This ought to be but the obvious, so why this disclaimer? Often some speak as though they represent some 'official position' of some organization. For example, some scholars associated with BYU and/or its affiliated associations have made certain assertions and have stated positions concerning such as the geography of the Book of Mormon. Such are of the personal opinion category as the official position of the LDS Church is that the Book of Mormon geography is not so officially established or should it be until and unless it is so revealed through the proper church authorities. However such BYU associated statements and positions of some have favored a middle-American, 'Meso-American' limited Book of Mormon model, which requires two hills of Cumorah and a central arena of Book of Mormon operations no bigger than the size of the state of Utah. And in so presenting their theoretical position, they have 'attacked' with such logic not only 'anti-Mormon' statements but also by default even some of those various other such opinions on such geography as held by faithful and true Latter-day Saints as though such concepts are 'anti-Mormon'. They are not and such ought not to be but are. The traditional hemispheric theoretical model is still held by many and is not 'anti-Mormon'. Some other 'limited land area models' other than that of Central or Mesoamerica are also held by some. They are not 'anti-Mormon'. There are even other such models which used a 'Neo-Hemispheric' model that are not exactly as extensive as the original Hemispheric Model but do include all three Americas in their models, North, Central and South America. To state what 'Joseph Smith' did or did not believe upon the matter seems to go beyond what a modern day scholar can in truth ascertain, as Joseph is not here to speak for himself. And there are both evidences that can be used for the larger hemispheric models as well as the limited models in the words of Joseph Smith when 'presumed' and 'interpreted' from variously skewed positions. Such ought to be left in the realms of 'theory', 'speculation', 'personal opinion and preference' and such skewed interpreted evidences as they are based upon. They ought not be used to determine a truth of doctrine and a point of argument within the LDS faith, or even as a point relative to the 'anti-Mormon'; for such is just not a 'known official doctrine' of the church, nor should it be so treated.
Further, as one tours 'my' pages, they will encounter what they may presume to be 'Mormon Doctrine'. I claim no such authority. And to any, who may be offended or choose not to think as my thoughts may be, they should not be so offended and they certainly have a right to think their own minds upon such matters. I am LDS and fully support the Prophet and leading authorities of 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' in all their official declarations.
And, YES, we are Christians. Jesus of the New Testament and Jehovah of the Old Testament are the same being and the God we are given to worship, praying to the our Heavenly Father in Jesus' name as taught by Jesus in the scriptures. We do not accept the Nicene Creed as so detailed and stipulated in those interpretations placed in and upon it. 'We do believe in God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.' In my own opinion 'we believe more in the "inaugural formula" presented by Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea as he so presented it to be at the Nicaea Council of 325 AD, than in that evolved creed which has consequently been developed and variously interpreted over the next hundreds of years of development.
I am a thinking man and where there is no solid doctrine or official position to be held out by the LDS Church, as so presented and supported by the 'Brethren', therein I may think and conclude upon such matters according to the dictates of my own intelligence. It may become noted that I have my own thought-out opinion upon such as the geography of the Book of Mormon, which is not necessarily so adopted from another's 'favored' model, as I think for myself. I also have and do study other such items of interest to me, such as Christ's ancestry, the order of the Gospels' harmony and have other such 'insights' that my mind has upon matters 'scriptural' (in my commentaries etc.) and otherwise. No one should take these as 'Church Doctrine' nor ought they to be offended by them and use them for reasons to attack 'Mormonism' in General or to stop going to Church if they are LDS members because of them. Take them for what they are, a 'thinking man's' perspective and often his 'searched out' matter of opinion. You can talk to me upon these matters but please be nice or I'll not respond.
This is the same idea to be used in terms of such as the genealogical information which I have posted. Don't be upset if you don't agree. You can talk to me, but please be nice or I'll not respond.
What more can I say? I am me, not original in all things but not so predictable either as to just fall in line with another's thought process without thinking for myself. I believe and feel that too many people are of that nature of just following another's preasured mind set as it is easier than taking the time to really think for themselves. It is NOT the truth just because it is in print, on the internet or even broadcasted by the news media. All seem to have their own underlying agendas of 'mind shaping' and not necessarily to the good or to the truths of God. Too much is structured into our society by such as Hollywood, TV, mindless Music and Music lyrics, and so on. User beware! All is not as advertised and the real values and morality of God are NOT the norms of much of today's society. Things are not good or of God just because they are 'legal'. Evil does not just lurk in the shadows, it is becoming more in the mainstream of society, yet it should still be opposed.
Enough said - d.