Hm. Do you have a low opinion of UofU folks in general, or do you have a low opinion of anyone who's going to be a fan of any university? I'm a UofU fan, but all my smack talking about BYU is done lightheartedly, restricted to good-natured sports competition festivity.
I mean, I graduated from the U, but I've had a mostly positive opinion of the Y for as long as I've had an opinion. Back in my college days, my BYU buddy and I would 'crash' each other's campuses every now and then and sit in on each other's classes, just to get a taste. We offered/urged our kiddos to look into attending BYU as their college of choice. My wife is currently doing things through BYU pathways. Do I somehow surprise you, JJ?
I also don't think Rush is an apostate etc. I don't even think he is extreme. He came up with a plausible explanation and we will see if he got it right or not.
I also don't think Rush is an apostate etc. I don't even think he is extreme. He came up with a plausible explanation and we will see if he got it right or not.
He still has a shot at being correct. If Biden is removed from office (death, impeachment, resignation, etc.) the pattern appears to be correct. If that doesn't happen, then it apparently was a false interpretation.
We don't have too long to wait.
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!
I have done a lot of force on force training over the years. I have also played the role of the bad guy. Inevitably the team will win. I have reasonably good skills and so far the only times I have won as a solo bad guy was because some people we ran through the training had not been trained in building clearing. Literally, they did not know what they were doing. Odds are heavily against a single person winning against a group with training.
I know there is a new movie out in the Equalizer series. They have been quite popular – I just think they are a little unrealistic. At least these kind of heroes. Having been in the military, assigned to work with military intelligence and having in the Defense Department for a number of years – anyone expert in their craft are seldom retired while at the pinnacle of their expertise.
There is something else – often in the entertainment world the hero takes on many and dispenses of them with little effort. There can be 50 expert bad guys firing on the good guy and missing while the good guy takes out a bad guy with every shot. In reality world none of the elite special teams attack as a single individual with a hand gun.
One thing I learned during my military experience – if I am ever in a life-threatening combat situation, I will avoid going it alone – especially with inferior weapons (handgun or anything inferior to my opponent’s weapons). A single individual is no match for a team working together – ever. Even the classic story of David facing Goliath often misses the most important notion that David had divine assistance and that it was that assistance and not David’s exceptional abilities that was the difference.
My whole point is that we should never attempt to tackle anything of importance on our own. As much as we think we ought to be up to outstanding tasks – if something is important we should always think in terms of seeking and accepting help. All too often we think to do too many things by ourselves – even when we are giving a calling – it is seldom a good idea to much of anything all on our own.
I'd argue that Americans haven't largely cared about moral character for decades. Conservatives still claim it does (as of the 2018 Gallup Poll, anyway) but I believe it's just lip service for most of them as well.
That said, even for those that it does really matter for it's a tough choice. Take the last, or upcoming, election. I don't personally believe that either candidate has a moral character that I'd support. However, one of them is going to be president so I have a choice of voting for who I believe will be best for America or I write in a candidate that has character I can support. In a national election, that's a safer way to stand on moral high ground and say "it wasn't me" because my one vote likely isn't going to change the outcome. In my local election, where candidates win by 10's of votes and sometimes less, doing so could have serious negative impacts on my life.
That's probably my largest issue with most politicians. However, if I draw a very hard line around this criteria I believe I'll rarely get a chance to vote OR be forced to vote for someone I believe won't be able to do the job.
This is the propaganda headlines that drive me batty. I'm not a huge fan of Trump, but a small group of protestors OUTSIDE the venue that likely showed up from who-knows-where to specifically boo Trump doesn't mean "that's an issue". Did you see the clips where the stadium erupted in cheers when he walked onto the field? Nah. People wouldn't want to report that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqy2U6Xk4Rg
I won't vote for him in the primary, but I will without regret if he wins the nomination.
Not to my knowledge. At least, it has always only been bishopric, stake presidency, stake high council representatives (on one side, speakers / participants on the other).
The handbook states who should be invited to sit on the stand. It doesn't specifically prohibit anyone, but I personally wouldn't work outside of those listed in the handbook. I've never seen anyone else work outside that, either.
I can see the whole article (if you can't, disable javascript - apparently their paywall isn't sophisticated), so here's what I can see... Title and sub-title: "'A slap in the face': LDS Relief Society leaders ordered off the stand" and "Area president puts an end to this Bay Area tradition. Many women are asking: Why?"
Apparently some wards in San Francisco have been doing this for "a decade or more". The article then goes on to create as much controversy, contention, and drama as it can manage. Humility and logic appear to be lacking.
mirkwood reacted to Just_A_Guy in Another Woke-ism Worming Its Way Into Our Culture
mirkwood got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Another Woke-ism Worming Its Way Into Our Culture
mirkwood got a reaction from Jedi_Nephite in Another Woke-ism Worming Its Way Into Our Culture
mirkwood got a reaction from Grunt in Another Woke-ism Worming Its Way Into Our Culture
mirkwood got a reaction from Carborendum in Another Woke-ism Worming Its Way Into Our Culture
mirkwood got a reaction from zil2 in Another Woke-ism Worming Its Way Into Our Culture
mirkwood got a reaction from Still_Small_Voice in Ezra's Eagle
mirkwood got a reaction from LDSGator in Equalizer