askandanswer Posted January 6 Author Report Share Posted January 6 3 hours ago, Vort said: A&A stole my Pauline thunder. I guess I should have read further. Not a single point I made above was not made earlier, and probably better, than my effort. Story of my life. Along with several others on this forum I recently re-read the thread you wrote, I think back in 2016, for Sunday21 explaining/summarising the Book of Mormon. I also noted the great many highly appreciative comments of your work. Vort, LDSGator and zil2 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 6 Report Share Posted January 6 4 hours ago, Grunt said: One is something that will be intentionally forever muddled, Okay. If you're going to randomly define things a certain way and then set your points against that backdrop then...okay. Blurry doesn't mean intentionally forever muddled though. And it's strange to define it that way in my opinion. But if that's what you mean then..... okay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said: Okay. If you're going to randomly define things a certain way and then set your points against that backdrop then...okay. Blurry doesn't mean intentionally forever muddled though. And it's strange to define it that way in my opinion. But if that's what you mean then..... okay. I'm not randomly defining things. When something is blurry it is indistinct and unclear. This could be a permanent trait, and I refer to it as such. Lack of understanding requires there to be an understanding. When you get it you now understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 1 minute ago, Grunt said: I'm not randomly defining things. When something is blurry it is indistinct and unclear. This could be a permanent trait, and I refer to it as such. Lack of understanding requires there to be an understanding. When you get it you now understand it. It's the referring to it as a permanent trait that I find random and strange. But like I said...if you mean God's way isn't to make things permanently blurry for his children who are faithful then.... yeah. Obviously. Grunt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikbone Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 (edited) “The book of Revelations is one of the plainest books God ever caused to be written.” Joseph Smith Jr https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/166 What some people perceive as confusing or blurry, can be clear as day for others. The spirit of prophecy probably helps. Edited January 7 by mikbone Grunt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classylady Posted January 7 Report Share Posted January 7 On 1/5/2024 at 5:05 PM, Vort said: By definition, angels are messengers from God. Angelic visitations recorded in scripture are almost always to prophets and devout believers (with Paul, Alma, and the sons of Mosiah standing out as stark exceptions). These visitations seem to me to have the quality of a Priesthood assignment, which might therefore be considered a Priesthood responsibility. This would explain why the angels we read of in these visitations are male. I agree with Vort’s understanding. Most scriptural references of angelic visitations are to the prophets or leaders, which in my mind would be a Priesthood assignment. However, when I read many of my family history events, or have talked to those who have had angelic visitors, many of the angelic visitors are female—usually a deceased family member. Vort, laronius, zil2 and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.