Heavenly Mother

[alaskanray]

I would guess that unless it is brought before the body of the church by the sitting prophet of the Lord and voted upon as doctrine, it would not be binding upon the church as doctrine.

Since when does the LDS church VOTE on doctrine??? Doctrine is declared by the prophet of God and is accepted by the body of the church through their sustaining the prophet. It is one of the things that sets the TRUE church apart from the many Protestant faiths out there that vote like political bodies on everything they do. McConkie's work "Mormon Doctrine" has always been the definitive work on LDS doctrine and was mandated by the prophet of the time to spell out what is doctrine. Doctrine is based on scriptures and it is against that touchstone that we base all our judgments, not on the opinion of the masses.

[alaskanray]

We must understand that this life is but a short stage in our eternal development and only a preparation for the world to come, and that 'now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.' (1 Cor. 13:12) Certainly I believe that after a deep study of the scriptures and revelations of the prophets, we possess only a general notion of God and His Great Enterprizes. Eye hath not seen nor ear heard those things.

It is truth that we have a Heavenly Mother, but we are here in the telestial realm working out our salvation and we do not have the presence of our Heavenly Parentage with us. The worst mistake we can make is to proceed through this darkness trusting in our own wisdom rather than the revelation of God. We have NOT been commanded to pray to our Heavenly Mother. The LORD has NOT demonstrated Her as our Example. For that matter, NOT even the Father has been our Example. The LORD Jesus Christ is our Example.

As far as I am aware, we possess no record of Christ's teachings of our Heavenly Mother and the depth of our understanding there is simply that we know She exists. We need not worry about her here in this world. I assume She is indeed waiting for our return with motherly love and tenderness, but we are not granted the privilege of Her support here. We do NOT hear from Her in this life.

However, this is NOT to be understood that She is silently locked away in the Celestial Kitchen baking cookies and washing dishes for her endless posterity. I have no doubt that Her work and glory is not only wonderful beyond all we now comprehend, but we must never forget that She is ONE with the Father. To speak ill of Her or the Father, it is the same. The notion that Her relative secrecy in this world is due in part to some protective measure to keep Her name out of the muck would NOT be one for Her protection but for ours. How will we feel when we return to her and report that we spoke ill of her while we were away? This may hurt Her, but I doubt it will damage Her anywhere near what it will do to US.

Let us be happy to know what we know and make certain we follow it and if we do we will eventually know all things, including our Heavenly Mother. But while we are in this short temporal life, we must not look beyond the mark. We are here to follow the Saviour and worship Him. He has taught us to pray unto the Father in His name. We are to do all these things and have patience and faith that we will one day know more.

-a-train

GREAT POST. GOOD POINTS. THANK YOU.

[alaskanray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Some may find this blog post by Ron Baron of interest.

That really was interesting Doctor Steuss. Thanks for posting it.

You mean you could follow it, Sioux72??? I was lost after the first sentence.

[alaskanray]

Hello, Gaia,

Thankyou for your response to my post. I'm sorry for not responding sooner. All that you have posted makes for great reading. I never knew there were so many quotes from the authorities of the church concerning Heavenly Mother. It is comforting to read and to know.

I've been reading through the other posts here, and I'm sorry that you have met with so much antagonism concerning this. I hope this website lives up to its assertion of being a safe place to express one's views in regards to the LDS church.

I think the truth of a being such as Mother in Heaven has been well established, and quibbling about wether or not it is church doctrine is besides the point.

I, for one, am so grateful for all the threads you have posted. They are worth reading to me. I admire your courage for staying in the heat of the battle in asserting your belief in Her and backing it up with the numerous quotes you have. You obviously have a great deal of knowledge concerning the church and its beliefs. A knowledge I would like to gain more of.

As for all the antagonistic quotes against you, I wish sometimes church members of the male sex could walk a mile in our shoes~ perhaps then they would have a little more compassion and emphathy for what we are going through in our need for a sense of our glorious Mother.

Yes, I would like to read your new ?post?. Just let me know the title and where it is. I will find it.

~Dove

Dove...I just had to share a story with you that my father used to tell all the time. Have you ever noticed that angels are always either women or clean-shaven men? That's because Heaven is a Woman's natural heritage: Men only get in by a close shave.

I feel your pain in your posts and would love to share some of my experiences with you as I have come to know my Savior. I am a survivor of assault and abuse and so it has been difficult to relate to a masculine deity in the past but as I have come to know Him, I have found ways to reconcile my life experiences with my faith in spite of the fact that the sources of that spiritual growth have not been within the church exclusively. Line upon line. I had to be fed milk before I could receive meat.

God bless...and God bless you, Gaia, for opening this thread.

[alaskanray]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

You needn't be gently dismissive with me Gaia. You can simply not respond or say that you cannot rebut the points... which apparently you cannot... and that's okay.

GAIA:

Wow, i just can't get used to your perpetually negative "take" on everything --

I was not trying to be "dismissive"; i did not want anyone to think i was simply ignoring you, and neither was i saying that i couldn't "rebut" your points.

I was trying to let you know -- as respectfully and cordially as possible -- that i think this discussion has gone as far as it can go (at least with you), and remain positive and respectful. As i've said several times, i'm not trying to "convince" you of anything, and i don't care to argue. Your position is clear and i think i've made mine clear.

~GAia

This is the deal - you made what I think think is an obviously simplistic and unknowable (to you - the person making the allegation) assertion about Lynn Whitesides. I rebut it with something you can't factually rebut while your assertion lies unsupported. Rather than restate, retract or rebut, you dismiss (my term). When I am factually corrrected, usually anyway, I give retract or correct because I do not want my incorrect statements hanging out there. It wouldn't be intellectually honest of me.

ME-OWWW!!! Snow, get off your high horse and keep your comments respectful, PLEASE! You only damage your own credibility seriously in attacking Gaia directly instead of simply sharing your beliefs/experiences and insights. Remember, this is a PUBLIC forum.

Gaia...take care of those scratches she gave you...some bacitracin should help.

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>

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.

Ummm....

Yes she was excommunicated, and yes she did advocate praying to HM. She also seemed to go even further by advocating that there was another 'trinity' of God the Mother, God the Daughter, and the HG. I don't know where that came from. She also openly supported and agreed with apostates.

Formal probation requires follow up by the Bishop because they are still members of the church. If she refused to repent and continued on her path to embarrass the church, then there can be further action.

I read Janice Allred's account as well. Her side, her POV. Always two sides to things...

Finding fault with leaders is always the first sign of apostasy.

But we've been down this road before...

[Snow]

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?

For someone who is complaining that someone else likes to fight, you certainly are interpreting my post inb the worst possible way. I said you don't recommend the books. You yourself said so. It is as simple as that. You are now deliberately interpreting my post to mean something else - that I am claiming that you opposed to the books. That's your combativeness. Not mine.

lol. it's called disagreement Snow. you have no proof of your "studies."

Okay - it's burden of proof time. You made the claim. He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. Go ahead.

nothing i say is to you Snow. so what?

What does that mean?

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 wonder why people read and post on message boards? Coming from someone who reads and post on a message board I'd think that the answer would come a bit easier.

my conclusions do not contradict history and the facts.

Burden of proof time genevive.

why don't you practice kindness and a communication style that is non-condescending, inflammatory and hate-filled?

Hate-filled? Why don't you practice a communication stylooe that isn't filled with hyperbole? No one hates you genevive - least no one I know.

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?

You say "conclusions" as if you have actually concluded something predicated upon something that came before it. Burden of proof time.

are you complaining about something? what is it? that my conclusions don't agree with yours? i'm not pretending anything.

Again with the conclusion thing... burden of proof time.

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.

Yeah - when you attack others you just come across as hypocritical. Go back and read my posts to genevive. Contrary to you, I didn't attack you, didn't assert that you were low, didn't pretend that I understood your personal dysfunctions. You did that and then complained about me doing it.

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?

Depise? More hyperbole. Try and stay focused on the topic and leave the personality out of it.

Would you please post so evidence so we can discuss it intead of you taking about me so much?

ME-OWWW!!! Snow, get off your high horse and keep your comments respectful, PLEASE! You only damage your own credibility seriously in attacking Gaia directly instead of simply sharing your beliefs/experiences and insights. Remember, this is a PUBLIC forum.

Don't you have something else pressing to whine about. You really ought try to lose your fixation on me.

[genevive]

For someone who is complaining that someone else likes to fight, you certainly are interpreting my post inb the worst possible way. I said you don't recommend the books. You yourself said so. It is as simple as that. You are now deliberately interpreting my post to mean something else - that I am claiming that you opposed to the books. That's your combativeness. Not mine.

i made no complaint. i laughed at your obtuseness. i'm not interpreting anything about anything you said, and i am not being combative. you are not repeating what i said correctly -- you are making stuff up. you said that i recommended the books and i repsponded that i did not recommend them, not that i don't recommend them. there is a big difference involving the tense of the verb and the meaning of my words. you are misconstruing them on purpose for the sake of a ridiculous and irrelevant argument.

Okay - it's burden of proof time. You made the claim. He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. Go ahead.

i said it's what i thought, it's a conclusion i have given some of the references that i made. there is no burden of proof; this isn't a court of law. i don't care whether you believe my conclusions are not. if it's that earth shatteringly important to you, you find proof of error. go ahead.

Yeah - when you attack others you just come across as hypocritical. Go back and read my posts to genevive. Contrary to you, I didn't attack you, didn't assert that you were low, didn't pretend that I understood your personal dysfunctions. You did that and then complained about me doing it.

i haven't attacked anyone. didn't attack you either. i responded to your insults by suggesting that the reason you enjoy insulting people here so often is due to your low self-esteem. making yourself feel superior by doing so. that's what i think, and it isn't an insult. should you disagree, so be it. i didn't assert that you were low, and i'm not pretending anything. we all have personal dysfunctions, did you know? again, i made no complaints. this habit of yours of making stuff about people and what they say is trite and annoying. i suppose as long as people such as i continue feeding your need though that you will continue unabated. oi.

Depise? More hyperbole. Try and stay focused on the topic and leave the personality out of it.

Would you please post so evidence so we can discuss it intead of you taking about me so much?

your condescending attitude says everything Snow. i would suggest you stay focused on the subject and refrain from insulting people for the mere reason of disagreement. you disagree with my thoughts and conclusions. fine. say so and let it go. my thoughts stand on their own merit. if you need further evidence you find it. if you disagree with what i say, try stating that with consideration, not dripping sarcasm and demeaning insult. then find some place else to go wallow in your own self-aggrandizement.

am i taking about you? sorry, wasn't aware of that. i respond to your questions in the manner that you respond to mine, which has nothing really to do with the topic at hand.

and no one has a 'fixation' on you. others notice your extreme contention for the sake of contention as well. it's annoying, rude and unnecessary. it may be that it boosts your ego, and assuages your low self esteem, but that's rather sad that an adult man such as you has need for that. for that, i am sorry, and i wish that you will be able to find the self-fullfilment that you so desire. but going about it the way that you do here, in the demeaning and insulting fashion that you do, will not accomplish that.

[genevive]

my original post ~

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.

[genevive]

to reiterate, in a slightly re-worded way ~

i *think* that Joseph Smith was murdered because of his reintroduction of the divine mother into gospel and his reinterpretation of the bible. that he did these things is indisputable. there is much evidence throughout history for the cover-up of the divine mother/feminine. Dan Brown’s books contain factual examples of this. Vern Swanson wrote a non-fiction LDS book that is related to Dan Brown’s theories.

these are my conclusions about Joseph Smith and his murder, given the extensive effort through the ages at eradicating all ideas of the divine mother in historical and religious doctrine.

if you disagree with my conclusions, that's understandable. if you wish to find further evidence for them, please go forth and seek. if you wish to disprove what i have concluded, i encourage that as well. Joseph Smith knew that Heavenly Mother exists. he knew that there were items missing from the bible through mistranslation and editing. just as many others were murdered for their revelations of the divine feminine/mother, so was Joseph Smith. i doubt that those committing the murders would admit that though, as that would be validating the revelations that they found so threatening in the first place.

[Snow]

you are not repeating what i said correctly -

That's a false statement. I correctly observed, at your prompting that you do not recommend the books. You do not. You yourself told me that you do not. Saying now that is not the case doesn't change what you said. Honesty is called for.

i said it's what i thought, it's a conclusion i have given some of the references that i made. there is no burden of proof; this isn't a court of law. i don't care whether you believe my conclusions are not. if it's that earth shatteringly important to you, you find proof of error. go ahead.

I knew you couln't produce any evidence because your 'conclusion' is based on nothingness, but there is in fact a burden of proof - its an undertood convention of any who make claims in argumention.

i haven't attacked anyone. didn't attack you either.

That's false. Here's what you said: "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."

Honesty is a good thing genevive.

i responded to your insults by suggesting that the reason you enjoy insulting people here so often is due to your low self-esteem. making yourself feel superior by doing so. that's what i think, and it isn't an insult. should you disagree, so be it. i didn't assert that you were low, and i'm not pretending anything. we all have personal dysfunctions, did you know?

A second ago you complained that you hadn't attacked me. Now you even reprint the attack. Let's try and stay consistent.

again, i made no complaints.

Read your posts. They are full of complaints.

your condescending attitude says everything Snow. i would suggest you stay focused on the subject and refrain from insulting people for the mere reason of disagreement.

Read my posts - tell me in what way you have been insulted. I've said nothing about you personally except your honesty and in each such case I showed the dishonesty in your posts. You, on the other hand continually harp on me personally. When you accuse others of doing what you yourself do, that's hypocrisy.

you disagree with my thoughts and conclusions.

Conclusions? Burden of proof time.

if you disagree with what i say, try stating that with consideration, not dripping sarcasm and demeaning insult. then find some place else to go wallow in your own self-aggrandizement.

More attacks? A moment ago you claimed you hadn't.

am i taking about you? sorry, wasn't aware of that. i respond to your questions in the manner that you respond to mine, which has nothing really to do with the topic at hand.

and no one has a 'fixation' on you. others notice your extreme contention for the sake of contention as well. it's annoying, rude and unnecessary. it may be that it boosts your ego, and assuages your low self esteem, but that's rather sad that an adult man such as you has need for that. for that, i am sorry, and i wish that you will be able to find the self-fullfilment that you so desire. but going about it the way that you do here, in the demeaning and insulting fashion that you do, will not accomplish that.

I'll say it again. Please stop fixating on me. I am not the topic. The topic is whether or not Joseph Smith was killed for introducing feminist themes. Do you have any evidence to support your conclusions?

[antispatula]

to reiterate, in a slightly re-worded way ~

i *think* that Joseph Smith was murdered because of his reintroduction of the divine mother into gospel and his reinterpretation of the bible.

Really, I've never heard of that theory.

Most people who study his death seem to believe the mob was a group of freemasons; that they wanted him dead because he was giving away all the secrets of the fraternity.

[Elphaba]

Really, I've never heard of that theory.

Most people who study his death seem to believe the mob was a group of freemasons; that they wanted him dead because he was giving away all the secrets of the fraternity.

No, "most" people do not believe this.

The reasons for Joseph's death are complicated, and have nothing to do with him selling all the secrets of the Freemason fraternity.

Elphaba

[Skyeishness]

This is fun to read.

*points finger* Where is your proof!

*points finger* where's YOUR proof?!

what is this proof you're seeking? Proof that someone had an opposite opinion of something that might be but no one is sure either way?

religious concepts aren't about proof. Religion is based on faith.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think this was a big foot argument.

"I'll need some visual proof that there really is a supreme being, never mind the gender"

[alaskanray]

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?

For someone who is complaining that someone else likes to fight, you certainly are interpreting my post inb the worst possible way. I said you don't recommend the books. You yourself said so. It is as simple as that. You are now deliberately interpreting my post to mean something else - that I am claiming that you opposed to the books. That's your combativeness. Not mine.

lol. it's called disagreement Snow. you have no proof of your "studies."

Okay - it's burden of proof time. You made the claim. He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof. Go ahead.

nothing i say is to you Snow. so what?

What does that mean?

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 wonder why people read and post on message boards? Coming from someone who reads and post on a message board I'd think that the answer would come a bit easier.

my conclusions do not contradict history and the facts.

Burden of proof time genevive.

why don't you practice kindness and a communication style that is non-condescending, inflammatory and hate-filled?

Hate-filled? Why don't you practice a communication stylooe that isn't filled with hyperbole? No one hates you genevive - least no one I know.

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?

You say "conclusions" as if you have actually concluded something predicated upon something that came before it. Burden of proof time.

are you complaining about something? what is it? that my conclusions don't agree with yours? i'm not pretending anything.

Again with the conclusion thing... burden of proof time.

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.

Yeah - when you attack others you just come across as hypocritical. Go back and read my posts to genevive. Contrary to you, I didn't attack you, didn't assert that you were low, didn't pretend that I understood your personal dysfunctions. You did that and then complained about me doing it.

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?

Depise? More hyperbole. Try and stay focused on the topic and leave the personality out of it.

Would you please post so evidence so we can discuss it intead of you taking about me so much?

ME-OWWW!!! Snow, get off your high horse and keep your comments respectful, PLEASE! You only damage your own credibility seriously in attacking Gaia directly instead of simply sharing your beliefs/experiences and insights. Remember, this is a PUBLIC forum.

Don't you have something else pressing to whine about. You really ought try to lose your fixation on me.

I will when you learn some manners and quit being so antagonistic. It's called maturity, Snow...something you obviously lack.

[Snow]

alaskanray,

I can't follow what you wrote since the quotes are all messed up but I would hazzard a guess that it's more of you complaining about me complaining about someone?

Is that about right?

If so, I'll give you three guesses why that's a like a lion crying that the tigers are carnivores?

[Brother Dorsey]

to reiterate, in a slightly re-worded way ~

i *think* that Joseph Smith was murdered because of his reintroduction of the divine mother into gospel and his reinterpretation of the bible. that he did these things is indisputable. there is much evidence throughout history for the cover-up of the divine mother/feminine. Dan Brown’s books contain factual examples of this. Vern Swanson wrote a non-fiction LDS book that is related to Dan Brown’s theories.

these are my conclusions about Joseph Smith and his murder, given the extensive effort through the ages at eradicating all ideas of the divine mother in historical and religious doctrine.

if you disagree with my conclusions, that's understandable. if you wish to find further evidence for them, please go forth and seek. if you wish to disprove what i have concluded, i encourage that as well. Joseph Smith knew that Heavenly Mother exists. he knew that there were items missing from the bible through mistranslation and editing. just as many others were murdered for their revelations of the divine feminine/mother, so was Joseph Smith. i doubt that those committing the murders would admit that though, as that would be validating the revelations that they found so threatening in the first place.

Gen...are you aware that Dan Brown's books are a work of fiction and his "facts" and "evidences" are very very long reaching and NOT based upon current Biblical canon? Are you aware his evidences are mostly from hearsay, guesses and second hand research into gnostic writings from well after the conference at Nicene? Not to mention his own personal opinions and worldviews? Please understand....just because you wish something were true doesn't make it true....don't believe everything you read...there has been no cover up of any divine mother/feminine.....it's fiction made to entertain you, that's all!

And your "idea" that the Prophet Joseph Smith was killed because he "reintroduced" the a divine mother into the Gospel is really a stretch....we have proof why he was murdered and it comes nowhere near your idea.

The church teaches we have a Heavenly Mother.....that's all, Period! We have been given nothing else and when and if we are given further revelation regarding her it will be through a Prophet of God.....not a fiction writer.

[Gaia]

GAIA:

Hi Genevieve --

Thanks for your work and time in posting that information.

I do think it's important to remember that those books by Dan Brown et al have factual information mixed with speculation.

Also, the evidence shows that Joseph Smith was "punished" - ie murdered -- because of a lot of things -- mainly his introduction of "troubling" doctrines mixed with the economic (Law of Consecration and Stewardship) , social (polygamy) and political (Kingdom of God, running for president, etc) teachings and activities that frightened/ threatened the non-Mormons in the area --

Mormons themselves were (unfortunately) not very discrete about their intentions -- they frequently bragged about how God had "given" them the land, and that's enough to irritate anybody living there - many of whom were settlers who had cleared the land themselves. Furthermore, the Mormons tended to vote as a block, which gave them a great deal of political power, and they suppported Mormon businesses, which gave them economic power.

Please Understand, i'm not saying they "deserved" what happened to them, i'm just saying that their behavior was unwise and indiscrete, and tended to encourage the non-LDS around them to see them as potential threats to their way of life.

Joseph's behavior =- ie, marrying very young girls, and the wives of some of his followers, etc -- was also troubling to a lot of his former followers --

However, a favorite tactic of some posters, seems to be ad hominems -- especially to cast aspersions on the "honesty" of those with whom he disagrees, so don't be too concerned about that .....

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Gaia]

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.

GAIA:

Hello Dear Sister Genevive --

Thanks so much for your kind words.

It's sad that you got so clobbered for just posting yor ideas (that JS was murdered because of his efforts to restore the Divine Feminine, and references to Dan Brown's work). While i think it's important to remember that JS was killed for a variety of reasons, and Brown's work is fact mingled with speculation, i don't think you should have been trashed just for posting your ideas, and i'm truly sorry about that.

Unfortunately, that's how some people respond when they feel their pet ideas /theories threatened - lots of ad hominems, insults, accusations, etc.; rather than addressing and focusing on the topic .

At that point, you can either get down in the muck with them, or try to stay above it -- And i think it's better all around -- though it can be difficult -- to try to stay above it. Sooner or later, people do observe and recognize who participates in that sort of thing, and who refuses to.

Thank you for posting your information and sharing your ideas; i think many will appreciate them. Please don't feel badly about any of it --

Blessings --

~Gaia

[Snow]

However, Snow's favorite tactic seems to be ad hominems -- especially to cast aspersions on the "honesty" of those with whom he disagrees, so don't be too concerned about that .....

Blessings --

~Gaia

Let's get real Gaia, I'd have not ad hominemed you except to point out your dishonest or hypocritical posting - such as when you implied that some of the books written by excommunicated apostates were officially LDS sanctioned and when you claimed that the Adam-God theory was both doctrinal and sciptural. When you are dishonest and someone points it out, it is hardly fair to call it ad hominem.

Beyond that, genevive has a number of posts in this thread that specifically attack me, whereas you will find nothing of the sort from me. Why so selective in who you accuse of attacking? Besides which, you attacking me by claiming ad hominem is hypocritical.

[alaskanray]

alaskanray,

I can't follow what you wrote since the quotes are all messed up but I would hazzard a guess that it's more of you complaining about me complaining about someone?

Is that about right?

If so, I'll give you three guesses why that's a like a lion crying that the tigers are carnivores?

Okay, Snow, you win...you want to be rude and will defend to the death your rudeness so i'll just let you take over the board and you won't have to hear from me again, deal? You obviously have issues far greater than any that I need to worry about. I suggest you discuss your need to slap everyone in the face with your bishop, though, because it does relate to temple recommend interviews...i believe there is a question in there about how you treat your fellowmen? I hope you are happy and I will bother this board no longer. I come here for support and enlightenment not for bad manners and abuse. Remember, Snow, on a public forum you never know who is going to read your nastiness and the wounds you inflict on those you aim at, will often be inflicted on others you did not mean to hit. It's the difference between shooting a dart and throwing a grenade. Frankly, it's a good thing I have a living testimony because if I were an investigator and read your posts, I would probably never want to have anything to do with the church. It's called manners, Snow, and maturity. Christ would never speak to people as you have spoken to the people on this board. Good day and sayonara.

[Snow]

Okay, Snow, you win...you want to be rude and will defend to the death your rudeness so i'll just let you take over the board and you won't have to hear from me again, deal? You obviously have issues far greater than any that I need to worry about. I suggest you discuss your need to slap everyone in the face with your bishop, though, because it does relate to temple recommend interviews...i believe there is a question in there about how you treat your fellowmen? I hope you are happy and I will bother this board no longer. I come here for support and enlightenment not for bad manners and abuse. Remember, Snow, on a public forum you never know who is going to read your nastiness and the wounds you inflict on those you aim at, will often be inflicted on others you did not mean to hit. It's the difference between shooting a dart and throwing a grenade. Frankly, it's a good thing I have a living testimony because if I were an investigator and read your posts, I would probably never want to have anything to do with the church. It's called manners, Snow, and maturity. Christ would never speak to people as you have spoken to the people on this board. Good day and sayonara.

You've got what - 18 posts on total on the message board in the day and a half you've been here and half of those are hypocritically whining about me. It's almost like you came here for that express purpose.

If you have something worthwhile to contribute - do it. We all welcome good content.

If you are going to leave, leave. You don't have to announce it for heaven's sake.

And by the way - that self-righteous tripe doesn't work with me. And let's remember, YOU, are the one insulting me. YOU sought me out, YOU repeated attacked me, YOU assailed my character. YOU said that I had (psychological) issues.... just to be clear alaskanray.

[rupert63]

Hi ya'll, I'm new here, and I have read this whole thread. Very interesting views going on in here until about page 8. If I may, can I interject here?

Put simply, it is difficult, naa almost impossible to view immortal things with mortal eyes.

We have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. Period. Now, when I was a kid, when a salesman, or a neighbor woman came to the door, we called mom. When the sheriff, or a revener came to the door, we got dad. The moral? If you are going to shoot the breeze or gossip, mother will do just fine. If there is business with the powers that be? right, dad is the one to call. If you have Heavenly business, Jesus said to pray thusly "Our Father". For me the doctrine of Christ trumps any other doctrine.

Talk with Heavenly Mother, I'm sure she would love hearing from you. The more family She hears from, the happier She is. An old saying that I think would hold true. "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy". Think about it.

Next point. In my years of serving Jesus the Eternal Christ in my ward, I haven't seen any Church Doctrine as to the persona of Heavenly Mother.

But logic, of and by itself, leaves no doubt as to the existance of our Heavenly Mother.

[pam]

Hi ya'll, I'm new here, and I have read this whole thread. Very interesting views going on in here until about page 8. If I may, can I interject here?

Put simply, it is difficult, naa almost impossible to view immortal things with mortal eyes.

We have a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. Period. Now, when I was a kid, when a salesman, or a neighbor woman came to the door, we called mom. When the sheriff, or a revener came to the door, we got dad. The moral? If you are going to shoot the breeze or gossip, mother will do just fine. If there is business with the powers that be? right, dad is the one to call. If you have Heavenly business, Jesus said to pray thusly "Our Father". For me the doctrine of Christ trumps any other doctrine.

Talk with Heavenly Mother, I'm sure she would love hearing from you. The more family She hears from, the happier She is. An old saying that I think would hold true. "If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy". Think about it.

Next point. In my years of serving Jesus the Eternal Christ in my ward, I haven't seen any Church Doctrine as to the persona of Heavenly Mother.

But logic, of and by itself, leaves no doubt as to the existance of our Heavenly Mother. I do not however, see Heavenly Mother as a separate being. (This is pretty much based on the immortal-mortal eyes thing mentioned above).

I like that.

[Dr T]

Hello Rupert,

But logic, of and by itself, leaves no doubt as to the existance of our Heavenly Mother.

That is not a logical conclusion if you believe that God created man out of the dust of the Earth and breathed life into him vs. procreating with another being. My view is not an LDS one, as is obvious.