SpiritDragon

Good to be visible

I'd be inclined to speak on symbolism in the scriptures and becoming more fluent in the language of symbols to get more out our temple experiences. Alternatively, I'd speak about Identity. Pres. Nelson has taught the importance of three core identities of Child of God, Child of the Covenant, and Disciple of Christ. I'd link this to the concept of many examples where the individuals or people as a community had mighty changes of heart leading to a state of no desire to sin, but to follow the Lord. This would be tied to how a core identity dictates behavior. I'd probably draw on a quote like Boyd K. Packer speaking about how the study of the gospel changes behavior faster than the study of behavior - perhaps sprinkle in the story of the son of the French king (Louis 14?) when asked why he wouldn't succumb to debauchery around him on offer and he stated because he was the son of the king, or perhaps just the idea that someone who identifies as a non-smoker being very unlikely to want a cigarette- the idea would be drawing together how really coming to believe within one's self these core identities would work wonders to correct to behaviors.

I'm going to jump in on the polytheism vs monotheism vs other names debate. I also have to reiterate as others have said that the doctrine of Christ's restored church and in all ages where Truth was being dispensed is that of One true and living God. Call it what you will, but monotheism is the best fit as far as I'm concerned. As for a Biblical passage to the effect, @Vort shared some great passages above establishing the One true God point. I think the challenge we have too often is not taking God at His word and instead of trusting in the Lord, we lean to our own understanding. While we can say that because there are distinct physical and spiritual personages that constitute the godhead and infinite possibilities of a lineage of gods that clearly there are more than one God. However, when Jesus prays that those that are given Him can be one with Him as He is one with the Father, I believe He is inciting a greater oneness than we fully grasp. I think some of our best ways of describing this oneness fall short because of our imperfections from the Fall. Even Zion is said to be of ONE HEART and ONE MIND, and yet we don't worry about everyone fusing together and sharing a physical heart. In looking at a team working together for a common goal, a government that is referred to as one government, a family that is unified and sticks together we get a small sense of a unified purpose that we may use to attempt to explain a oneness of purpose, but I firmly believe it still falls short of hitting the mark to better explain a multiplicity being one. So I think at the end of the day, we are best served to simply accept God at His word that there is one true and living God. As to the idea of individuals being exalted and becoming gods, I think this leads into the disservice that is done with this topic. I know anytime the doctrine according to SpiritDragon is coming out we enter shaky ground, so beyond simply accepting God's teaching on the matter, this is my best attempt to explain how I'm currently viewing this topic that is an evolving understanding for me that falls back on the bedrock of the Lord himself teaching there is One God. I have two sort of models that I view as being closer to what I think the case is. The initiates into an order model: In this model I view God as an order, like those entering into the order of the priesthood, but with a greater oneness achieved by attaining an eye single to the glory of God (always desiring to abide by eternal law with a perfect harmony of balance between conflicting forces such as justice and mercy). Here each member of the order of God (one God, one order) has become God (one with God, Joint heirs with Christ, having all that He and His Father Hath). Within said order while our Heavenly Father and Jesus will always be revered as God and given due respect and worship, in keeping with the Saviour's teachings of the greatest being the least, this glory will be humbly given back to all members of the family of God, the order of God, the One God. Pride can have no place within this unity and is one reason why Satan's idea of getting the glory for himself failed from it's inception, it lacked the necessary ingredients for true oneness by seeking position and glory rather than humility and shared glory. My second way of looking at it, is less well thought out and more a different attempt to understand many being one. If we are to look at our current human bodies, we are made up of nearly countless bacteria, many systems, organs, cells, and elements. While they can be separated out to component parts, they are each unique and play a role in the whole. This may also be referenced in a simpler sense in the scriptures speaking of the body of Christ. While we may look at the church as a whole as being part of the body of Christ, perhaps we could do better to limit this to the Church of the First Born (those given to Christ that He prays can be one with Him). Anyway, I share these models not to suggest that they are the only and right way to view things, but to share some thought processes that may help others in their journey to make sense of seemingly contrary points in that we have been taught there is One God and yet multiple individuals who are God.

So you figure that this debate was nothing more than Biden's Dukakis in the tank moment?

Thanks. It is rare of me to pop in these days.

I'm curious to see how this all plays out in the long run. Of course, my being Canadian leaves me at a disadvantage knowing what US citizens are actually going through and the reality on the ground, and of course even then it can be tricky to parse out what is bad policy, at what level of government and what is the result of external forces beyond government control. In any event, it seems to me that the way the mainstream media has run cover for Biden is almost on the level of state-sponsored propaganda in favour of Trudeau here in Canada that has propped him up for nine years too long. So with the media seemingly turning on Biden during and right after the debate in some cases calling for a replacement, it strikes me that was the play all along to push this debate early in June so there would be time before the conventions to replace Biden. I mean, it seemed like even CNN was all too eager to jump on board the Biden lost the debate as though they had scripts written in advance knowing he'd finally showcase his obvious cognitive decline that has certainly become harder for him to hide than four years ago when it was still obvious he'd be like this by now. Time will tell - was this staged to ruin Biden and usher in someone else? Was Biden supposed to win first and then be replaced to usher in someone else? Is this all just a bad miscalculation on the part of the Democrats?

@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.

What are your sources on point number 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.

Thanks everyone for the great insights! Truly appreciated. @zil2 I'm honoured that you returned to comment on my question 😃.

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

Thanks so much for this, I had somehow missed it, but really appreciate it and thought it deserved more than a mere reaction click!

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.

That's an excellent insight. Certainly a very plausible reading.

@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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

Sounds like you've watched this episode before

This is one of those stories that I'm not 100% sure is real, but I picked it up on my mission. Sharing horror stories of things that happened (particularly in testimony meetings) when we had investigators visiting, and most of us were sharing stories of weird and/or "deep" doctrine being shared that caused us some explaining to do with our investigators, one of my fellow missionaries shared the following story: While sitting there listening to a sister's remarks, this is essentially the dialogue that follows - Sister (at pulpit sobbing): ... this always happens to me, I start to get emotional and can't speak clearly. I'm such a big boob! Bishop (trying to console her, a little too close to the mic): That's alright, sister, the Bishop likes big boobs.

That is terrifying. We all always pose a potential risk of spreading communicable disease, and disease has always been among us. Let's just cede more power to the government to interfere in our lives, yeesh. As for the reference to the prior conversation, I thank you for your input. I'm undecided on where I stand with that issue still and perhaps border on the side of apostasy in my beliefs, so I'll keep those thoughts to myself - although I have formed them through scripture study and some prayer. Either way, I appreciate the apologetic approach and have wrestled with various iterations of how this could be. I suppose, in many ways it comes back to a much earlier conversation (circa 2012ish) wherein I expressed concerns over personal interpretation of spiritual answers. It's hard because if I'm supposed to follow personal revelation and follow the prophet and the two don't agree, which is wrong? Either my personal revelation upon which my testimony was originally developed is askew calling in to question the validity of anything moving forward, or something else entirely and I just don't know.

Which is really not that different, I suppose. The idea behind setting up these systems is no doubt still driven by a hope to reach a specific goal. It's not dissimilar from missionary goals being followed up with action items - something that can actually be acted on. Thus we can think of systems as being sets of action items that are focused on to still ultimately attaining a goal, at least if I'm understanding correctly. Perhaps a distinction would be that success is predicated on following the system and not attaining the goal... but at the same time if the end goal is not being attained but the system is being adhered to then it would inform the user that the system is failing, not the user, and thus the system needs to be adjusted. On the other hand, if the system is not being followed, the person needs to figure out why and follow it, but can't blame the system - they have to own up to not following through.

I'm curious about this as well. I've had Atomic Habits on my birthday/Christmas wishlist for a couple years now but it has been overlooked, so I haven't read it yet, but I've heard this concept of systems vs goals before and I'm not sure I see the distinction. Perhaps it's akin to what I would refer to as the difference between behaviour goals and outcome goals. We can't directly control outcomes (i.e. drop xyz pounds, make X sales, etc.) But we can control behaviours (hit the gym, skip the sweets, talk to X people, ask for referrals, etc.) By leveraging behaviours associated with outcomes we move the needle by controlling what we can control. When we also fall short of our behaviour goals we can use these "failures" as good information gathering opportunities to learn what factors contributed to the lack of success one day or why on a different occasion we were successful. When sufficient info is collected it makes it easier to implement strategies to increase the success rate sticking to desired behaviours.