Leaderboard

No, I've not gone off the deep end! TL,DR: Has anyone actually read the original interpretation (by Michael B. Rush who appears to have originated it) of the vision contained in the apocryphal book 2 Esdras, chapters 11 and 12 about US presidents and used to predict the timing of the Second Coming? If so, do you have any thoughts? (Above chapter 11 link is an old book on the google play store that was scanned. I trust its translation more as some make no sense and confuse matters more. Other good ones seem to be the Bible Gateway one and Bible Society one.) Long Version: A Church member (sister) I know has been reading some books and watching some videos by this fellow, including the book in which he details his interpretation (which he said is inspired, and explains when / how that happened in the book - and in the excerpt at the above link). Here is where he claims to be the originator (at same link) - at least, that's my interpretation: Of course, brother Rush has written books and is selling them, along with making YouTube videos. This is the first time I've heard of him. And though I've heard the phrase "Ezra's Eagle" before, I had no idea what it was and never felt inclined to investigate. Back to this sister. She said her adult children have been giving her a hard time because she's reading the guy's books and asked if I'd be willing to read some portion of them (or perhaps all) and tell her what I think. The short section on Ezra's Eagle (from the July 2020 edition of A Remnant Shall Return) was the first thing she wanted me to read. So, I took the book. First thing I did was google this site, and then the web. I didn't find much in text (hate watching videos when I'm trying to learn details - wastes so much time). But I found that it's from a vision in the apocryphal book of 2 Esdras 11 and 12. So, I found that and read it. It meant nothing specific to me, so then I turned to the book. (Later, I went back and read some of the book of Daniel 2, 7 and 8, because it's mentioned in 2 Esdras, but I couldn't find any obvious relation between the visions - though I don't suppose there has to be.) Useful notes about me: I'm not a history buff. I think the US education system I grew up in was explicitly designed to cause children to be disinterested in history, and it succeeded with me. I've only recently started changing my mind, so I'm ignorant as a stump. I'm not a "signs of the times" buff. I know the scriptures, I know the basics of these signs, but I've always figured the Second Coming for me was more likely to happen at my death than at the Second Coming, and either way, my preparation ought to be the same - live the gospel, follow the prophets. I'm skeptical about folks claiming to have figured out interpretations of scripture (or apocryphal writings) that are new to the world, so I figure that makes me a good candidate to give this sister a reasoned opinion. But I also believe firmly that secret combinations are real, in operation at this moment, and present a real threat to our peaceful and prosperous existence in this country. IMO, President Benson was no nut job. Back when Ordain Women was all over the news (but new to me), I decided rather than reading news stories about them, I'd go to their website and see what they said about themselves. As soon as the home page loaded, the Spirit communicated to me in no uncertain terms that this was a dangerous place. It didn't tell me to leave, just gave me a sense that I needed to be on my guard. That experience has led me to trust that this can happen, to be open for such guidance, and to be skeptical and cautious when researching such things. All this to say, I'm not in danger of going off the deep end after things like this. Initial Impression So, back to the book. I read the first chapter - which was more about him, what he's doing, and why. It raised some yellow flags (not orange or red, just yellow): Some phrases could be him setting the reader up to trust the author over prophets and over what they have already learned - maybe (or maybe they're just poorly worded - I would need to read more of his writings to figure out which). He seems to use scripture to discredit himself without realizing it. In the second chapter, he cites scripture that supports him, but skips over verses of the same passage that might encourage the reader to be skeptical of him (which makes me more skeptical). In some places, his wording is a bit condescending, assuming the reader doesn't know certain scriptures or understand their import, and telling the reader that he (the author) will educate the reader on these later. (This also made me wonder if he was trying to set up the reader to trust in the author more than themselves, prophets, the Church and its manuals, and/or the Holy Ghost - doesn't have to be the case, maybe the guy just thinks too much of himself, but it stood out to me.) And, when it comes to eagles as symbols, he doesn't even address Russia or Muscovy with its short-lived three-headed eagle (and I have no idea if there are others he missed). Not sure that matters, but still. Mr. Rush is also in serious need of a (better) proofreader, editor, and typesetter / printer. (There's a chart / graph that is clearly missing key elements, and even if those elements were present, it would be meaningless without pages of citation to give the data points meaning. It's kinda bizarre that it was left like that - and no fix or mention or anything on the website.) Ezra's Eagle And then I read the second chapter about Ezra's Eagle (have yet to read the third). When I was done, there wasn't really anything that screamed "apostate" or "nut job" at me (though Mr. Rush comes off as both a Trump fan-boy and someone prone to over-the-top (to the point of absurd - seems to have been removed in his latest version found in the excerpt on the website) predictions about what might happen with Trump's presidency - which was on-going when the book was published (2015) and updated (2020)). I didn't even find any particular reason to think he was wrong except (see the "mess up" comment next)... After reading this chapter, wherein he seemed to mess up his counting of wings, feathers, and presidents - off by 1, I decided to go back to 2 Esdras and diagram what I read for myself, without regard for or consulting brother Rush's book. For those who don't know, the vision describes an eagle which has 3 heads, 12 wings (or large feathers), and 8 feathers (or small or "under" wings). The interpretation describes the heads, wings, and feathers as "kings" that will rule the kingdom represented by the eagle. Biggest problem - vagueness in sequence of the various wings/feathers ruling: Chapter 11 makes it clear that three of the larger wings rule first. After that, it suggests that the other 9 rule... But in v22 we see that the 12 wings (large feathers) and 2 feathers (little wings) are gone, so 2 of the 8 ruled in there somewhere, but that previous suggestion might make you think it was after the 9 wings. Then in chapter 12, in the interpretation, in v14 and 16, it says 12 kings - the 12 wings (large feathers) rule one after another. But then it says in v19 that the 8 "under wings" (little feathers) are kings who will reign for a short time. "And two of them shall perish, when the middle time approacheth: four shall be kept for a while until the time of the ending thereof shall approach: but two shall be kept unto the end." Which suggests that two of these kings who rule for a short time will be interspersed in with the 12 wings, despite it saying the 12 will rule "one after another". None of that is insurmountable. I wouldn't even consider it unusual for an ancient prophecy to not have details in order as we might expect them today. One could be justified in arguing either way - 12 large rule, then the 8 small (forget the three heads for now); or 2 of the little are intermixed with the 12 large, then the rest of the little. Neither is unreasonable. Technical problem: in 11:13-17, but especially v17, it says of the second feather which ruled for a long time, "There shall none after thee attain unto thy time, neither unto the half thereof." Brother Rush argues that this is FDR, who served 4 terms (but only 12 years, not 16). Other presidents since him have served 2 terms, 8 years, which is more than half of 12. And if you count 4 terms, they served 2, which is half as many, and the verse says they won't even get to half. Brother Rush overcomes this by saying that Webster's 1828 dictionary defines "attain" "as exceeding or surpassing". The Webster's 1828 website doesn't agree. (But, "gain, overtake, arrive at" is the definition in Johnson's 1828 dictionary - Webster includes overtake, but also as a secondary possibility, barely mentioned.) Now, I'm taking brother Rush's assertion that the first wing to rule this eagle is Herbert Hoover (see the excerpt for why - secret organization), and starting there. For some reason, Rush himself screws up after wing #12 / president #14 (Barack Obama): Duration President Wing / Feather 4 Herbert Hoover Wing 1 of 12 12 Franklin D. Roosevelt Wing 2 of 12 8 Harry S. Truman Wing 3 of 12 8 Dwight D Eisenhower Wing 4 of 12 2 John F. Kennedy Feather 1 of 8 6 Lyndon B. Johnson Wing 5 of 12 5 Richard M. Nixon Feather 2 of 8 45 years to the middle 2.5 Gerald R. Ford Wing 6 of 12 4 Jimmy Carter Wing 7 of 12 8 Ronald Reagan Wing 8 of 12 4 George Bush Wing 9 of 12 8 Bill Clinton Wing 10 of 12 8 George W. Bush Wing 11 of 12 8 Barack Obama Wing 12 of 12 1 Donald J. Trump Feather 3 of 8 3 Joseph R. Biden Feather 4 of 8 46.5 years since the middle Maybe he screwed it up because he was using one of the weird translations. Anywho, this screw up is why I stopped after chapter 2 and went back to 2 Esdras 11-12 to map it out for myself. Ignoring that, let us start with Obama, the last wing. At this point, all 12 wings and 2 of 8 feathers have ruled, leaving us 6 feathers. Here's what the vision says about those: 11:24: two of the 6 remaining go and move under the head on the right (presumably ally themselves politically). These are the two saved to the end (see above). Of the remaining 4, they wanted to rule (11:25) 11:26: (feather 3 of 8) "there was one set up, but within a while it appeared no more" - this is no different from previous language. But the translation Rush is using says "there was one set up, but shortly it appeared no more." He takes the "shortly" to mean the presidency would be cut short - Trump's presidency. No, "shortly" hasn't been used before, but had he gone to the interpretation, that makes it clear that all the little feathers will rule for a shorter time (12:20). So Trump's rule didn't have to be cut short for "shortly" to apply. (Alternately, Rush somehow skipped this feather.) 11:27: (feather 4 of 8) "A second also, and it was sooner away than the first." This suggests that Biden's presidency will end before its full 4 years are up (if Rush's interpretation is correct, once his own error is fixed). Rush actually completely misses either feather 3 or feather 4 - it's impossible to tell which - if he thinks Trump is feather 4, he misses #3; if he thinks Trump is feather 3, he misses 4. Having jumped over one feather without addressing it, he goes straight to feathers 5 and 6 (and this is where he poses some absurd scenarios that I'm not even going to bother addressing - we're past that anyway with Biden being feather 4). Truly baffled that he could screw this part up even before Biden was elected. Note that feathers 3, 4, 5, and 6 are "kept for a while until the time of the ending thereof shall approach" (ending of the eagle). This would suggest we're nearing the end. Feathers 7 & 8 will be "kept unto the end". Anywho, if brother Rush is correct (after I've corrected his mistake), here's what's going to happen: Biden's presidency will be cut short - shorter than Trump's. Feathers 5 & 6 - two folk who want to rule (11:28) will be "eaten up" when the three heads awake with the larger one ruling and the two smaller ones its allies. The large head rules "with much oppression" and more power than any of its predecessors. "For these (the three heads) are they that shall accomplish her (the eagle's) wickedness, and that shall finish her last end." (Whether this will be the next president after Biden or something else due to government collapse, heaven knows.) Suddenly the big giant head (sorry, couldn't resist) will die in its bed in pain (11:33 and 12:26) Then the right and left heads will rule together, but the right head will kill the left with the sword (11:34-35, 12:27-28) Then the right will also die by the sword (12:28) after being condemned by the Lord (11:36-12:2) Then the last two feathers (7 & 8) will rule together "and their kingdom was small (likely means short), and full of uproar" (12:2) These two will be burned up along with the entire eagle (12:3, 29-33) But don't worry, "For the rest of my people shall he deliver with mercy, those that have been preserved throughout my borders, and he shall make them joyful until the coming of the end, even the day of judgement, whereof I have spoken unto thee from the beginning." Well, I guess I'll go read chapter 3 now. Final thought: If brother Rush is seeking to set himself up above prophets or to lead people astray, starting the book with an interpretation of a vision from the apocrypha, where there's nothing from any prophet to contradict him, is a clever move to gain the reader's trust in his authenticity and insight. (I'd be more convinced were it not for the glaring "feather 3/4 error" and the absurdities of what might happen if Trump's presidency were cut short.) Anywho, FWIW, and curious if anyone else has thoughts. If you made it this far, you deserve a milkshake - go get one!

Tripped over a video of Hartman Rector, Jr.'s October 1985 GC talk while scrolling Instagram today (yes, it's possible to see mostly good stuff on Instagram). Here's the portion he was saying (you can watch it here, starting at 2:45) : (Bolding is mine.) I laughed because it was so familiar. My parents used to say similar things, especially my dad. I think it's sad that so many out there seem never to have learned that the universe really doesn't care whether they want to. Learning to do things you don't want to is an extremely valuable lesson, one every child should learn when they're little - as little as possible and as often as it takes. (For the record, I never had to milk cows, and I'm glad. )

That's one of the biggest lessons serving a mission teaches. I don't think I ever actually enjoyed knocking on stranger's door but I sure did a lot of it. At some point you have to develop a mindset of willing to do things simply because it's right.

I have been considering this topic since last summer when my family and I took a road trip from Colorado to Florida. Along the way, we stopped at as many temples as possible and took our girls around the grounds and into the lobbies if they were open. The Las Vegas temple was in my mission, and a symbol I always remember seeing represented there a lot was a square with a circle in it. I have heard that this symbol can represent the union of man's relationship with God. On my mission, I thought about the tools you would use to draw a perfect square and a circle, a compass and a square, and that the symbol to me represented the fulfillment of covenants when we act and live up to promises. Recently in discussing the scriptures with my family, we talked about Revelation 12 and the connections between the woman in that chapter and the symbolism of the column on the Nauvoo temple depicting the mood, sun, and stars. The Salt Lake City temple could almost double as an astrology dome for all the astrological-based symbolism it has. You also have the thousands of eight-pointed stars all over the San Diego temple, which Elder Haight said was simply a designer's aesthetic choice but has helped spark a whole (false, IMO) belief in it representing the Seal of Melchizedek. Given the topic, are there other good resources that examine more symbolism in the architecture, designs, and decorative choices of temples?

Ether 3 v1: It has been suggested that the brother of Jared knew the account of the "window" in Noah's ark and that it was similar to these stones and that was where it got the idea (learned from an institute teacher, also heard elsewhere, but I forget the details). v2+: IMO, this is nothing like the sort of prayers we hear in the Church, but it ought to be. There are a lot of lessons in this prayer, but I'm not sure I have the energy this (late) morning to explore them (my head is killing me). At a high level: humility, confession, testimony, the attributes of God, our need of Him, why pray, the virtue of working and thinking... v5: "thou canst do this" It's as if the brother of Jared is giving the Lord a pep talk. Or just expressing confidence in the Lord. Either way, it's an intimate and endearing exchange, for some reason. v6+: The mixture of complete faith, knowledge, and revelation here is interesting. As is the degree of confidence the brother of Jared has with the Lord. I have to believe this comes from a combination of humility, constant repentance, striving hard to keep the commandments, and rock-solid faith. v9: Surely the Lord knew full well what the brother of Jared saw, yet he asks. The Lord's way of teaching is to ask questions - to get us thinking! v11: I believe this is an eternal principle. The Lord asks the brother of Jared if he (bofJ) believes (already, present tense) the words which the Lord shall (future tense) speak - before the Lord has spoken them, before the brother of Jared has heard them - does he believe something he doesn't even know yet! I believe this is how the Lord works, it is a principle of receiving revelation. If you would receive guidance from the Lord, you must believe it (or really, believe Him) first and receive it second. This is what the scriptures mean by "sincere intent". The Lord will only reveal things to you if you already believe and fully intend to act in harmony with those things. This is also what "faith in Jesus Christ" means - like Enos, we must know that God cannot lie (and the brother of Jared, v12). This is yet another way in which the Lord's ways are reverse of the world's: the world says "prove it and then I'll believe", the Lord says, "believe and then I will reveal it". v12: It can be faith promoting to ponder these truths for a time - that God speaks truth and cannot lie. v13: "Because thou knowest these things ..." What things? The Lord has yet to speak whatever words he was referring to in v11, so far as we have here. It appears that verse 12 contains "these things". All the more reason to ponder on them! (Perhaps, too, "these things" include v9 - that Christ will take upon himself flesh and blood.) v14: Possibly the clearest explanation of the gospel or doctrine of Jesus Christ. v15: Lots of speculation about this "never have I showed myself...", since other prophets before this had seen the Lord. Most seem to think it's the manner in which the Lord showed himself - as he would look when mortal. v24: Ah, disregard yesterday - Jared perceived it as the people being confounded, but here the Lord says it's the language he confounded (probably the same thing from different perspective, but still). v25: This seems to be what happens with all prophets who are allowed into the Lord's presence, though it's not always been recorded. v26: This is faith - have sufficient faith in the Lord and all the Lord's word to you will be fulfilled. Some things are not (yet) for public consumption. Learn to keep sacred things sacred. Trust the Lord's timing. Ether 4 v6+: The need for faithfulness in what you already have - if you hope for more, master what you already have. Believe the Lord! Believe in the Lord! v12: How to know if it's from God. v15+: Reason to believe. v18-19: The message is always the same: Repent, come unto Christ and follow him. Ether 5 (getting ahead) Personal instruction to Joseph Smith!

Regarding Moroni 10:31-32 Compare: Notice this is repeated twice in the Book of Mormon. Then a third time with an alteration. I believe it was a dispensational change just as the baptism prayer was changed after the resurrection. To be more clear, here is my personal interpretation/modification.