SpiritDragon

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.


 

I'm reminded of my reading with regards to Hebrew teachings, or at least what I read. It is common in the Book of Mormon, especially, with regards to exaggeration (or what may have been according to who wrote the words at that time).
In the Book of Mormon, how often do we read the following type of phrase pertaining to the number of deaths in the war, and then the next war something is said, and then the next war something similar is said -- exaggeration pertaining to the current war.
This could be true according to the time, the view of the author. This could be according to the generation also. In that generation, this was the case. Or simply a phrase to draw attention to the magnitude of the casualties, rather than trying to pin down an exact number.
When I read this statement, I think it is the same. Adam obviously saw the Lord again and was brought back into his presence. This would mean he would have seen the Lord the same way as the Brother of Jared.
As already mentioned though, we don't know if anyone when watching something that the Lord was doing that they saw the Lord to a degree. So, in that sense, the record could easily mean exactly what it said. As far as we know, those who saw the Lord saw him. There was no partial vision. This highlights the power of faith, that if we have enough faith -- the veil becomes thin. Remembering the words of the Brother of Jared -- if you "touch" these stones. His faith was strong, and equal to knowledge (so to speak) that the finger of the Lord was seen -- just the finger because that is what he requested.
Or simply another Hebraic exaggeration to make a point.
Let's look at the English language. The word favorite. Literally, a favorite means a favorite, but how often do we use the word favorite for multiple items. I was one day teaching a seminary class and mentioned how this is my favorite scripture by which a student then said, "You have a lot of 'favorite' scriptures." I laughed and said, "Yes, I do."

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.


 

There is alot of stuff going on here in this chapter.  But to answer your question, I would focus on the verses 14&15.
Jehovah had showed himself to many of the prophets that had preceeded Mahonri.
But the physical demonstration that the Brother of Jared received, seems to have been more complete.
AND Jehovah had never previously revealed to anyone that He would eventually become Jesus Christ.
Mahonri was the first prophet to know Jehovah in his past, present, and future roles.  
 
Kinda like the opposite of Luke Skywaker's revelation with Darth Vader.   It was a big freakin deal.  
If you read between the lines, Jehovah is actually telling Mahonri.  "I AM YOUR FATHER."

Just those prior to Jared's, which would seem to have taken place slightly before Abraham's lifetime (or perhaps slightly overlapping his early life.

There is another possibility in this if we ignore the exact wording of what the Lord says, or at least reported and then translated as having said, and instead focus on what exactly happened that might be different from all of the previous encounters. The Lord did indeed show himself to others including at a meeting of Adam and many of his righteous posterity in which it appears the Lord appeared unto many of them.
But in all the instances prior to the brother of Jared it seems the Lord intended to show himself and did so. With the brother of Jared it appears that the showing was not caused by the Lord intending to do so but purely by the faith of the brother of Jared. If that is true then this particular type of showing would have been first.

I find it interesting that so many Saints will be able to say the phrase "The stick of Judah and the Stick of Ephraim" and not really understand where it came from or the context in which it is used.  Conversely, many sectarians know the prophecy of Ezekiel Ch 37 very well, they even have an interpretation of the sticks (which is partially true, but doesn't quite fit without Latter-day revelation)
Wouldn't it be great if we could put both of our understandings together to form a more cohesive understanding?  Well, I'll at least give it a try.
WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THE SECTARIANS
The sectarian view of the sticks is that they simply represent the Northern and Southern Kingdoms (Joseph/Ephraim and Judah respectively).  In the latter days, they would inherit Israel again and rule together as one people. 
And that seems to have been fulfilled with the founding of the Nation of Israel.
While incomplete, this is an accurate interpretation.  Yet, I've never heard anyone talk about this in our faith.  Whenever we talk about this chapter, it is always about the two books of scripture.  We rarely mention the prophecy of the uniting of Israel with this chapter.  If we did, we'd have a more complete understanding of what Joseph Smith said about the Book of Mormon.
WHAT SECTARIANS COULD LEARN FROM US  
The sticks are originally in the hand of the Judah and Ephraim respectively.  These are not simply "identities" of tribes.  They are the scriptures of the tribes.  These two are to be combined in one hand for the purpose of uniting the once separated kingdoms.  The word "write" keeps coming up regarding the sticks.  It is an important word that needs to be included in the interpretation.
I found a Jewish source that insists that the Nation of Israel has not completed the prophecy because the great majority of the Jews in Israel do not live according to the Torah.
They do not live the Torah sufficiently (in his estimation) and they have no temple.  Whatever was not written down about the temple before the scattering was lost.  They were able to retrieve some of it in the Book of Ezra.  But as a parallel, we did not record the temple ceremony until the mid 20th century.  It survived by oral repetition alone for 100 years among us.  The Jews most likely did not write down the most sacred (and most important) parts either.  So, those were completely lost and not restored among the Jews.
The Book of Mormon (The Stick of Joseph in the HAND of Ephraim) along with the other stick (the Bible in the HAND of Judah) are to be put together to unite the House of Israel.
It is a cutesy saying to say our scriptures are these sticks.  But do we understand the power behind these two books being united?  These two books have the power to unite our people.  Three remnants coming together.
 

Lest I be thought a complete apostate, let me preface this by saying that in general I think we are best served approaching scripture with the initial presumption that it means what it says it means.  But . . . 
When I get to messy passages, I try to remember that while the scriptures are history, there are not (with the possible exception of the D&C, and even that is likely filtered to some degree through Joseph Smith’s experience with ancient scripture) a post-Enlightenment western style of history.  Their authors did not necessarily share our assumptions about what history is, or how it should work, or what should or shouldn’t be included, or the quality of sources, or any literary quality that the end product should show. 
For example—I don’t remember if it was Herodotus or Thucydides; but one of them gave a “history” of a war complete with a general’s pre-battle speech to his men urging them to fight well, rehearsing their people’s founding legends and giving an exposition on the geopolitical significance of the importance of the battle they were about to fight.  Modern historians are pretty confident that this speech was not given in this particular form, and that the general who ostensibly gave the speech may not have even been at that battle.  But ancient readers may not have considered this to be much of an issue, because they considered “literary merit” (including the building of tension and other qualities of having a good story) to be at least as essential to “history” (as they understood it) as factual accuracy—sometimes, more so.
The words attributed to the Lord by Moroni (or Ether, or the Brother of Jared) may not have been what the Lord actually said.*  But it certainly reinforces the singular nature of what was happening, the extraordinary nature of the Brother of Jared’s faith, and the power of faith to work things that have never been wrought before. 
 
*Then again, maybe the Lord isn’t above a little hyperbole in the name of a good story, either—at least when dealing with ancients who had a broader definition of “history” than we do.  D&C 19:7 suggests that maybe the Lord is more interested in what we do as a result of His words, than whether we interpret the words themselves with the objectively proper degree of accuracy.

True statement. We must keep our eyes open, and our ears toward heaven. These works will start to become more obvious for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.

Each of our children learned to read in our (primarily) Book of Mormon scripture study. To begin with, they would recognize words by shape, such as "God" and "Lord" and "Jesus". By that time, they knew their alphabet (could recognize letters), so we started teaching them phonics, attaching sounds to letters. My oldest did not read well until shortly after his fifth birthday; his younger siblings, having older brothers to teach them, each began reading at four years old.
I went to one son's law school graduation six weeks or so back. He has taken what my wife and I have tried to do and has continued it, improving on it in many places. My older granddaughter was a week or two shy of her third birthday. During family scripture study, this still-two-year-old child read her verses mostly on her own. Not "read", but actually and in truth read, sounding out a couple of words she hadn't previously learned. Soon after we got home from that trip, my son sent me a short video of his now-barely-three-year-old girl reading Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham. He said he had read it to her one time the week before, but other than that, she didn't know the book. She sat in his lap and read the whole thing to him out loud. The video is adorable, as she's clearly working out what the words are. Makes me chuckle just thinking about it.
tl;dr:
Scripture reading is an outstanding way to introduce your child to reading and comprehension. Children are a whole lot smarter than we often realize or give them credit for.

The problem with some who homeschool is the same as the problem with some who use public schools, which is the same as the problem with every human being: Taking responsibility. To take responsibility for your children's education does not mean simply disenrolling them from public school. That may be a first step, but there are ten thousand more steps after that. People want to check something off their checklist and have it done with. For many things, that works. For educating your child, it does not.
Homeschooling is not a discrete activity. Homeschooling is best described as a lifestyle. Life itself becomes the school. Topics are not taught individually, divorced from their application in life; rather, the child is introduced to life's tasks and wonders in the context of the skills being taught, e.g. math.
There are those who listen to people (like me, perhaps) who decry the state of public education and suggest that homeschooling might be the best possible alternative. Those people, in a fit of pique, might then pull their children from the public schools. This in itself is not bad, and could be the first step to something good. But again, steps 2 through 10,001 must be taken, or the children are little better off than they were, and in at least some cases are actually worse off.
Homeschooling is not an event. Homeschooling is a lifestyle choice. You don't have to be perfect at it, just as you don't have to be perfect at any life choice you make, at least to begin with. You simply need to be dedicated to the tasks before you and humble enough to see when you're wrong or don't know what you're doing and get help. In my view, what we call "homeschooling" is really just family and friends taking care of each other, the way God intended us to live. If you give honest effort, you will very probably be okay and your children will benefit greatly from your sacrifices. If you think you can simply hand the kids a book and the TV remote, your children will get few if any benefits from your efforts.
I'm an advocate and perhaps an evangelist for homeschooling. But implicit in that advocacy is the idea that you actually homeschool your children.

I didn't realize Soft Cell was still touring.

Fascinating. 
The question is if we have found archeological evidence of this as well?  Historical records (written records) of these periods are scant, and I do not recall any that are currently notable that refer to horses being native to the Americas (but our knowledge of records and history is always changing, and my focus in history is not American History). 
Interesting article.

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

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

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

I'm curious about this.  Help me understand.
I realize many people would find this really exciting.  You're apparently one, as are many on this forum.
For myself, I don't get it.  It's a photograph.   Whether real or not, what does it actually do for us?  I don't understand it.
I understand historical records.  So, yes, put it in a museum or archive for preservation. I understand "memories".  Photographs can often spark memories of events and feelings during those events.  And if it is a memory that has faded, the photo can spark those memories and feelings anew.  Sound great.
But this is a person we have no living memory of.  We know "about" him from books, writings, stories, etc. All those things we have access to without the aid of a photo that was taken in a studio that we have no memory of.  So, what is the deal?
Maybe it is one of those things that comes from a person of my background.  But I just don't get it.

While we're on the topic of euphemisms, the phrase "to cover one's feet" does not mean "to take a nap". It means "to defecate". So when Saul went into a cave to "cover his feet" and David cut off a piece of his robe, Saul was not taking a nap, as so many commentaries seem to want to say. He was pooping, and thus very vulnerable; had David wished to do so, he could easily have killed Saul. Similarly, when King Eglon was disemboweled by Ehud, Ehud told the servants that the king was "covering his feet". That's why the servants waited so long (because they were embarrassed to interrupt the king—"ashamed" is the word the KJV uses) before finally going in and finding him dead.
Also, for the record, the phrase "pisseth against the wall" (as used by David to talk about the revenge he would take on all the males of Nabal's household) was not necessarily vulgar. The Anglo-Saxon-derived verb "to piss" simply meant (and means) the same as the Latin-derived "to urinate". Which is why we have the baby-talk word "pee"; it's the first letter of "piss".

Open mouth and insert foot.  Ouch.

I love this 👍 this is probably the closest thing, if not exactly, what I was describing

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.

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.

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.

By definition, a conspiracy is a plan, agreement or idea carried out, perpetrated or agreed upon by 2 or more individuals.  A conspiracy does not have to be false, ridiculous, unfounded or nefarious.  A conspiracy can be beneficial, true and even of great benefit.  We have all encountered ridiculous conspiracy theories that are obviously or even not so obviously way far out into the weeds so much so that to believe such nonsense would be a threat to our own intelligence.  But the strange thing about even the most ridiculous conspiracy theories is that none would most likely not even exist without an underlying conspiracy putting it out.
The point I am making is that we cannot live and communicate as a society without conspiracies and every time we encounter a conspiracy – we encounter a real, actual conspiracy – weather the actual conspiracy being presented is the conspiracy or the conspiracy to present it as a possibility.  Thus, there are only two possibilities behind every conspiracy.  The first is to uncover a truth for all to see or the second is to hide, distort or confuse truth.
With all this as a format – I will present a conspiracy theory.  My theory is that the core of every conspiracy is related to a war begun a very long time ago in the pre-existence and thus either has the backing of the G-dhead and those that follow them or Satan and those that follow him.  One would therefore think it quite easy to distinguish between the two.  But there is a problem.  That problem is that Satan and those that follow him have no aversion to making some of their conspiracies look like officially divine conspiracies.
So how do we identify which conspiracies are which?  For the answer I will present scripture from modern revelations intended and specific for these the Latter-days.  The scripture I present is from the Doctrine and Covenants section 9:
I have personally found that 99.9% of the time I can resolve within myself by my own studies what the source of a conspiracy is.  However, please note that there is only one way to be 100% accurate and on the “right” track.  This is, that after I have studied and considered what I can (including discussing with others) – that if there is any possibility of misunderstanding or missing of something – that I can only move forward through prayer and asking G-d directly for input.
What I have found is that even after all my studies and payer – quite often I do not have clear resolution one way or another, except to continue my efforts.  In fact, often when I believe I have uncovered truth I still have a feeling that what I uncovered is only part and that I ought to seek for more before my understanding is complete.
So, I open this discussion with the idea and intent to present conspiracies that I believe should be investigated more.  Perhaps I should start a new thread for each conspiracy????
 
The Traveler