• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SpiritDragon last won the day on January 2 2019

SpiritDragon had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The land Northward
  • Interests
    Martial Arts

Recent Profile Visitors

6008 profile views

SpiritDragon's Achievements

  1. @CarborendumThanks for the well thought out post. I know that some wrestle with the inspired version of John 1 as it doesn't appear to be consistent within itself by having the word be the gospel in verse 1, but then default back to the Word being made flesh in verse 14 and that it doesn't seem logical to have the gospel be made flesh (i.e. everyone knows that the Lord is the word made flesh) and yet I think your post nails this succinctly that the "good news" or "good message" isn't only a message, but embodied in the Saviour Himself. Without Him there is no good news, and thus He is in very reality the good news made flesh. As to the point that it's not a correction per se, but a commentary - the fact that in verses 14 and 16 the text returns to stating the Word is the Lord would indicate to me that you are correct or these would surely have been altered to go along with separating the Word and God to further delineation as the word being the gospel.
  2. What are your sources on point number 3?
  3. A truly great insight. Thanks. A great supply of messengers on the order of John the beloved and the three nephites to call upon as needed.
  4. Thanks everyone for the great insights! Truly appreciated. @zil2 I'm honoured that you returned to comment on my question 😃.
  5. In D&C 129 we are given three grand keys for discerning the nature of messengers whether they be resurrected holy messengers (angels), premortal spirits of just men made perfect (possibly also post-mortal spirits of just men made perfect that are still awaiting resurrection), or a devil in disguise. It seems that as the resurrection had not yet taken place and that all messengers we receive on this earth have either lived here or will live here, that all Old Testament heavenly messengers (still often called angels) should be spirits, should they not? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting something, but this is my understanding. With that being the case, here is the seeming conflict with Genesis 19 (and likely others, but that's the text that caused me to see what appears to be an incongruence to figure out): The angels that come to rescue Lot and his family, seem to be of physical form able to grab him and pull him inside the door Also in the 3rd verse, these men ate the meal Lot had prepared for them. This also seems to suggest physicality as it coincides with a proof given in the account of Jesus' resurrection that he ate broiled fish after explaining that 'a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have'. Then in verse 16 of Genesis 19, the men take lot and his family members by the hand and convey them out of the city. If these messengers were spirits as one might otherwise suppose, this should not be possible given the grand keys given in D&C 129 that the spirits would not offer a hand that could not be felt. This leaves the apparent possibilities in my mind that either these men were mortals sent to help Lot, they were somehow resurrected beings before Christ, or there is something missing from or inaccurate about D&C 129. Is there any commentary on these men visiting Lot (also introduced as angels) by any church leaders that anyone is aware of that helps explain this disconnect, or any other insights group members may have to share? Thanks, SD
  6. Thanks so much for this, I had somehow missed it, but really appreciate it and thought it deserved more than a mere reaction click!
  7. Thank you for your thoughts. It's a different perspective than I get from reading the same things and that is largely what I came asking for. Much appreciated.
  8. @Just_A_Guy I doubt, you're at risk of being thought apostate. Me on the other hand - I'm sure many wonder, and they may be right.
  9. In response to examples of others seeing the premortal Christ let me share the following, which is by no means an exhaustive list: Abraham sees the Lord on at least these two occasions: Genesis 12:7, 17:1 It is strongly insinuated that even his wife/concubine Hagar sees the Lord in Gen 16:13 Jacob sees the lord in Gen 32:30 Perhaps most well known is Moses seeing the Lord in Exodus 33 and greater detail in Moses 1 Isaiah sees the premortal Christ in Isaiah 6 Amos sees the Lord in Amos 9:1 David sees the Lord: Psalm 63:2 Leaving the OT to the BOM we have numerous other examples in Lehi, Nephi, Jacob and I'm sure more if I were to really dig into it. Naturally, these post date the visit to the Brother of Jared, but they are encounters with the premortal Lord. Also as shared in the opening post, is the strong messaging that Enoch not only saw the Lord, but walked with Him 365 years continually before His face which does predate the Brother of Jared and certainly implies faith and access to the Lord comparable to that of the Brother of Jared. I realize the details of these experiences aren't elucidated to the same detail as the account in the Book of Ether, and I'm not beholden to the idea that every meeting with the Lord either via physical eyes or in vision are the same magnitude, but I'd like you @CV75to further expound upon your assertion that it goes beyond quickening, transfiguration etc. If others see that he has the form of a man, how are they not seeing what the Brother of Jared saw?
  10. Are you looking for only examples prior to the Brother of Jared in historical context, or any such experience among prophets/individuals in Christ's premortal period?
  11. Hey everyone, I'm wondering what thoughts others have on what could be considered the absolutist nature of the statement in Ether 3 that no one prior to the Brother of Jared had faith to see God. I want to be clear that I'm not trying to create any sort of attack situation against the Book of Mormon, as I believe it to be true - instead I'm trying to simply get other's thoughts to help me work some things out that I'm thinking on, and because I have children I'm always looking for concise and accurate information to help them with as they have questions and while honest, the answer, "I don't know" just doesn't seem to be a faith promoting response from my perspective. So digging into this, here is the passage from Ether 3 in question: My primary wonderance is how this can be that he is the first. I've often just left it as being a matter of him living way back.... but still Adam surely walked with god in the garden (perhaps doesn't apply as being prior to the Fall) Cain seems to have conversed with the Lord (not necessarily seeing him, but still interesting and speaking to the fact that his killing of Abel was more than simple murder, but a covenant with Satan leading him to perdition - a state seemingly reserved for those who have sinned against the greater light, possibly only for those who have had their calling and election sure and chosen a different path anyway) and Enoch walked with God as did Noah, the former being taken up without tasting death along with a full city. These are all events prior to the tower of Babel saga. Perhaps, I'm reading too much into things, but it seems to me that the brother of Jared was clearly not the first to witness the Lord. I would wonder if perhaps a distinction would be made that he was the first to see Him with mortal eyes, and not in vision, but in the Doctrine and Covenants it seems pretty clear that Enoch definitely beheld the Lord: One possibility that I see, is that I've always created a false understanding of this to be a chronological event that no one before has seen the Lord in the form of his mortal body while yet in the spirit prior to this event, when perhaps that is not actually what the scripture in Ether says at all. It says never has the Lord shown himself unto MAN, not that he hasn't shown himself unto individual men/women. This seems to be in keeping with Moses interaction with the Lord that is seemingly contradictory where in the same chapter it states that Moses spoke with God face to face, but also that no man shall see his face and live. This is clarified better in the JST/Inspired version: So I guess my thoughts are that the Brother of Jared experience has less to do with timing and more to do with the class of individual in which case the word "man" is being used generically as a class of those in the fallen state of natural man being an enemy to god, and never have (or will) these have the faith to meet Jesus in the flesh, but there are those such as Enoch and the Brother of Jared who essentially ascended to a higher plane (think Isaiah's spiritual ladder elucidated by Gileadi's works where Jacob/Israel are a class of believers that still have much work to do in repenting and truly turning their lives over to the Lord, but Zion/Jerusalem refers to a different class of people of who are covenant keeper). This allows for both the situation where any number of individuals could see God prior to the Brother of Jared's sacred experience and yet the statement that NEVER BEFORE has MAN still apply in truth.
  12. Just a potentially interesting article to throw on concerning horses in pre-spanish america: https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/yes-world-there-were-horses-in-native-culture-before-the-settlers-came
  13. Hi Fether, I don't believe the term is used largely by others, but I've come across the concept in studies of environment and behavior that may match what you're looking for. I call it the proximity impulse. Basically, when something we desire is close and easy to access we are more likely to engage in the desire. A classic example is a study called the Office Candy Dish, where visible, open, candy dishes in close proximity to workers leads to more candy consumption than closed off opaque candy dishes or those that are further away. Thus, just as the candy was not needed before seeing it and being able to grab it, The black hole video wasn't needed until it showed up and became available. I do believe some of these are compounded by an aspect of the fear of missing out as well though, because unless you write down the video name and allot a time to come back later part of you realizes that by not watching it now you may never do so. I think the same can be said of obsessing over responding to a question, except in this case it's an added level of instant gratification as well. By going to sleep and responding in the morning there is delayed gratification in being the one with the answer and the supposed prestige it may bring. There may also be an element of challenge in responding to a text that may be perceived at some level as creating an unsafe environment that needs to be resolved before sleep. Anyways, hopefully there's something helpful in there for you.
  14. Sounds like you've watched this episode before