Heavenly Mother

[Gaia]

are you sure "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" is an "LDS book?"

GAIA:

I think i made it clear that NOT all the books on that list taught "official, approved" LDS doctrine.

But yes, i think it's obvious that "Early Mormonism" is "an LDS book" in that it's title and topic are focused on LDS history and doctrine, and the references are from LDS sources;

I don't necessarily think it TEACHES the (currently) official, approved LDS version of things, but neither did i claim it did

Blessings --

~GAia

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

are you sure "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" is an "LDS book?"

GAIA:

I think i made it clear that NOT all the books on that list taught "official, approved" LDS doctrine.

But yes, i think it's obvious that "Early Mormonism" is "an LDS book" in that it's title and topic are focused on LDS history and doctrine, and the references are from LDS sources;

I don't necessarily think it TEACHES the (currently) official, approved LDS version of things, but neither did i claim it did

Blessings --

~GAia

Why is honesty such a struggle for you.

Why you say that NOT ALL the books on the list are official approved doctrine, the implication is that SOME of the books are official approved doctrine. Here's your list of books:

(NON-LDS) BOOKS:

- "When God Was A Woman" by Merlin Stone

- "The ONce and Future Goddess" by Elinor Gadon

- "The Hebrew Goddess" by Raphael Patai

- "The Goddess in the Gospels" by Margaret Starbird

- "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels;

- "Sophia: Goddess of Wisdom, Bride of God" CMatthews;

- "In Her Name" by Elisabeth Schussler-Fiorenza.

- "The Politics of Women's Spirituality" by Charlene Spretnak, ed

- "Beyond God the Father" by Mary Daly, and several others.

- "Religion and Sexism" by Rosemary Reuther, and others.

- "Changing of the Gods" byNaomi Goldenberg

LDS BOOKS:

- "Women and Authority" edited by Maxine Hanks.

- "Strangers in Paradox" by by Paul &Margaret Toscano

- "God the Mother and Other Essays" by Janice Allred

- "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" by D. Michael Quinn

Gaia, name a single book on that list that is "official, approved LDS doctrine."

Be honest now.

To the other posters... every single book on Gaia's "LDS BOOKS" list is written by people who have been excommunicated from the Church for apostacy.

[genevive]

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.

[Palerider]

Missionaries teaching there is a Heavenly Mother.......

[genevive]

Missionaries teaching there is a Heavenly Mother.......

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

[sixpacktr]

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.

Hi Gen,

I just want to make sure...

You know that Angels and Demons and The DaVinci Code are fiction, right?

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

Missionaries teaching there is a Heavenly Mother.......

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

I am truly amazed that you could see right thru that and then tell me I was insinuating that you were lying........

[genevive]

<div class='quotemain'>

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.

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.

[Snow]

genevive,

Have you read the three books you are recommending?

[genevive]

genevive,

Have you read the three books you are recommending?

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.

[Dr T]

I enjoyed The DaVinci Code when I read it. Consider the fact page for what it is. It is part of the marketing to build readership.

[genevive]

I enjoyed The DaVinci Code when I read it. Consider the fact page for what it is. It is part of the marketing to build readership.

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

[Dr T]

The write it that way to sell. Again, consider the source is all I'm saying.

[genevive]

The write it that way to sell. Again, consider the source is all I'm saying.

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.

[Snow]

i didn't recommend them.

I stand corrected. To be clear... You DON'T recommend books by Dan Brown or Vern Swanson.

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.

This is a puzzler genevive. The reasons for Joseph Smith's murder are not a mystery. They are pretty well understood, covered extensively in scholarly literature, with much evidence and documentation.

On the other hand, your idea about the motivation for JS's murder has no evidence, is not documented, is not understood or know - in scholars or otherwise.

Why do you ignore that for which there is much knowledge and evidence and instead embrace something that is not in evidence?

[Dr T]

I've only read one. Like I said, I liked it. I wonder how his others books are?

[genevive]

I stand corrected. To be clear... You DON'T recommend books by Dan Brown or Vern Swanson.

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?

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a puzzler genevive. The reasons for Joseph Smith's murder are not a mystery. They are pretty well understood, covered extensively in scholarly literature, with much evidence and documentation.

On the other hand, your idea about the motivation for JS's murder has no evidence, is not documented, is not understood or know - in scholars or otherwise.

Why do you ignore that for which there is much knowledge and evidence and instead embrace something that is not in evidence?

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.

[Snow]

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?

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 mistaken your position in the least.

how do you know?

It's called study genevive.

is there any scholarly documentation that states explicitly that this was not the reason, or among the reasons for his murder?

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.

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.

You haven't ignored anything... except history and the facts.

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..."

No one could complain about that, but to pretend that there is a legitimate basis for your dreams is nutty.

... 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.

[genevive]

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?

[Palerider]

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?

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

[genevive]

<div class='quotemain'>

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?

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

bravo!

[Palerider]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

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?

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

bravo!

[genevive]

[genevive]

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.

[alaskanray]

Gaia used as citations one woman in particular, Janice Allred, who was ex'd for preaching we should pray to HM.

Where did you get that Janice Allred taught that we should pray to HM? What I got from the article Gaia referenced is that she simply felt that we should be free to be led by our own consciences and rely on the Holy Ghost to guide us in our prayers. Nor was she ex'd in the article...she was "formally placed on probation", which is a far cry from being ex'd. It sounded to me like the leaders were way out of line and trying to control an uppity female.

I quote one of the most basic tenets of the gospel: "We (I) claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how where or what they may."

We sing of a heavenly mother every time we sing "O My Father" which was written by Eliza R Snow and accepted as a gnostic hymn of the church by Joseph Smith long before any real discussion about Her existence became an issue. So why should we not be allowed open and free discussion on points of doctrine or even on speculatory comments? "O My Father" is written as a prayer and the final verse says, "Father, Mother, with your approbation, may I come and dwell with you."

I have found in recent years a growing oppression within the church, particularly on local levels, of people trying to hush free and open discussion. The same five families speak in church every Sunday and instead of following the admonition to "Preach nothing save repentance unto this people", I find many of the local leaders feeding the people sugar coated brag sessions about how wonderful everyone is in the church. Instead of offering sincere help to people, I have found excuses such as, "We'll need to go through your home teachers" or the bishop or whatever hierarchical faldergarb they spew as an excuse to withdraw the offer of help in the first place. That's not to say the church is like this in every ward but it's there in many wards and it shakes one's testimony. Even those who are strong in the gospel eventually can be worn down by such hypocrisy among leadership after years of such oppression. It all smacks of Zoramites. But I digress....

What I can't help wondering is...if two apostles were concerned about Janice Allred, why only two? Why weren't all the apostles and the first presidency concerned? And it really bothered me that the bishop lied about Channel 13 saying she was taping the court in order to try and wring a confession from her...the whole thing smacked of inquisition.