A few clarifications

 Re-reading my last post on Joseph and Hyrum made me want to clarify a few things in general.

1.  Evidence vs. interesting insights or observations.   

A reader might infer that I am making certain connections because of the additional points I am making relating to those connections.  For example, with Joseph and Pippin, I mentioned Egypt, seer stones, and dressing up in military uniforms... those would be very strange and weak points, indeed, if I was using them as evidence of that connection.  Meaning, if I was saying because I noticed those things that I then came up with the thought "Joseph must be Pippin!", then I don't think that would be very good reasoning or thinking overall on my part (or on the part of others if someone agreed with the conclusion just because of those points).

Rather, it has worked the other way for me, basically.  The thoughts, and other experiences that have built these thoughts, have come first - sometimes quite powerfully and surprisingly.  This does not mean the thought or the connection is correct, however, as I have stressed before, but merely that is what comes first.  It is after seeing things in that light - again, for example, having this thought or belief that Joseph is Pippin, among other names, that I then will notice certain other details that become interesting to me in light of that primary first thought.  I then include a few of those in the post about the connection because just saying Joseph is Pippin in a sentence and leaving it at that is not very interesting.

So, the observations aren't meant to be explanatory or comprehensive.  Readers might take note of them and see other interesting connections that come into their own mind, or, perhaps just as likely, have other insights or observations that might cast doubt on my own original thoughts.

2.  Focus on characters/ beings vs. concepts

I am spending time on characters and beings (including in that definition stones and other 'objects'...), I suppose, more so than general concepts at this point primarily because that is what I find interesting right now.  Stories, almost by definition, are comprised of beings and their interactions and relationships with each other, and I believe we are in a very great story.  I have a narrative floating around in my head, but as I said I don't think I can or am able to really try and lay that out in this format in a way that makes sense.  In addition, some stories already exist - the stories of Tolkien and Joseph Smith, to name two - and so my thought is to write of the characters, objects, etc. within and bridging these stories.  In doing so, rather than having to rewrite any stories or lay anything out (and likely get it wrong anyway), the hope is that readers might be able to develop their own narratives, or at least perhaps begin seeing stories they thought they used to know in a different way.

3.  Areas of focus

I think I will find that I return again and again to various characters and the stories surrounding them in this rethinking of stories and our reality.  The danger is that these characters and situations will not resonate with other readers.  They reason they resonate with me is that over the past few years their stories have become unexpectedly and surprisingly personal to me, and thus my interest lies with them.  It would be expected that this personal connection might not exist as strongly with others.  In this case, the hope would be that these writings can be used as examples, or perhaps give a sense of 'permission', for people to begin exploring their own different ways of looking at these and other stories and find their own personal interests and connections.  We are all unique individuals, and have unique stories, and so what interests me or draws me in may be very different than others, and that is neither better nor worse, but just is.

The primary hope in terms of having my thoughts in a public place like this (vs. just keeping them in a private notebook) is that readers can become more open to new ways of looking at things, and also that others can either build on these thoughts or let me know where I might not be correct and some rethinking is in order.  I wouldn't blame anyone for being skeptical of my own thoughts on these things - that should probably be a natural position to take.  I am skeptical of them in my own way.  I should have been more skeptical of certain things over the past few years and it would have saved me some grief.  But in being skeptical of these things, perhaps readers can also reassess their own traditions and start looking at things with new eyes. 

 At this point, I think being 'correct' is less important than the way in which one comes to the story.