Saturday, December 8, 2012

Law of Common Consent and City Creek Mall

This was just shared with me: city creek project
At the bottom is this disclaimer:

For all of you "Right Brainers" a little disclaimer: This website is clearly not associated with, owned by, promoted by or even appreciated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

The City Creek Project however is all those things...
For questions, concerns, comments, lambasting, attacking, threatening, accusing or any other interactive communication send an email to

The petition mentioned: (I signed it a while back. It is simply asking that the leaders of the church disclose how money is spent; no one is asking to be in charge of how the general authorities spend the money.)

In the word cloud mentioned, "fashion" and "accessories" are the largest words.

I honestly don't know what can really be done. Just like with this country, our servants have turned into our masters, even though this is contrary to the D&C, which not only teaches about comment consent, but arranges for a way for the highest leadership to be ousted.

No, I am not "apostate". I go to church. I believe the leaders have a right to be there because of the law of common consent. I am completely convinced of the truths in the Book of Mormon.  I believe with all my heart that this church was set up by Jesus, but it is my personal opinion that He was looking for something that resembled Zion more than it resembled a New Testament church, and certainly more than what we have today.

Anyway, feel free to share these links on your own blogs or with others.

Actually, anyone is free to copy/share anything that I, personally, have written in this blog if they feel it uplifts them. I would just ask that you understand (and help others to understand) that everything I have written on here is my own opinion. It is not necessarily "gospel truth" or an opinion shared by God. I am fumbling through life like everyone else.

By the way, in regards to my "vision quest" - I am changing. I am learning. I hope and pray that I reach the end of it totally and completely changed so that Jesus/Jehovah can use me in His desire to build up Zion - the true Zion - not the commercial enterprise, and not the organization that "catches of every kind" but does not include (in 100% of its members) the purity that is necessary for one to live in a true Zion.

The true Zion is mighty and terrible. It does not run from governments. It does not have to be "protected" by leaders fudging about its beliefs. It moves mountains. It terrifies its enemies without (Zion) owning a single weapon. Earth, herself, fights the battles of Zion. Zion is incredible. If you search the scriptures to see what a true Zion is, you will know that we do not have it yet.

God bless - and I now return to my "vision quest".

My Version of the Lamanite King's Prayer

Oh, God, I will give up all the lies I believe, to know thee.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Vision Quest

I am going on what I am calling a “vision quest” though I am not really seeking a vision. As part of that quest, I am planning to stay away from the forums and blogs I usually frequent (and often comment on). This includes this blog, hence this post. I will check my emails, because there are things irl (in real life) that necessitate that.

It began last night. I intend to continue it through Jan 4th (40 days). It will be a challenge, one I hope to successfully accomplish (it entails more than staying away from the internet).

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Random Thoughts on Covenants and Birth

This morning, as I was praying and trying to sort out my mind in an effort to stop following darkness (the sins are sins of thought), rather randomly Denver Snuffer's comments in his latest (temple) fireside came to my mind in conjunction with my first baby.

First, this is what he said (1:15:24-1:16:07): "And I can tell you that covenants traditionally involve cutting - And covenants in the Old Testament involve the shedding of blood - And covenants with our Lord at some point, in some contexts, with some reaches, require that we suffer."

[sidenote: In pioneer times, the marks cut into a person's clothing were not sewn on.]

He was in the midst of speaking of his own suffering, of operations performed that involved the flesh being cut, as well as blood being shed.

When I was pregnant for the tirst time, I decided this was my "tithing child". This was the child I would dedicate to the Lord, according to the law of sacrifice in the Old Testament (as I understand it).

According to the Bible:
(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord
(New Testament | Luke 2:23)
 My child ended up being female. In fact, some months before she was born, she emphatically told me, "Don't call me a boy!" In my mind and heart, though, I did not waver in devoting her to the Lord. I'm sure I broke some ancient Jewish law because I was female and I was offering up my child as a covenant to God, and the child ended up being female. I didn't even know there would be a "God's part" to this gift, to this covenant. As far as I know, there is none.

She was a home birth-turned-c-section. Because I did not feel safe where I was laboring (for reasons I won't go into here), my body would not let her out, so we went to the hospital after many hours. She was breech. Had the medical community not been fearful (or is that "terrified") of delivering a breech naturally, she would have been born vaginally, because as soon as we got to the hospital my body started pushing her out.

In any case, she was a c-section. A cesarean. That means they cut open my belly. They sliced open my skin, then my muscles, and then my uterus, then they pulled her out through the cuts. I was awake for this but did not have to watch it, thank goodness.

My firstborn, offered as a "living sacrifice" to God, was offered via the cutting of the person who gave the gift. (The child, herself, seemed to have no problem with this. They showed her to me right after they pulled her out. She was checking things out, looking at this new place she was in to see what it was like. We had an incredible link from the beginning, which diminished the more she let go of the spiritual world, the more she became incorporated into this world.)

It involved cutting. It involved hellish pain, the likes of which I had never experienced before (physically), and never have since (I gave birth vaginally twice after, with a painkiller for about an hour for my middle child, no painkiller for the last child). It involved hellish pain after, because I did not want to bother the nurses and waited too long to ask for a painkiller after I was in my room. By the time I was hurting, it was the shift change and they could not give me a painkiller until they were through giving reports to the new shift. By then, I was in agony again, a fiery agony this time.

I almost did not have my next baby. I believed to my core that God hated women, or that He had a particular grudge against me, personally. The lie that a woman forgets the pain and "it is all worth it" came up in my face at least once by a well-meaning woman who had obviously experienced this forgetting. Even now, I have not forgotten that hell. But I still dedicated the child to God.

And I decided that I needed to give God a chance to prove that He did not hate me, that He did not hate women, and I let myself get pregnant again to see what He would do, if anything. (This took a great deal of courage. Also, I had gathered my children around me when I was about to be married and told them to prepare to be born, so I felt a commitment to have these children. Three - two girls and a boy - had gathered close to me, and one boy was farther off, who I have not had yet. Though God gave Isaac to Sarah at 99 years old, I do not know if God will give such a gift to this son and myself. I have nearly 45 years to see, though. *smilie*)

It was illegal in my state for a midwife to attend a post-cesarean mother, hence home birth was out of the question (I had not heard of freebirth at the time). I ended up going to Utah. Salt Lake City, actually, where I ended up with the most incredible doctor (Dr. Pease) and a very good hospital (Holy Cross Hospital between North and South Temple and between 10th and 11th East). There was no question in my mind that I'd have a vaginal birth. The cut I'd had was the kind that allows a "trial" labor, but I innocently ignored the word "try".

I did not know I was "supposed" to rip apart. I had no clue that I was "supposed" to explode inside. Neither the woman who pulled out my oldest daughter nor Dr. Pease gave me a reason to fear. The second labor was less than three hours from start to finish. Had someone been there who would have told me that my feelings of "I can't do this," was a sign that the baby was about ready to be pushed into the world and to hang in there at least 15 more minutes, I would not have asked for a painkiller, and the pushing stage would have been 1/2 an hour instead of one hour. (They warned me that the painkiller might not take effect until after the baby had been born, but I did not recognize that as a statement that the baby was about to be born.)

I was also surprised at the rest between contractions at the beginning. My last experience had been one long pain that was somewhat tolerable at the beginning turning into something so bad long before the 13 hours were over that it was more than I could endure. (I was very uncomfortable with how this was worded before. It was true, but it "felt" like it was offensive or uncomfortable to someone.)

I recognized that God did His part very well in the second birth, considering my total lack of faith and considering my very dark thoughts about Him. In fact, right after second daughter was born, I told a nurse I wanted to have another baby, I wanted to labor and birth again. She discouraged that idea. lol

Actually, God was incredibly loving and patient to not punish me for my honest beliefs about Him. Any human I know personally would have been swift to punish such insubordination, such heresy, such blasphemy as I thought and believed in my heart of hearts.

So, now, as I struggle with losing battles against darkness and wondering if it is even worth trying to fight for control of my own thoughts, my mind turns to this experience and I wonder what, if anything, it all means. I wonder if it was a covenant, - and if it was, was the covenant sealed by the shedding of my blood and by my incredible suffering. And if  so, what was God's part in it. What was it He was supposed to give?

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

If Possible, Even the Very Elect Shall be Deceived

Hm, it has been a while since I've been here. Anyway, onward.

I'm at a college library and don't have my scriptures. I apologize for any inconvenience.

There is a scripture in the New Testament that says, "If possible, even the very elect shall be deceived." Joseph Smith added, "who are the elect according to the covenant."

I have heard/read many people say "even the very elect will be deceived," which is not true. Apparently, it is not possible for this group to be deceived. But, why?

I think the answer lies in what Joseph was inspired to add. Then we are left with the question, "What is the covenant?"

Is it baptism into the LDS church? Temple covenants?

I submit a thought that has been going through my head lately:

"The elect according to the covenant of eternal life Jesus made while standing face to face with said person, speaking to him or her as one person speaks to another." I submit that these are the only ones who cannot be deceived, because they have a knowledge of the truth. Not faith masquerading as knowledge. Not belief, superstition, or traditions of one's fathers, but actual and true knowledge.

Yet another reason to seek the literal face of our Lord.

Tuesday, November 13, 2012


I finished nanowrimo on the 12th, but I took two days off to get my daughter from another state. (It really took three days, but I snuck in a little writing the day I left, before we got on our way.) So, I wrote just over 50,000 words in ten days.

I was, oh, so proud of myself, until I discovered that the NaNo site kept track of my stats from last year (I wish they had them for all four years). I looked at last year's stats. I had finished on day 9. I wrote for a few days after that, and my total was higher than this year. So much for the happy dance I was going to perform for myself.

NaNo 09 - The Platter
NaNo 10 - untitled
NaNo 11 - Floating
NaNo 12 - Where the Heck am I?

I'm not sure if I'll do it next year. This attitude is a big shock for me, by the way. If I do end up doing it next year, I will probably be a rebel. Instead of writing a story, I plan to do "stream of consciousness" writing, if I do it at all.

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Random Thoughts

Ideally, I like my posts to be spiritually uplifting. Sometimes (perhaps many times) that does not happen. Today is not going to be one of those spiritual posts. I simply feel like writing. Perhaps my fingers are itching for NaNoWriMo and want to get in there and write. :)

I had a dream when my oldest was about a year old. Her father and I were at a baseball game. It was actually across (west) from where the baseball/T-ball diamonds really were in waking life. (This was in a rural area, by the way. The baseball diamond is outside of the town.) Suddenly, there was an earthquake and the earth split. There was chaos and destruction. My spouse had been holding our daughter, and they were on the other side of the split. I could not find them, and I was panic-stricken over not being able to find my daughter.

Well, I think I've been reading too many threads on internet forums about the alleged George Albert Smith prophecy (which actually, quite well, fits prophesies in the scriptures, near death experiences, and so forth). When that daughter graduated from a college in another state recently, the dream kept coming back to mind. I was concerned that something drastic would happen in our society to prevent me from seeing her again. I certainly didn't want her to go with her father (he has been dead for three years).

She was going to return home, but changed her mind. I tried to convince her to come, at least for a visit, during those prophesied times (major holidays). But I had to let it drop. It is her life, after all. And I figured I was probably "loony tunes" for thinking that the prophecy might be fulfilled this soon. Well, not too long ago, she changed her mind again and is planning to return to us after all. I expect she will not want to live with us long, but as long as we have her during those holidays, that will suffice for me.

Most likely, nothing really bad will happen here in the west, and I have just been on forums too much lately.

Still trying to acquire the faith to survive the prophesied bad times. Food storage only works if you haven't used it by then. Or - maybe - we are already in the bad times, the times of needing to live on food storage with people losing their jobs and so forth, and we don't know it. Perhaps we have been looking forward to something "big" - something that is so bad we have to defend our food from the "zombies" and the "zombie apocalypse." Perhaps by that time, no one will have a storage left and we will have to rely on God or take up our sword to kill and eat our fellow-beings.

I think our perception is quite skewed in many areas. I would just like to know exactly where I, personally, am skewed so I can stop believing lies and begin to believe only truth.

Random Thoughts

I may make this a private blog. I don't know. I want to put my private musings here, sometimes.

I have gotten over the "feel like I will die if I don't drop French." I don't really know what was happening there. I was convinced I'd flunk the test that was coming up. I felt like I could not comprehend any more, that I was overloaded. The test turned out to be doable, and the feelings vanished.

If I had "all the time in the world" I would take French 101 again next semester. Then the next year, I'd take 102 two semesters. The next 201. The next 202. In the meantime, I'd take Spanish 101 next semester, as well as next fall. Doubling up like that would help me learn more thoroughly.

Tuesday, October 23, 2012


Hm, hardly anyone comes to this blog. Probably because I don't write much on it. It was going to be where I shared my stories freely and without cost, but I found the format of a blog was not conducive to reading stories.

I tried linking to google docs, but no one was looking at them. So, here it sits. A lonely blog. Perhaps I should think of more alternate hymns and post one a week or something. (I'm not really the personality to do that. I'd post when I had one or when the mood hit. Thus, one week might have one post, a different week none, and another about ten.)

French is driving me nuts. I wanted a simple "conversational French" and got talked into French 101. 6 chapters. Test on chp 4 is here and my brain is fried. I love playing with languages. "Playing" is the key here. Tests, graded homework, stress are not part of a fun learning experience for me - especially when the person correcting the homework or tests is not always correct. Also, speed and hurry-hurry-hurry, complete with deadlines (tests) don't jive with my core.

At the same time, conversational Spanish wasn't working for me, so I opted for the college's Rosetta Stone. when I checked into it, I was not told the time commitment difference between the 1, 2, and 3 credit classes. I signed up for the 3, then found the time commitment was far too much, especially with the French 101 I was concentrating on.

At the moment, the only class I have is French (and I'm feeling like a real loser for dropping two of the classes I did). Sigh. Will I ever figure out who/what/etc. that I am? I suppose I'm one of those "lazy" ones who cannot stick with things. Barbara Sher would call me a "scanner" because I do one thing for a while, then I'm ready for something else. But how can one make money doing that? And we could use the money.

D'ja ever feel like you don't really belong in this world? Like what gives you power and strength is rare and difficult to find, while what saps your power and strength is in over-satiating abundance? I can't be the only one craving the lifestyle I crave - but am I the only one not smart enough to find a way to live it?


So, a person or two have wondered what I look like. Tonight, I discovered a picture taken with my daughter when I turned 55 this summer (July). That's the newest photo I have of myself that can be loaded onto a computer. I'm nothing to look at. Can't see the smattering of white hairs I'm getting, but I assure you they are there.

Also, the photo on my blog is of me (left, long hair) and a friend. The photo was taken - oh, I'd guess maybe 8+ years ago.

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Another blog I'd recommend

This blog was brought to my attention this morning. I have read one post in it so far, and it brought me to tears - tears of hope. It is called, "The Perfect Day."

Home Teachers

Home teachers are people who are assigned to pretend they care. Some keep up the pretense rather well. Most do not. Some never bother to show up. (Most of mine have shown up.) Some say they will show up, but never do. (I've had my share of these.) Some offer to help, but never get around to it. Some become genuine friends. (I had one of those right after I got back from my mission, years ago.) Most (that I have had) are polite, putting in their time for whatever reason.

I think this is the major reason. Pushing for that 100%. You can usually tell these. They are the ones who call (or show up) within the last few days of the month on a consistent basis.

This is what is done in the church, therefor we do it. We think we know why. We honor Brigham Young for beginning this inspired program. (But, then, we have no idea what it was that Brigham Young actually expected the men to do, nor do we know that it was not popular, because the people did not like the idea of such invasive questions.)

These are the ones who feel compelled to have 100% home teaching. The visits are superficial (most home teaching visits are, anyway, in my experience – no matter what category most of them fit into). They may be at the end of the month, at the beginning, or any points in between. The impetus is to put on a face to the world (church) that theydo 100% home teaching, that they are righteous and holy. Perhaps they are striving to go up the ecclesiastical ladder.

I think men are less prone to this factor than women, but this is definitely one. Gonna be punished. Gonna look bad. Who knows when these home teachersshow up. They may get home teaching done quickly just to say it's done.

I have had home teachers who:
were genuine friends before they were assigned -
became friends because of the home teaching position -
set up a time and date, but never showed up (they followed this pattern on a regular basis) -
came, and we had stilted conversation before they got to the crux of the meeting – a lesson in a magazine that I could read for myself (and probably already had) -
helped us with things we genuinely needed -
helped us grudgingly -
helped us, apparently willingly.

My favorite home teachers.

The one after my mission came because he was assigned. In other words, he didn't know my roommate and myself before this time. But he seemed to genuinely care. We had “real” conversations.

Then there was the one who would set appointments, but only showed up for the first one. I don't know how much he genuinely cared, but when we needed him, he was there. This includes the formidable task of moving us from southeastern Arizona to southwestern Utah – freely and without complaint or hesitation.

In northern Arizona, we rented from a man and his wife. Very low rent ($300 a month). When we moved in, the kids and I helped finish a room that was being added onto the trailer we were renting. For that, we got free rent for at least a month (maybe two).

And, he made me a deal: I could work for him to pay for $100 of the rent each month. He was writing a book, but he was mostly blind. He could not type because of lack of feeling in his fingertips. I worked for him 12 ½ hours a monthas his eyes and as his typist. (He was not physically well enough to do more than a couple of hours of work at a time.) When my niece died, he lent me money to get up to the funeral (another couple lent me a car, because mine was not good enough to go that far, in my opinion. They were neither home nor visiting teachers). I paid him back through work.

Soon after I moved in, he told me that they had assigned him as my home teacher. He asked if I'd accept him as my home teacher. When I told him yes, he asked if I wanted a monthly visit. I told him, “No.” If he was there when we needed him, that was enough. And he wasthere when we needed him, both he and his wife. The amount of help they gave us was incredible, considering that he kept calling himself, “useless,” because of his poor health.

We called them Grandpa and Grandma. They had had a toddler killed in a car accident years before (a drunk driver hit them). She had been born a year afterI had been born. They “adopted” me, and told me I was the replacement for that child. Not exactly, because one cannot replace someone who was lost, but this was their view of myself and my children. They even took me to her grave and showed it to me. They had many children, by the way. All of the childrenwere grown by the time I met this couple.

I wish I still lived in that area. I would love to be going over there, helping Grandpa type his latest story. (He had been typing a history when I moved into the trailer, but by the time I moved out of that area, long after moving out of his place, he wasworking on historical stories.)

Their hearts were “as big as all outdoors”.

I don't like “lessons” from either home teachers or visiting teachers. I don't think God ever set up a program of people mechanically teaching or of being assigned to care. I believe He can and has used the program to help those who need help, but that's only because we are not living Zion.

If we were living Zion we would not need to be assigned to care. We would naturally care. We would notice those who needed what we can give, because we would be open to the Spirit pointing those people out to us. I have had such people come into my radar when I was in a position to help. I have also been on the receiving end of such help. Even now, some people who were truly inspired to help us have been pulling me out of the pit of despair with their very real help. I don't even know these people in real life. They are internet friends.

I suppose my point in all of this is that we should be living in a way where “assigned friends” are not necessary, where we are living in such a way that God brings to us those we can help in whatever way their souls ache. We should not have to teach someone a monthly lesson. Instead, we should be loving them and praying for them. They can (and should) study the scriptures for themselves, forgoing the middle-men to God. We should help because of the love of God that resides in our hearts.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Understanding the Gifts of God in the Church

In Mount Zion has a guest post that is awesome!

I will paraphrase a little, but seriously go to that blog and read the post.

Some of us are frustrated, the post says, because of some of the things we see going on in the church. He says that seeing this is a gift that is surely meant to be cultivated by diligent study. There is a tension created when those who see this try to force others to see. Then he says, "We often think of those around us as being asleep, but they are awake in other ways."

Seriously, read the post.

Thursday, September 6, 2012


When we are baptized in living water, it represents the Living Water that is Christ. Unfortunately, most of us are baptized in dead water (how many living organisms are in any given church's baptismal font? algae? fish? frogs? water skaters? sea life?). Of course, if the symbolism of being baptized in living water is lost on us, I suppose that maybe it doesn't matter anyway - for all the good the symbolism does us.

Then I began thinking of baptism for the dead. Done in temples. Done in dead water. Why? Done for the dead. Seems like there ought to be a connection there.

Strange, isn't it, how some of the symbolism for Christ has eked away without us noticing. Red wine represents the blood of Christ, represents the bitter cup He drank from. A thimbleful of water just doesn't get the same point across as a full cup of bitter red wine. (Someone, I think it was Rock Waterman, said that wine was bitter.)

Monday, September 3, 2012

Search Terms

I was looking at my stats since it has been so long since I was on here. All I can say is, "Good grief! Some of the things that lead people to my site." The terms fall off on a regular basis, and as far as I know, I cannot get a list of all of the ones I've previously had. Anyway, here are the ones I found as I perused in the middle of the night hours.

denver snuffer
snuffer denver
denver snuffer blogspot (I hope they found his page; he's very profound.)

denver snuffer books (Try and do a search on that site.)

denver snuffer disfellowshipped (Not to my knowledge, but there's a post or two on his site that refers to rumors like that.) (Okay. I hope the first hit was his address, not mine.)

did adam from adam an eve have a beard? (Well, I don't know about "did adam from adam", but I'm pretty confident that Adam had a beard, but Eve did not.)

how did adam and eve brush their hair? (I have wondered this very thing. Since the scriptures don't mention it, we don't know unless we see it in a vision or dream from God.)

how did adam and eve wash their bodies and hair? (Water. I once took a bath in a slightly salty hot springs. It cleaned my body really, really well. It didn't do much for my hair, but I thought if I'd rinsed in non-salty water, it may have felt better. Also, there are plants that have saponin in them. Adam and Eve could have used them. Other than that, we're back to the answer of having a vision.)

jacob 5 second coming (I suppose I have talked about some of these words a time or two. It's a good chapter to study to get an overall view. I expect that, much like the rest of the Book of Mormon, there is a depth there that most of us common members and all of the scholars have never seen.)

All Things Denote There is a God

Every morning, the sun comes up. Sometimes it is hidden from our view by clouds. The sun is a symbol of Christ. He rose early in the morning. He is the light and life of the world. Without the sun, we would die. Without Christ, we would die.

Though our earthly night is dotted with light (which lights are mostly suns) the night still represents life without Christ (who is Light). The Telestial Kingdom, which is compared to the stars, is life without Christ.

Even though we are not totally devoid of light at night (with stars, moon, and artificial lights), those lights cannot hold a candle to the light the sun gives to us. Thus, even the lights at night are a witness that God is "greater than they all." (Not a genuine scripture quote.) In fact, the artificial lights bring to mind the scripture about walking in your own light and in the fire ye have kindled (my computer crashed a while ago, I'm not using my own computer, and the scriptures on are a pain to search through and a pain to use because of the addition of letters to the text, referring to footnotes, thus I am not looking up that scripture. It may be in Isaiah, though).

The rising of the sun bears witness of the resurrection. It bears witness that Christ is the Light and Life of the world.

All of nature bears record of our Savior and Lord. If we had eyes to see, and understanding of the generosity of the signs of God, we would know that - a real knowledge.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Shutting out all voices but God's

When we are born, we have to rely on others for our very survival. We learn very quickly (if we weren't born knowing it) that we are dependent upon others.

As we grow, we do some exploring on our own, but most of our information comes from others. Especially in this day in the United States (and perhaps in other so-called “developed” countries), children are kept caged, so that they may not explore. Playpens, car seats, baby carriers, etc. are the norm. Crawling on floors or on the ground is pretty much forbidden for most babies.

(Okay, true confessions. I let my babies roam. I learned by baby three, that they don't even get sick, let alone die if they eat food left on the floor that missed getting swept up.)

True, that babies try to assert their independence around age 1 ½. Most are shot down for it, though. The attempts continue off and on until a child is legally old enough to move out. But by the time a child is in grade school, they have pretty much learned to depend on others' voices.

Teenagers may think they are thinking for themselves if they rebel against their parents, but they really aren't. They are following what someone else told them to think - to be.

So, here's our dilemma: God has told us to rely only upon HIS arm, not the arm of flesh - yet we are surrounded by the arm of flesh. We have learned our lessons well. A partial list of who we rely upon instead of God (though sometimes, we share our reliance upon God and another, yet Jesus has said we cannot serve two masters)

Ecclesiastical leaders
School teachers
College teachers
University professors
Other Christians
Media (either mainstream or not)
Medical professions of all kinds:
      Faith healers
      And the list could go on and on
Self-proclaimed experts
People with a bunch of letters after their names
Publicly-proclaimed experts
And on and on.

So here's mydilemma, at least: How do I shut out all others and hear ONLY God?

I know many people on the internet (a tiny few of them “in real life”) who say some pretty awesome things. When they say (okay, write) something, I want to learn more from these people. Whoa, Nelly! Stop right there.

If they are writing by the Spirit and the Spirit tells me the words are true, I seem to have a difficult time separating the awesome words from the person they came through.

And if I have a physical need that I am unable to take care of (say a home or food), I have a tendency to think God cannot help me unless another person is willing to cooperate with Him. Now, technically, that may be true that God won't magically build a house or grow a garden in my poisoned soil, but I'm thinking that if we look at any need we have and have even one part of us that believes God cannot fulfill it without another mortal showing up to help us, then we don't have the faith required for God to help us. Besides, God has worked miracles before, when no one was doing His will because they cared about anyone but themselves.

I think we are so intertwined with others that we cannot even tell when we are not fully relying on the Lord. We think we are, but we defer to someone else for some reason or other.

Perhaps we are even afraid that if we listen to God and to God only, we'll “go apostate” from the religion we belong to. Well, if the religion we belong to really follows God, how is that possible?

I find it a bit frightening to “go it alone with God” yet He has let me know that that is the only way to find Him. I have to let go of EVERY crutch, whether human or not, whether real or imaginary. It has to be just Him and me.

Tuesday, July 24, 2012


This is an awesome reference. You can download (at no charge and without making a password) several versions of the Bible in one program, including one with Strong's Numbers. I really like it. I have 26 versions of the Bible in mine - some in different languages, including Chinese, (which I don't know how to read, but it's fun to look at). I've had this program for a couple of years. The download button below will take you to the website.

e-Sword Home

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

By Common Consent

The Doctrine and Covenants declares that all things in the church must be done by common consent:

And all things shall be done by common consent in the church, by much prayer and faith, for all things you shall receive by faith. Amen.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 26:2)

For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 28:13)

Look in a hard copy of the D&C's index for “common consent”. You'll get more results than if you type it into a computer version of the scriptures.

There is a petition here that says:

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints it is our desire to faithfully fulfill our obligation to our church by at least annually giving our “voice and Common Consent” as to the allocation of the funds that have been and are currently being donated by us to our Church.

We believe as President Hinckley stated that the financial information of our church “belongs to those that made the contribution”.

For most of our history our church provided full disclosure of its funds. Even in times of financial difficulties members could share in the joy of knowing that good works were being accomplished with their collective donations. We have confidence that a full annual financial disclosure will vindicate the virtue and integrity of our church’s financial affairs that are consistent with the principles taught by our Lord. Such open transparency will also dispel all mystery that often leads to unverifiable speculation both without and within our church:  “And He doeth nothing, save it be plain.” (2 Ne. 26:33). We seek complete transparency in all our financial affairs by following the Lord’s counsel that monies placed into His treasury shall “not be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by voice and common consent” (Doctrine and Covenants 104:71).

Therefore, we the undersigned members formally request that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints once again publish a full annual financial report that provides sufficient details so that we as members can once again give our “voice and Common Consent” as to the allocation of monies expended by our Church.

I would encourage anyone who is concerned about this - or who would like to have this disclosure made - to go and sign this petition. Again, the address is

Most people say where they are from (a few don't). In any case, here are some of the general places people have said they are from. It would appear that this is a worldwide concern.
United Kingdom
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
Ethiopia & Hillsb [cut off]

Edited June 19, 2012 to add: The "About" on the page says this:

Petition by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to restore full annual financial disclosures. This Petition stands as a public statement of support, and the signatures will be posted here in perpetuity until the stated goal of restoring the practice of full financial disclosure is achieved. No private information will be conveyed to the LDS Church or any other party.

Not to be confused with the blog of the same name, but welcoming a friendly collaboration.

Friday, July 6, 2012

Hymn 259 - rewritten (Hope of Israel)

Much of my life, I liked to play with songs, changing the words to them. At church our opening hymn was “Hope of Israel”. I saw that it was saying people were the “hope of Israel” - I always thought it was Jesus. Anyway, as I read the hymn with new eyes I felt the inspiration to put new words to the tune (you may use them freely):

Verse 1:
Hope of Israel, Je - sus Christ,
Sa - vior of the hum - ble heart,
See, the Spi - rit sig - nals on - ward,
And the hum - ble seek the Lord.

Verse 2:
See our sins, they fall be - hind us
As we view the sac - ri - fice.
Hope of Israel, please be with us,
So the vic - t'ry we will win.

Verse 3:
Live for Zion, Love for - e - ver.
Bring our souls to God a - bove.
Ev - 'ry kind - ness leads to hea - ven
Ev - 'ry step we con - q'ring go.

Verse 4:
Soon the bat - tles will be o - ver,
Where will you, o man, then stand?
On -ward, on - ward, souls re - pent - ing,
Thy re - ward the vic - tor's crown.

Hope of Is -rael, Je - sus Christ
With the sword of truth and light,
Sound the love - cry, “Watch and pray!”
Bring your soul to Christ to - day.

I may see if I can find some lyrics I have written in the past and put them on my other blog. It might be fun to make new lyrics to a song every week and put in on there. (I'm not making any promises.)


My daughter and I were discussing italics and inflection. The example she used was, "The cat in the hat."

Examples (in bold italics):

The cat in the hat. Implies a specific cat.

The cat in the hat. Implies the cat, as opposed to a horse or a dog.

The cat in the hat. Implies that it is in the hat not by it or on it.

The cat in the hat. Implies a specific hat.

The cat in the hat. Implies it's in a hat, not in a sweater or a dish.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Joseph Smith and Polygamy

So, as I understand it, Joseph had the sealing power given him by God, a priesthood that cannot be passed down.1This enabled him to save those who were sealed to him2, by the power that he held (which type of sealing cannot be passed down from man to man). Thus, it seems to me3, especially in light of what I have read here, that Joseph was sealed to women, not as a sexual partner but as a power to raise up seed unto the Lord, meaning souls who could be saved through being sealed to Joseph. It was no more sexual than when he had sons sealed to him. Thus, Joseph could honestly say he had only one wife and was not practicing polygamy because he understood others to mean having sexual relations with other women, when that was not the case. But through the years, the doctrine was misunderstood and changed.

This would explain why there are no physical descendents of Joseph except through Emma - a woman sealed to Joseph might consider him the father all of her children, even though her “legal and lawful” husband provided the actual seed. She might even confide in her child/ren that Joseph was their father.

And we cannot really know how many women were sealed to Joseph in his lifetime, with his presence and consent. By the time plural marriages became well-known, there was a stake in “proving” that Joseph had practiced plural marriage. Those who testified that they had been Joseph's wives, may have been sealed to him (in a nonsexual relationship), or they may have been “lying for the Lord”.

There were also people sealed to him as his children. I have a great-grandfather back some generations who was sealed to Joseph as his son (but the sealing wasn't done until the pioneers were in Utah - unless it was redone then). But Joseph didn't treat them as children, I expect. For example, they didn't have to worry about a whipping if they did wrong (the common punishment of children in those days).

Anyway, this is my latest understanding of the idea of Joseph and plural marriage.

1 JST 14 27. And thus, having been approved of God, he [Melchizedek] was ordained an high priest after the order of the covenant which God made with Enoch,
28. It being after the order of the Son of God; which order came, not by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years; but of God;
29. And it was delivered unto men by the calling of his own voice, according to his own will, unto us many as believed on his name.

2 I cannot find the exact words I seek, but I understand it to be what Joseph preached. Here is an example of something he said that may refer to that: I will walk through the gate of heaven and Claim what I seal & those that follow me & my Council - Wilford Woodruff Diary 10 March 1844 (Sunday). At Temple. (Words of Joseph Smith)

3 “Joseph's practices were carefully guarded, hidden from public view, and so discrete that still today there are those who think he never had plural wives. If this were something for public display and advocacy, then Joseph would have done so. He did not. To the contrary, he also delighted in the chastity of women and condemned adultery and fornication.
“It is my view that the question of taking plural wives arises with Joseph Smith, and was through a revelation to him when he inquired about the topic. He treated it as a limited, carefully curtailed, private matter. His implementation of the practice was limited to sealing his own plural wives, and one other man to two wives.

“With Brigham Young, however, taking more women became not only public, but it also became a topic used to prove his own v[i]rility.”

Thoughts and Questions About Adam and Eve and the Garden in Eden

I listened to Moses, chapters 1-7 a couple of times, and listened to the story of the creation and Adam and Eve getting kicked out several times because it's part of the endowment.

And I realized something. Adam didn't trust Eve. He was afraid she'd mess up, so he embellished the truth. He enlarged it. He made a "buffer zone". Exaggeration? Yes. Lie? I think so.

See, God told Adam not to partake of the fruit, but He didn't say anything to Eve. It was up to Adam to do that.

Adam told Eve that the fruit would kill her if she so much as touched it. It sounds like he wanted to scare her into obedience. Adam set the stage for the fall, even though he blamed Eve for it.

So when the serpent told Eve, "You shall not surely die," he could have been referring to touching it (in that way we have of responding only to part of what a person says without bothering to specify that that's what we're doing).

If Eve saw the serpent walking around on the fruit, or holding it, she could see for herself that her husband had not told her the truth. Why, then, should she believe the rest of what he told her? The serpent was not dead and it was touching the fruit. Obviously, touching the fruit was no big deal.

Had Adam told Eve the truth, when she saw the serpent handling the fruit, she may have resisted more, knowing that handling the fruit and eating it were two different things. If Eve were a stupid woman, tending to blind obedience, she would have still refused - but she was an intelligent woman who could think for herself, thus Adam's lie backfired.

After Adam and Eve had eaten the fruit, he blamed her and justified himself (you said she was supposed to remain with me) even though it was his own words that set the stage for eating the fruit.

This raises the issue of "what is sin?". Adam wasn't kicked out for embellishing the truth (technically, lying). Nor was he kicked out for not trusting his wife's intelligence and behavior. He was kicked out for eating something he wasn't prepared to eat.

Perhaps God never commanded, "Don't embellish the truth." Perhaps He never commanded, "Trust your wife's intelligence." It sounds like He only gave one commandment.

But I don't think they were kicked out for disobeying God. I think they were kicked out because the fruit they ate changed their bodies in such a way that they could die and could think of things they'd never thought of before. It was a fruit that was reserved for when they were ready to move out of the garden.

Which brings up another thought. Were Adam and Eve caged into the garden? Were they forbidden to ever leave? Did they ever go outside just to see what it was like? Like boy scouts, did God intend for them to go on short jaunts and camping trips to get used to the outside, so that when the time came for them to eat the fruit they would have less of a culture shock?

Were animals killing and eating each other outside of the garden? When did animals begin killing and eating other animals? Was it before the flood or after? Was it after people began killing them?

How normal and uneventful was all of this? We tend to think “magic”. Perhaps it was not.

Were there poisonous plants in the garden? They were told to eat “clean” herbs. Since the only other plants mentioned are trees, I would suspect that all other plants fell under the category of “herbs”. Perhaps unclean herbs simply meant poisonous plants. Perhaps we need to rethink the story we have been told of a pure couple, without fault, without defect who could not be poisoned by anything but a certain tree.

I would suspect that the unclean plants could not impart knowledge. Was the tree even a real tree with real fruit? If not, what was it? If the tree of life represents the love of God, and seeing the Gods, what would the opposite represent? If it was not literal, why this story and the embellishment by Adam? I cannot comprehend it being anything other than a literal tree, even though (for us) it represents beginning to sin.

Notice that God said to Adam, “I told you not to eat,” but to Eve, he said, “What did you do?” And God did not give the serpent a chance to answer for itself.

God said to Adam, “Because you listened to man over God,” (remember their name was man - Moses 2:27). To the serpent, “Because you did this.” To Eve, there was no, “Because you . . . .”

What would have happened if Adam had not taken the fruit? What if he had waited until God showed up again, then told Him there was a problem and asked God to solve it because he still wanted to stay with Eve? What if God had then given Adam permission to eat the fruit? What if God was not two men, but a man and a woman (husband and wife)? What if Jehovah was not involved until after the fall? What if we have no clue what the Godhead really entails?

Why does Jehovah (who we are told is the God of the Old Testament) refer to Jesus as “mine only begotten”? Enoch was talking to the Lord God. Enoch calls to the Lord and asks Him when He will come again on the earth and says, you've commanded me to ask in the name of your Only Begotten.” God is Man of Holiness and the son is Son of Man in the language of Adam.

In the Book of Mormon, it is explained that Jesus/Jehovah is both the father and the son - the father because of the spirit (His premortal self, I would suppose) and the son because of the flesh (his earthly self). He wasn't His complete self in mortality because He, like us, had a veil of forgetfulness drawn over His mind. I suppose that is why He considered His mortal (relatively speaking) self as separate from His Eternal self. But I seriously doubt He was His own father. I think the father (Jehovah's father) was the literal father, since He had a body and could impart the necessary genetic material. If spirits could father children, I'm sure the devils would have spawned many.

Anyway, back to the subject. Did Adam and Eve have tools in the garden? They were gardeners, after all. Did they have a house to live in? Did they have brushes for their hair? Did they have soap to wash their hair and bodies? Surely they'd get dirty working in the garden. Was Adam's hair as long as Eve's? Did Adam have a beard before they left the garden? Why do nearly all of the pictures show Adam with short hair and no beard even after they left the garden? Why was he bound by the hairstyles we think appropriate? Where was the razor and scissors? When did Adam and Eve learn to read and write? Did they have needles? If not, how did they sew fig leaves together? Did the fig leaves just cover their genitals like the pictures portray, or did they cover their chests and backs (like a tunic)? Why do we assume that they were only concerned about their crotches? If they had previously been clothed in light, would not the lack of light have included their whole bodies?

Anyway, back to the thing I was originally thinking, and wondering about.

There was no sin, but
Adam did not trust Eve
He feared she'd eat the fruit
He embellished the commandment
He (unknowingly) set the stage for the fall


We are to return to the paradisaical realm eventually.

Perhaps we misunderstand what “without sin” and “perfection” really is. Perhaps one can be without sin, but not perfect. In the Millennium we are considered without sin (or at least the children who grow up there), and some people resent those children and claim they will not exist because they won't have the trials and choices we have now. But it looks to me like they will have choices to make. They will still make mistakes and do things that are not perfect, and they will learn from their mistakes I expect. Perhaps the reason people will live so long is because they cannot learn all they need to learn in a short time, if it is in a gentle way. We learn harshly, but we don't have a 600 to 980 year life span in which to learn life's lessons.

Which brings me to another thought I had. Adam and Eve were created in day 6, during the 6th thousand years, as we count them. On the sabbath (7thday), while God was resting, they ate the fruit. That means they were less than two days old when they fell (or 2,000 years as we count time). I used to think they could have been in the garden for eons or for days, until I realized they ate the fruit while God was away, resting from His labors.

How did the devil tempt the serpent? Did the animals freely wander in and out of the garden? The devil and his angels were cast into the earth, but the scriptures seem to hint that he was not allowed into the garden, therefor he sent one of his agents (spies) into the garden to do his work for him. Did the serpent intend to work for the devil? What reward did the devil offer? I thought animals were immune from listening to the devil. Why can't we talk to animals and have them talk to us like they did in the garden? Will this be changed back in the Millennium? If Adam and Eve didn't wear clothing in the garden, will we not wear clothing in the Millennium, since it is a reversion back to the garden? Will animal sacrifice be made after Jesus comes but before the peace covers the earth? What will turn our minds to Christ since no animals will be killed in the Millennium? Will it be an ⅛ of a crust of bread and a few drops of water? Will it be a meal of whole bread and homemade red wine? Will it be the fact that we see Him often?

Anyway, those were some thoughts and questions I had as a result of listening to the audio book of Moses yesterday.