Alaris wrote: ↑July 19th, 2019, 6:46 pmWho is the "one" then?
Ask me again a month from now.
See - this is where I feel we don't read things differently but are reading different things. Have you read Discourse on Abbaton yet?
Yes, a while ago, as I mentioned in my earlier post but I need to refresh myself. I’ll try and do that Sunday.
Yes, Adam is after Jehovah in the Godhead. Then ... he steps off this throne and allows the David Angel to sit upon it in Adam's stead (facsimile 3.)
I do not see that depicted in the facsimile. And I see zero evidence anywhere to back an assertion like Adam stepping off his throne so some angel who was uninvolved and irrelevant in the Garden episode could come and displace him? I’m not trying to be combative, please don’t take my questions and assertions personal, but I’m sincerely seeking to understand your point-of-view. I feel like if I did I would personally be enabled to engage you so much more effectively. It’s hard enough over the internet as it is. I do not view your ideas to be opponents of my ideas.
That's what "he who sitteth upon the throne" is all over Revelation rather than "he who sitteth upon his throne" - I mean the term makes no sense if the throne is his own. This statement would also not make sense if the throne of Michael was occupied by Michael:
Michael does not inherently rule this earth. If he did, then how did Lucifer sweep in as he did? He is formed from clay in the Outer World, then invited to the Garden by the Creator Gods. He is then made a steward; his own Creator was also the Creator of everything else, and he himself was made the tender thereof. And make no mistake, the Temple is no more than an imitation of Eden. Adam was the original Levite - the command given to him regarding the Garden and to the tribe of Levi regarding the Tabernacle / Temple (note how we have both, two) are identical in Hebrew. Adam was the Levite to God’s primordial Temple-Garden-Mountain.
Michael taking the power which is already his by right makes no sense here whatsoever. This is he who sitteth upon the throne (again why is the name missing?) who has taken the power of another and reigned.
Well in my eyes it makes sense. Lucifer quite literally &#%!@? and usurped the lordship of Adam in the Garden. Which is why he is then portrayed as god of this world, able to grant power and blessing by his priesthoods.
So Adam reclaiming his world and overthrowing the enemy who had overtaken his kingdom, by the power proffered him from Christ’s sacrifice - makes perfect sense to me.
By what have you concluded Michael does not have the faculties to produce spirit children? Michael must do what henceforth to assume the mantle of Jehovah?
The way to the tree of life has been barred by cherubim and a flaming sword. This fruit has yet to be tasted, by
anyone.
He must reach forth and eat this fruit. That’s the allegory of course, the pearl symbolised here is precious. And the most monumental curses in history have been in response to the perversion thereof.
Then D&C 121 makes no sense. Grandad, Son, Grandson isn't a secret worth keeping.
This is an example of the different-lens thing I brought up earlier. This scripture makes perfect sense to me.
The effects of the fruit of the tree of life are as lost on us, as the fruit of knowledge was for Adam & Eve. There is a reason, and a very important one, why God could not under any circumstance allow Adam & Eve to eat the second fruit successively after the first. This is the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost. This is the gift that will vindicate the lofty prophecies of the prophets of old, that Israel will be given a new heart, the Law of God inscribed thereupon.
This is why an understanding of the levels of mankind and the progression and promises between them is critical to understanding where Michael is on this process. The sixth promise is the promise of inheritance. Read the entire message in Revelation 3. A Davidic key and crown are mentioned. This is where the unconditional promise of inheritance is received. All seven dispensation princes are the holy ones who are under no condemnation because they all became RIGHTEOUSNESS before this world - this transition from conditional servant to unconditional inheritor and receiving the name / presence of the father is central to understanding this step - a step already taken by Michael and the other six dispensation heads. This is why Joseph Smith could see the Father and James and John could not ... unless you have an alt interpretation here--happy to hear it.
See, it’s hard to respond to a paragraph like this because your argument is formed upon the foundation of your framework.
Take your sentence “The sixth promise is the promise of inheritance“. See, to me they are
all promises of inheritance. And yet, in your framework, I know this means something different for you than how I am even able to relate to.
Your opening statement reveals the fact of the matter. In order for me to view Michael like how you view him, I must first adopt your framework of the seven levels, which correlate with the seven dispensation heads, which correspond with the seven levels of overcoming etc.
See, I am well aware there are seven holy ones who stand in the presence of the Lord. I know that God first said “let there be light”, and how light is divided into the seven-hue spectrum, with the ultraviolet. There’s a reason it’s royal, it’s the red combining with the blue, the male with the female. I know it’s a thing, but God has not revealed it to me yet. I have prayed, and asked - and while I have been given the answer that it will be revealed to me, I am still waiting on that.
Now, I am more than happy to adopt your framework, look at things through that lens. I think I can to a certain degree, but I’ll make more effort to view these things like how you do. Again, it’s hard over the internet. Let me know when you come to Cali.
So I’ll try to see how you do. But until God reveals to me the framework upon which it is all predicated, I cant but remain honest.
From what you've shared nothing you've stated is incompatible. I suspect you've jumped to some conclusions.
Innit. I feel like so much of what you write even now I agree with. Especially given the broader spectrum of beliefs, we really are not far off from one another at all. And I think our discussion up till now has been super good, I have benefitted so much from it personally.
I have made assumptions it is true. There are questions you could ask, where I would have nothing to say except that I simply don’t know yet.
I fully realise that my own beliefs, bias and experience are as big of factors as any in the creation of the lens by which I view scripture, or the ears by which I hear the impressions of the spirit, or the eyes by which I perceive the light. I understand that my conclusions are formulated upon a premise of my own interpretation, which may be true or it may not be.
In fact this post is a great example where you say you see 3 and one. Well, so do I! 3 Gods and one who is becoming a God, and, uncoincidentally, becoming a patriarch by receiving the fullness of the Priesthood. Question: Do you believe Michael / Adam had the fullness of the Priesthood before this world? I certainly do.
Well, what do you define the “fullness of the priesthood” as?
The latter-day David is receiving the fullness for the very first time. This is foreshadowed by King David's failure and Joseph Smith saying he failed to receive the fullness but his throne and kingdom is taken from him and to be given to another raised up out of his lineage.
David faces a permanent glass ceiling the Davidic servant does not. I am still curious concerning your view on the destiny of Michael. All these supplanting motifs across the scriptures, you read those as being the dynamic of a father to a parallel-son, one line being displaced by another? So Adam is simply displaced as steward of this earth?
I disagree. He messed up in Eden, and that belief alone seems to separate me from the bulk of LDS. But so did Israel, and God will bring them from the dead. Adam fell from his throne, his priestly garb seized, banished from his Maker’s Presence. But the Lord will again choose Israel, and again place His Sanctuary in the midst of Jerusalem.
But it's not just the "new name" that's hidden but the identity. Joseph of Egypt is such a powerful emblem of this concept. His brothers are standing in his presence and do not recognize him at all. This isn't ... "Hey Joseph I recognized you but never knew your Egyptian name until now!"
And notice Joseph was still Joseph, and when they did recognise him, it was as
Joseph. Applying your comparison, it would be Joseph being sent to exile, and some entirely new, random,
”hidden” individual to take up his birthright.
Joseph was still Jacob’s son. But he had been raised up in the full power and force of Egypt, and ruled in the land. He had been made new, and had married the daughter of the high priest of Egypt.
You say this doesn't appear anywhere ... except here?
No, I don’t think the two - two framework appears anywhere.
Abrahamic is the covenant that is fulfilled in the end....so this symbol appearing here is the very best place to put it. If these are conclusions read into, then the fact that the Davidic Servant symbol, Joseph, lines up below Michael is quite the coincidence along with the names that change, Isaac being the perfect symbol of Jesus, and Abraham being the Father who initiated the covenant ... oh and Jacob being the final "father" or least of the patriarchs "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." Nobody throws Joseph in there even though he takes up more landscape in Genesis than any of them because he represents the one who is becoming a God.
Well, God Himself doesn’t throw Joseph in there. Not when He introduces Himself at least.
But hey, maybe Joseph is “hidden”.
You could just as easily look at Jacob ben Joseph as a second Adam ...as long as you don't align him to Michael as you'd have to ignore everything else that points to the 8th angel not being Michael or Adam.
You don’t have proof of any eighth angel. That’s a fact, just like I have no proof that Adam reborn is in fact the second Adam. We should both be cognizant of our assumptions.
Nobody is saying he has no name at all.
Well I thought you did, you used the terms “unnamed” and “nameless”.
Of course he has a name. He's unnamed to us. If I keep writing about a man or an angel whose name is not offered up - he's unnamed in my writings. That's all that's meant - obviously. Yet again - this is why I think so many can't wrap their heads around this. How could there be a God who is completely hidden to us? You mean God kept this a secret from everyone from the beginning to the end? Yes! And that little teaching is in our standard works and all over the Apocrypha.
I think the End will have been fully typified in, and reflective of the Beginning.
That is why random occurrences of the name Michael can't be this person who is hidden. His name alone isn't hidden. He is hidden just as Joseph was hidden.
Yeah right, Joseph was
named! And his brothers recognised him as Joseph Ben Jacob when he revealed himself!
When the Holy Ghost commission's a world of his own that he has earned, beginning with sitting upon the throne of Michael, he will then consecrate (law of consecration points to this order) his world and throne for a new heir to be made by the Atonement of the Savior of that generation. And thus Gods are made who each defer their glory to another. This is why it isn't Jesus who is "Revealed" as the son of man at the Great sign. His heir will be revealed and this process will be made known.
Again, totally possible. When God shows me the same I’ll testify right with you.
Except it is the Davidic Servant who raises Israel - not Michael.
This scripture isn’t about “raising Israel”. It’s about declaring the fall of Babylon. Do you see these as synonymous?
And yes, Michael does. Per Daniel 12.
It is the Davidic Servant who defeats the mother of harlots. Let's see if I can find a few scriptures that confirm this:
Isaiah40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.
27 Why sayest thou, O Jacob, and speakest, O Israel, My way is hid from the Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God?
28 ¶ Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.
It's pretty clear verse 26 is about the Davidic Servant / OMAS. Though we don't have the exclusive first trump reference here unfortunately, all of Isaiah 40 should be read to get the context to see Israel is the clearly the audience of the many titles / roles of the
Holy Ghost who is of course an exclusive gift to Israel. I love verse 28 - "Hast thou not known? hast thou not hear?" Whoopsie! I guess not!
Agreed. And Israel is heavily typified after Adam. They are the same story. I love these verses.
Here you go. I mean this should really put it to rest:
Isaiah 62:1 For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.
The audience and scope is crystal clear here. Israel. The mouth of the Lord - a title of the Angel of the Lord - gives Israel a new name. This is the first resurrection and the dominion of the Holy Ghost who is a blessing to Israel and both a light (beacon) to the Gentiles and Destroyer to the enemies of the Ransomed.
This is the angel who John worshiped twice when he beheld the angel's exaltation and crowning.
For the sake of Adam & Eve, Jesus did not rest but chose to condescend in a tabernacle of clay to lay his life in ransom.
The blessings associated with Israel literally parallel those of Adam & Eve in the Garden.
D&C 43:18 For the day cometh that the Lord shall utter his voice out of heaven; the heavens shall shake and the earth shall tremble, and the trump of God shall sound both long and loud, and shall say to the sleeping nations: Ye saints arise and live; ye sinners stay and sleep until I shall call again.
I mean we know Michael sounds the last Trump - so this is another confirmation that the one sounding the first trump is "God."
Read 1 Thess 4 with this in mind.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
So which is it? The "Lord" with a voice of an archangel with the trump of God for the first resurrection or that unnamed (to us) / unnumbered (to us - *whispers* he's 8th) angel?
Well the first of course! Makes so much more sense.
The answer, of course, is Yes! The 8th angel - who has just earned his archangel voice and archangel trump (and likely archangel wings) uses them to triumphantly summon Israel to himself as a newly crowned God of Israel. This is the wedding of the Bridegroom and the revealing / unveiling of this angel who has been completely hidden from the foundation of the world.
No mention of this angel being hidden from the foundation of the world anywhere. This angel doesn’t even enter the scene till
after the scene at Babel, with Abraham. What was he doing that whole time up till then I wonder?