woman and children eat raw meat, you are going to be lucky if you just find fresh water that isn't guarded by the natives of the area that they will not kill you over...) then the travel...which is another thing which has stayed very consistant with for the past 2000 years (though now it's easier to get fresh water...go back just 100 years and if you were not a member of one of the tribes, and tried drinking their water without their consent, it would be a very easy way to be killed).  there are several other observations I could make in regards to that area of the Middle East, but that's just the basics...it gets more complicated when one looks more at the culture of the area.

Scholars have been delighted in finding what they think are areas with the same naming conventions as used by those in the Book of Mormon, but to me, knowing the culture, the area, and the timelines described by Nephi, doesn't actually make a lot of sense to me.

That's why, I prefer the Asia trek idea/theory.

Edited September 20, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

PS: To be fair, some scholars also ascribe to the Arabian Peninsula theory (from what I've heard, and I don't know, but the Ensign article may also hint at this in part 1 which I listed) where Lehi traveled in the Arabian Peninsula as theory #1 ascribes, but then, later turned northward and exited the Peninsula and then spent the next 8 years traveling eastward to who knows how far.  I'd include that on the Asia Trek theory as well though...as it still ascribes to a trek through Asia rather than simply staying on the Arabian Peninsula.

To be fair to the other side, their is also a quote attributed to Joseph Smith (attributed being a key word here) that he stated to the effect that Lehi's family went down by the Red Sea and then to the Southern Ocean and then traversed it.  Though it may hint at the above, overall the Ensign article relies on the timelines for a main Arabian theory by positing Lehi's family spent a lot more time dwelling than traveling, (so instead of interpreting Nephi 17:1 as traveling...they ascribe it as dwelling most of the  time with a little travel).  Much of this is trying to match the travel with the statement that was attributed to Joseph Smith...though I have not been able to verify it was actually a genuine quote itself...despite it being attributed as such.  (sort of like some other famous statements by prophets in the church, that when looked into were actually more secondhand accounts of them stating such rather than something they recorded in writing themselves).

For those who are interested...the above article in the Ensign was just part 1 of the travel, Part 2 can be found here...if one is interested in reading the rest of the journey and article of that idea at the time.

Lehi's Journey - Part 2

Obviously I don't agree with the conclusions specifically overall, but it is a very interesting, and I'd say even enlightening, read. (and even moreso, perhaps, if you agree with the conclusions.  As I said, in the statement attributed to Joseph Smith, they are trying to follow the trail in that statement).

Edited September 20, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

Lehi's party traveled to the borders by the wilderness of the Red Sea, and from there three days' journey near the Red Sea. That strongly suggests if not requires the Gulf of Aqaba to be their location, either the east shore or west. That it was east is obvious, because they traveled "many days" in a "south-southeast" direction, always staying near the Red Sea. There is no other place for them to go that matches this description .After "many days" of travel, even covering only five or ten miles a day, they would surely have been near or (probably) past the northern border of modern-day Yemen.

Note that the only named location outside of Jerusalem is Nahom, where Ishmael was buried. The Lehite party didn't name this location, as they did the others. And by an amazing (non-)coincidence, a location with that very consonant combination just happens to exist at...exactly where Nephi's stated route would have put them. (Google "NHM Yemen" for more info.)

At that point, after some rest, the Lehites set out on a long trek, lasting probably years and doubtless interrupted with many protracted camps, in a direction almost due east, until they came to Irreantum, meaning "many waters". Traveling due east from any location in western Yemen (or north) unfailingly puts you at the Arabian Sea, likely on the Gulf of Aden. The Arabian Sea is a northern extension of the Indian Ocean, certainly the largest body of water any of them had ever encountered.

Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point. No one has to believe me. But from my reading, this is straightforward and irrefutable.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Vort

[JohnsonJones]

You realize it is about 2000 KM from the Northern point of Saudi Arabia near the Red Sea and the Sinai peninsula to Yemen. 

It took the saints around 100 days or more to travel to Utah.

For ease, do a google maps look from Tabuk, Saudi Arabia to either Sana'a, Yemen or Yemen, Yemen and you'll get an idea of the distance that we are discussing.

Then, do a search from Sana'a, Yemen to Salalah, Oman, which is around 1400 KM.

This should give you some idea of the distances being referred to in general.

If I understand you right, you state that Nephi and Lehi traveled 2000 KM in under 30 days (and that's being generous, many days journey typically does NOT mean that long if something is referred in that fashion if they also utilize other ways of recording time...normally many days means more than 2 days but less than several weeks or a moon, depending on civilization) which puts them at traveling around 65+ Km ( which is a little more than 40 miles a day).

Then, they slow  down for some reason to travel less than half a mile (or, to be more apt, half a km which is more like less than 1/3 of a mile...and note...Nephi doesn't say they stayed and tarried until later in chapter 17 and then built a ship) a day for the next 8 years.

Next do a search from Eilat, Israel to Tabuk, Saudi Arabia, which is around 278 Km (or 225 -250 if you go more straight).  This is far more likely a distance they traveled for many days, and from there, if they travelled due east, would skim over the Northern shore of the Persian Sea and onto Asia.

Thus, as per Nephi, they travel in the wilderness (not stop and dwell a LOT which is not in Nephi) in an eastward direction for quite a while).

Further evidence, even as the Arabs would start voyaging Eastward on the ocean, it was seen as suicidal if you went certain directions or too far in certain ways, before the age of sail.  Some of this probably has to do with the currents and other factors that they just were not prepared for in those days (scurvy is a nice one to come down with for example).  Ironically, there is a current or two from East Asia which would make travel to the Americas far more amenable to the Pacific Islanders (and of course, from America back to that area) and if they were lucky to be able to find it and then catch it, even those from East Asia.

This is an interesting thing to discuss and look at, I am familiar with the Saudi Arabian Peninsula and the Arabian Peninsula theories (which does include the idea about NHM while it ignores other Nahom's elsewhere...interestingly enough.  Nehhm/Nihm/Nihim, or NHM, and the Arabic meaning of Stone Cutting, which correlates to approximately 600 AD (not BC, interestingly enough, though there are both the 600 dates there), is an interesting supposition by some archaeologists that it therefore means that it was the Nahom (related to mourning as per the BoM) in 600 BC. 

Is it?  I don't know, but it is an interesting speculation.  (of interest, do a google map search for Nahum, or NHM, or even Nihm, or any of the other deriviatives in yemen...it should prove interesting...)

PS: If you cannot find it, it may be because some think NHM refers to a tribal name and the location they traveled instead of a named location specifically.  I wouldn't go that far...but it can make an interesting discussion piece.

Edited September 20, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Traveler]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 4:29 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Something that came up when reading the forum, but felt instead of polluting a thread with this thought, I'd simply post it here.

I personally think those who think they went down the Arabian peninsula don't really know Arabia too well.  I've always thought they most likely journeyed East through Asia.

The Arabian Peninsula theory is based off the idea that there are several areas on that Peninsula that sound or seem similar to words or names utilized in the Book of Mormon.

I spent several years working with a staunch Museum that lived most of his life in Arabia.  I gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon and he gave me a translation of the Quran.  After reading the Book of Mormon – my friend asked me who wrote the Book of Mormon.  I explained that the Book of Mormon was written by Hebrews from Jerusalem but were translated by Joseph Smith.  He responded to me that the Book of Mormon had to be written by someone from the Middle East – someone fully aware of the language, customs and territory of the middle east.  He said that even in our modern 21st century that such a book could not have been written by someone raised in our western civilization culture.

Having spent some time in the Middle East – I can say by experience that there is a lot of literature and art work from LDS sources that is inaccurate. 

But I thought I would point out something from my Museum friend.  In Arabia, it is believed that G-d gave the people of Arabia 3 great gifts.  The first is what is called living water – I will not explain what is meant by living water because I do not what to create a side track.   Second is the camel.

The Third is the Arabian Tree of Life.  This tree is a date palm tree.  It is a special tree that has white fruit that can be carried while crossing the desert sands in the heat of Arabia for months without spoiling.  The tree has great religious significant that is not understood well in the West.  I have never seen the Tree of Life depicted as a date palm tree but as my friend said – there is no other tree in the world the produces white fruit on the tree.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I spent several years working with a staunch Museum that lived most of his life in Arabia.  I gave him a copy of the Book of Mormon and he gave me a translation of the Quran.  After reading the Book of Mormon – my friend asked me who wrote the Book of Mormon.  I explained that the Book of Mormon was written by Hebrews from Jerusalem but were translated by Joseph Smith.  He responded to me that the Book of Mormon had to be written by someone from the Middle East – someone fully aware of the language, customs and territory of the middle east.  He said that even in our modern 21st century that such a book could not have been written by someone raised in our western civilization culture.

Having spent some time in the Middle East – I can say by experience that there is a lot of literature and art work from LDS sources that is inaccurate. 

But I thought I would point out something from my Museum friend.  In Arabia, it is believed that G-d gave the people of Arabia 3 great gifts.  The first is what is called living water – I will not explain what is meant by living water because I do not what to create a side track.   Second is the camel.

The Third is the Arabian Tree of Life.  This tree is a date palm tree.  It is a special tree that has white fruit that can be carried while crossing the desert sands in the heat of Arabia for months without spoiling.  The tree has great religious significant that is not understood well in the West.  I have never seen the Tree of Life depicted as a date palm tree but as my friend said – there is no other tree in the world the produces white fruit on the tree.

 

The Traveler

That's a fascinating thing to bring up.  Something related but not exactly the same is regarding dates.  In the West, many time the fruit of good and evil is portrayed as an apple.  However, among some in the Mediterranean and Middle East (and East of there) the fruit is considered to perhaps be the Date (though some think of it as the fig I've heard as well).

[JohnsonJones]

A thought I had on the most recent General Conference (Oct 2017), at least from yesterday's Session.  The most standout talk to me was Dallin H. Oaks Saturday Morning talk on the Proclamation of the Family.  I think it was the most powerful and definitive talk of the conference yesterday.

I think it states many valuable things.  In that light, I think enemies of the church will hate it, try to tear it down, despise it, and do all they can to minimize it.  I think it may be their number one target from this conference in things to tear down or hate because of how strongly it emphasizes the Lords work and purposes in our lives as a family unit.  If you did not catch it, go to LDS.org and watch it.  For me it was the best talk of the entire conference thus far (we haven't seen Sunday's Sessions yet).

I also thought Elder Quentin L. Cook's talk was very good in the Saturday Afternoon session, and realize that I need to work on being more humble and having more humility.

[JohnsonJones]

On another site I was browsing this morning a question came up from an Ex-Mormon.  It asked what made us so sure that our church was the true church as opposed to other religions...or in otherwords, what differentiated our knowledge that the LDS church is the true church and how is that different than others in their religions.

This was on an LDS board type thing and I was shocked by the answers.  Most of the top answers did not center around what I thought was the VITAL thing that separated us from everyone else in regards to our knowledge.  Instead they talked about various gospel teachings, or about doctrinal things, but they did NOT cover the ONE BIG thing that I think actually defines us KNOWING that the church is true.  I did not register there, I just lurk...but I felt I needed to voice this out. 

The REASON that we know our church is true is because it comes to us directly from the Lord.  We say, the only way to know if something is true is to ask the Lord.  If it is true, then he will reveal it to you.  This can be done through the Holy Ghost, which will tell you the truth of the Book of Mormon and via that method you can know the truth of all things.

Quote

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Most religions do not say that one can receive this type of revelation from heaven.  We DO.  Not only do we teach this, those who receive an answer KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE.  The reason we can know our church contains the true gospel is because we KNOW it directly by revelation.  It is NOT something we simply believe because we have read something, or that we have heard our parent teach.  Certainly we have those among us in that category, but the thing that separates us from other religions in the LDS aspect is because we have gotten pure knowledge of the truth of these things.  We can KNOW of it's truthfulness. 

This is what differentiates our faith from others.  We know, not of ourselves, but from the Lord himself. 

I that light, I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true, I have prayed about it and I have received an answer.  I know from the spirit telling me in my heart and in my soul that the book of Mormon is the WORD of the Lord.  I KNOW that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God.  That he has restored the church for our day, and that the prophets after him such as Brigham Young to our current prophet are the called of the Lord and are his servants. 

I do not know this because of anything of myself, but because it was given to me as an answer. 

It is this that differs us from the other religions and why many members in our church have not just a confidence, but a pure knowledge from heaven itself of the truthfulness in the gospel and of the gospel itself.

[Traveler]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 6:05 AM, JohnsonJones said:

On another site I was browsing this morning a question came up from an Ex-Mormon.  It asked what made us so sure that our church was the true church as opposed to other religions...or in otherwords, what differentiated our knowledge that the LDS church is the true church and how is that different than others in their religions.

This was on an LDS board type thing and I was shocked by the answers.  Most of the top answers did not center around what I thought was the VITAL thing that separated us from everyone else in regards to our knowledge.  Instead they talked about various gospel teachings, or about doctrinal things, but they did NOT cover the ONE BIG thing that I think actually defines us KNOWING that the church is true.  I did not register there, I just lurk...but I felt I needed to voice this out. 

The REASON that we know our church is true is because it comes to us directly from the Lord.  We say, the only way to know if something is true is to ask the Lord.  If it is true, then he will reveal it to you.  This can be done through the Holy Ghost, which will tell you the truth of the Book of Mormon and via that method you can know the truth of all things.

Most religions do not say that one can receive this type of revelation from heaven.  We DO.  Not only do we teach this, those who receive an answer KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE.  The reason we can know our church contains the true gospel is because we KNOW it directly by revelation.  It is NOT something we simply believe because we have read something, or that we have heard our parent teach.  Certainly we have those among us in that category, but the thing that separates us from other religions in the LDS aspect is because we have gotten pure knowledge of the truth of these things.  We can KNOW of it's truthfulness. 

This is what differentiates our faith from others.  We know, not of ourselves, but from the Lord himself. 

I that light, I KNOW the Book of Mormon is true, I have prayed about it and I have received an answer.  I know from the spirit telling me in my heart and in my soul that the book of Mormon is the WORD of the Lord.  I KNOW that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God.  That he has restored the church for our day, and that the prophets after him such as Brigham Young to our current prophet are the called of the Lord and are his servants. 

I do not know this because of anything of myself, but because it was given to me as an answer. 

It is this that differs us from the other religions and why many members in our church have not just a confidence, but a pure knowledge from heaven itself of the truthfulness in the gospel and of the gospel itself.

 

The first thing I point out to those that ask me about the idea that there is only one true and living church of G-d is - I start out by saying that if there is one true and living G-d that is the supreme Suzerain of the kingdom of heaven then there must be at least one true and living organization that is the extension of that kingdom of heaven here on earth.  The first criteria for the one true and living church of G-d is to claim to be the one true and living church of G-d.

I have told this story before.  I did some consulting with the Federal Reserve Bank and asked an officer if there is a fool proof way to identify genuine or counterfeit money.  He said there is only one.  He pointed out to me that genuine USA money is the sovereign right, under law, of our government.  No other country or entity in the world can create genuine USA money.  If someone were to look at a dollar bill it will claim to be legal tender produced legally by our Treasury Department.  Our paper currency contains the signature of the head of the Treasury Department when the currency was created.

The one and only way to know if money is genuine or counterfeit is to present the money to the current head of the Treasury Department.  If he says the money is genuine then regardless of any other claim – it is genuine.  If he says the money is counterfeit the regardless of any other claim it is counterfeit.

I agree that we should be able to find out through prayer.  But scriptures are also important to provide important religious notions.  If there is a true Church – there should be a scripture that identifies that church as true.  If there are many then there should be a list in scripture of all the genuine churches.  If there is not such a church or churches designated in scripture – then it is obvious that such scripture is not complete and is missing critically important information.  As far as I know – the LDS church is the only church that has scripture complete enough to identify the true and living Church accepted by G-d.  As a side note – I have personal conformation, that the scripture that indicates the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true and accepted by G-d, according to later-day revelation; that G-d does accept both the scripture and the church.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 25, 2017 by Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

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...

Quote

⁸ Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

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

Quote

Asherah was the chief goddess of the Canaanites. She was El’s wife and the mother and wet nurse of the other gods. At least some Israelites worshipped her over a period from the conquest of Canaan in the second millennium before Christ to the fall of Jerusalem in 586 bc (the time of Lehi’s departure with his family). Asherah was associated with trees—sacred trees. The rabbinic authors of the Jewish Mishna (second–third century ad) explain the asherah as a tree that was worshipped. In 1 Nephi 11, Nephi considers the meaning of the tree of life as he sees it in vision. In answer, he receives a vision of “a virgin, . . . the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.” The answer to his question about the meaning of the tree lies in the virgin mother with her child. The virgin is the tree in some sense and Nephi accepted this as an answer to his question. As an Israelite living at the end of the seventh century and during the early sixth century before Christ, he recognized an answer to his question about a marvelous tree in the otherwise unexplained image of a virginal mother and her divine child—not that what he saw and how he interpreted those things were perfectly obvious. What he “read” from the symbolic vision was culturally colored. Nephi’s vision reflects a meaning of the “sacred tree” that is unique to the ancient Near East. Asherah is also associated with biblical wisdom literature. Wisdom, a female, appears as the wife of God and represents life.

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.

Edited December 8, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

I am going to touch upon something that IS NOT DOCTRINE. 

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.

Yes, I read the whole thing.  Much of it had some logic to it.  But there were a couple leaps that you didn't adequately describe.  But that doesn't really matter since you began with this by saying it is pretty much all speculation.  Sobeit.  Here is what I have a problem with on the topic of Ashera worship.

The main point here is that Asherah was the wife of Baal.  Now this is problematic on a couple fronts.  First of all, Baal is known as being an idolatrous god that Ancient Israel worshiped when they wandered from the worship of the Jehovah.  However, the word 'baal' really means "Lord".  And it is correct that in some histories Jehovah was actually addressed as "Baal."  There was a point, however, where the Name Baal was used to separate those who worshipped Jehovah and those who worshipped the idolatrous god.  It was that Baal with whom Ashtaroth was associated.  To my knowledge Israel never associated her with Jehovah while they properly worshiped Jehovah. 

But new Mormon Feminists desire to make the association based on the thinnest of links to our Heavenly Mother.  How can this be?  Was the ante-mortal Jesus married?  No.  We are only married when we find a spouse in this life.  And we've been told time and time again that the "soul-mate" or "predestined/foreordained eternal companion" is an erroneous idea.  Even so, that is the basis by which these women wish to include her in their worship.

To believe that Ashtaroth was the divine feminine actually fails the doctrinal as well as the logical test on a number of levels.  But they are so bent on the idea of worshiping a female deity that they deny all evidence, reason, and prophetic instruction to do so.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Guest

[Vort]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

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...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 fact, "Eve" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew "Chava" (חוה), which is related to (perhaps a pun on) the Hebrew word for "life". Adam named his wife Eve because she was "the mother of all living"; significantly, this was before they had children. So the name or title "Eve" would doubtless be applicable for the Consort of our Father.

I am not at all convinced that "names" exist in the eternities, at least in the sense we use them in western cultures, as personal and invariable identification tags. So I don't know that asking about Father's or Mother's "name", as if they have one invariant personal appellation that uniquely identifies them, is even a meaningful question. When we talk about the names of Christ, we use descriptive terms such as Savior, Redeemer, the Anointed, Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace, and so forth. The name "Jesus" means "deliverer" or "rescuer" or "savior", a common enough Hebrew name, and is the appellation commanded by the angel to be given to Mary's firstborn. Such names have significance in and of themselves. When the Father appeared to Joseph Smith, he addressed him "by name" -- that is (I assume), "Joseph". Are we to believe that our earthly name are identical with the name we might have borne in the premortal realms? Pity Frank Zappa's children Dweezil and Moon Unit.

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

We do NOT worship a Heavenly Mother, we do not pray to one, and doing such is akin to idolatry

This bears repeating.

[Vort]

On 9/20/2017 at 3:01 PM, JohnsonJones said:

If I understand you right, you state that Nephi and Lehi traveled 2000 KM in under 30 days (and that's being generous, many days journey typically does NOT mean that long if something is referred in that fashion if they also utilize other ways of recording time...normally many days means more than 2 days but less than several weeks or a moon, depending on civilization) which puts them at traveling around 65+ Km ( which is a little more than 40 miles a day).

You do not understand me right. I have no idea how you could have inferred that mess from what I wrote.

Adam did sacrifice to God for "many days" before the angel appeared to him to clarify why. Those "many days" constituted far more than "several weeks or a moon"; I heard a claim that Joseph Smith taught that Adam sacrificed for 65 years before the angel came. So your statement that "many days" means less than a month is simply not so.

On 9/20/2017 at 3:01 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Then, they slow  down for some reason to travel less than half a mile (or, to be more apt, half a km which is more like less than 1/3 of a mile...and note...Nephi doesn't say they stayed and tarried until later in chapter 17 and then built a ship) a day for the next 8 years.

You have an erroneous idea of how people traveled in caravans at that time, and of what the Lehite group was doing during those eight years. They were not in transit for eight years straight. That is absurd. They traveled, then stopped and camped for some time (weeks or months, perhaps a year or more). When the food started running out and the fleas got intolerable, they packed up, loaded the camels, and set off again. Nibley describes this quite well.

On 9/20/2017 at 3:01 PM, JohnsonJones said:

Thus, as per Nephi, they travel in the wilderness (not stop and dwell a LOT which is not in Nephi) in an eastward direction for quite a while).

Nephi did not say they "traveled" in the wilderness for eight years; he said, "And we did sojourn for the space of...eight years in the wilderness" (1 Nephi 17:3). "To sojourn" does not mean "to travel"; it means "to dwell temporarily".

JJ, I know you're excited that you think you've discovered an important point. I, too, thought up the "Nephi to China" theory when I was in my 20s, as I am sure thousands have done before us. I was convinced, as you are now, that my idea was correct. But it's not. Read the Book of Mormon account carefully.

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Vort said:

In fact, "Eve" is the English transliteration of the Hebrew "Chava" (חוה), which is related to (perhaps a pun on) the Hebrew word for "life". Adam named his wife Eve because she was "the mother of all living"; significantly, this was before they had children. So the name or title "Eve" would doubtless be applicable for the Consort of our Father.

This just piqued a memory and then an odd train of thought.  I'm not certain if it is relevant.  But here it is.

1. "Eve" also means "animal" as in "an animated creature" as well as "living" or "life."  The idea was that only animals were alive.  Plants were not -- certainly not in the same sense as animals were.  They were just plants.  Kill it and plant seeds for more.  Cut off a limb.  And, well, you've heard of the hydra.
2. Ashtaroth means "grove" -- IOW plant life / vegetation.
3. Now JJ wants to name our Heavenly Mother as "Eve" while FMH wants to name her Asherah.  Hmmm.

Edited December 8, 2017 by Guest