LDS Freedom Forum

http://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/2 ... rvant.html

Enjoy!

What you have said is compelling.

While I cannot agree with everything you say, you have certainly given me much to think about.

Some additional thoughts: It is important not to discount Joseph Smith in this. His role was still very important... as he fulfilled at least some of the Prophecies pertaining to the Marred Servant. His role was to lay the foundation for the Marred Servant, even as John the Baptist laid the foundation for Christ's ministry; and even as the Marred Servant will lay the groundwork for Christ's Second Coming.

Joseph was a Forerunner, a preparatory Prophet, a foreshadowing. He turned the ignition, was the first Major Domino to fall in this series of events, and that is an important role that must not be forgotten or underemphasized. It is the legacy of the Marred Servant to finish what Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started (Hyrum played a major role in the restoration, so do not forget about him either). This is the reason why I believe that the Marred Servant will have the Blood of the Smiths running through his veins. For there are things that they revealed which have been forgotten (or even things that were possibly suppressed) by the Church at large.

What was once wrong shall be set at right, but the path to get there is one fraught with peril.

CelestialAngel wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 4:43 pm What have LDS leaders said about the Book of Enoch? Are we allowed to read it or do they say avoid it since it's not part of the standard works?

The Church leaders do not ban books. They only ask Seminary and Institute teachers to avoid "spurious" materials, and even then, the Book of Enoch is not on that list.

Lizzy60 wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 5:02 pm

CelestialAngel wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 4:43 pm What have LDS leaders said about the Book of Enoch? Are we allowed to read it or do they say avoid it since it's not part of the standard works?

The Church leaders do not ban books. They only ask Seminary and Institute teachers to avoid "spurious" materials, and even then, the Book of Enoch is not on that list.

Hugh Nibley wrote a series of articles on the book of Enoch published in the ensign. He has written a lengthy book as well on the book of Enoch.

Durzan wrote: ↑February 25th, 2018, 8:36 am What you have said is compelling.

While I cannot agree with everything you say, you have certainly given me much to think about.

Some additional thoughts: It is important not to discount Joseph Smith in this. His role was still very important... as he fulfilled at least some of the Prophecies pertaining to the Marred Servant. His role was to lay the foundation for the Marred Servant, even as John the Baptist laid the foundation for Christ's ministry; and even as the Marred Servant will lay the groundwork for Christ's Second Coming.

Joseph was a Forerunner, a preparatory Prophet, a foreshadowing. He turned the ignition, was the first Major Domino to fall in this series of events, and that is an important role that must not be forgotten or underemphasized. It is the legacy of the Marred Servant to finish what Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum started (Hyrum played a major role in the restoration, so do not forget about him either). This is the reason why I believe that the Marred Servant will have the Blood of the Smiths running through his veins. For there are things that they revealed which have been forgotten (or even things that were possibly suppressed) by the Church at large.

What was once wrong shall be set at right, but the path to get there is one fraught with peril.

Thank you Durzan.

Joseph Smith, in my humble belief, is one of the seven archangels. The Davidic Servant is ascending to Joseph Smith's level. The foundation he laid, and in particular the failure to establish ZION was all a part of the plan to lay the foundation whereupon the Davidic Servant finishes what Joseph started.

I cover this in the first and second articles iirc, but I hope to write an article dedicated to this aspect some day soon.
http://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/ ... .html?m=1
http://lordoftheseraphim.blogspot.com/2 ... d.html?m=1

For those who haven't read the article, I refer to the Day of Atonement ordinance as given in Leviticus 16, where there are two kid goats who are presented for a sin offering. Lots are cast and one goat is assigned "For Jehovah" and the other is assigned "For Azazel."

Azazel is very, very loosely translated as "EZ" (she goat) and escaping - scapegoat was a word invented in 1530 for Leviticus 16.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scapegoat

AZAZ means "Strong" or "Powerful"

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... o-g2KhKthE

EL means "God" or "Mighty"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29

So let's pick ... "Strong" and .... hrm .. "Mighty" and we basically get "Mighty and Strong." Now it may not be quite that simple as the Hebrew spelling for "El" in names such as MichaEL and EzekiEL etc. aren't exactly the same, although they are close. However, there is certainly precedent here that "Mighty and Strong" may have been the meaning and that AZAZEL is a name much like MICHAEL or RAPHAEL or GABRIEL - all angel names ending in EL.

Moreover, "For Jehovah" and "For the Scapegoat" make little sense from a parallel standpoint. This goat is for Jehovah. This goat is for the scape..goat. Uh what? If Azazel is a name, or an office, then it makes more sense. For Jehovah. For Azazel.

John Pratt wrote an excellent article on the "Scapegoat Dilemma" where he addresses many of the issues with Leviticus 16 and interpreting this scripture where two goats are given for a sin offering. A common interpretation is Azazel is Satan - . Though, I address that point fully in my article, the problem with this interpretation is the Lord says both goats are for a sin offering and the goat "For Azazel" carries sins away from Israel which certainly interprets more as a divine gift rather than a fruit of the adversary.

So at some point, Israel added a new step to Leviticus 16 that includes pushing the scapegoat off a cliff, which is covered in John Pratt's article. The speculation is that the goat would have simply returned to its flock, which Israel interpreted as a bad omen. Wouldn't God ... be aware ... of the likelihood that the Goat would return ... to its flock? I'm just sayin' - maybe the goat returns without the sins in tow. This makes even more sense if Azazel means "The Mighty and Strong One"

For those of you who have read my article linked in the OP, I found this hilarious interpretation of the word "Azazel"

The Rabbis, interpreting "Azazel" as "Azaz" (rugged), and "el" (strong), refer it to the rugged and rough mountain cliff from which the goat was cast down (Yoma 67b; Sifra, Aḥare, ii. 2; Targ. Yer. Lev. xiv. 10, and most medieval commentators) ~ from http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2203-azazel

So ... Azaz means ... rugged? El means strong ... therefore mountain cliff! LOL

CelestialAngel wrote: ↑February 27th, 2018, 5:56 pm How many Books of Enoch are there? Do you have to make multiple purchases?

This is the version I have been studying:
https://www.amazon.com/Books-Enoch-Comp ... dpSrc=srch

There are three Books of Enoch included, though the Ethiopian or 1 Enoch is the one I have been studying personally.

Here is the description of the Book including the 3 Books of Enoch from the amazon page:

This book includes the 3 books ascribed to Enoch. 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch. The 1st Book of Enoch, theEthiopic Book of Enoch, or 1 Enoch is more known as simply the Book of Enoch.Although this book is considered apocryphal for the Western canon, it iscontained in the Ethiopic Bible. It was considered sacred by some importantfirst followers of Christ but it was left out of the Bible and disappeared forcenturies until it was rediscovered in 1773 in Ethiopic. This manuscript wasfirst translated into English in the 1820s and into German in the 1830s.According to most scholars, part of it was written in third century BCE andpart of it in the first century CE (the part related to the Son of Man).Although the oldest complete copies of 1 Enoch are K-9 or Kebran 9, dated latefourteenth early fifteenth century and Ethiopian Monastic Microfilm Library(EMML 2080) of the fifteenth or fourteenth century, fragments found in Qumramin the 1950s are more than 2000 years old. Other old important manuscripts areAbbadianus 55 (possibly fifteenth century) and British Museum Orient 485 (firsthalf of the sixteenth century).
The 2nd Book of Enoch, theSlavonic Enoch, or 2 Enoch, is another apocryphal book, found complete only inOld Slavonic manuscripts, and it was once present in the Old Slavonic Bible.It's usually dated to the first century CE although Matthew Black in The OxfordGuide to People & Places of the Bible state that there is no manuscript"earlier than the fourteenth century BE".
The 3rd Book of Enoch, theHebrew Enoch, or 3 Enoch, is a Rabbinic text originally written in Hebrewusually dated to the fifth century CE. Some experts believe it was written byRabbi Ishmael (second century CE), familiar with both 1 Enoch and 2 Enoch.

As with all apocryphal works, I highly suggest reading by the Spirit.

D&C 91:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.