Was Lehi Led Away By An Angel Of Darkness?

[HappyJackWagon]

I have some questions from a podcast I listened to earlier today.

When Lehi recounts his vision of the tree of life he describes how a man in a white robe asks him to follow. He does and then realizes he's in darkness and then prays to be rescued. Is this an example of a prophet being fooled by an angel of darkness?

1 Nephi 8

5 And it came to pass that I saw a aman, and he was dressed in a white brobe; and he came and stood before me.

6 And it came to pass that he spake unto me, and bade me follow him.

7 And it came to pass that as I followed him I beheld myself that I was in a dark and dreary waste.

8 And after I had traveled for the space of many hours in darkness, I began to pray unto the Lord that he would have amercy on me, according to the multitude of his tender mercies.

Joseph Smith taught the test for ensuring that an angel is from God as opposed to Satan. Lehi's vision doesn't say if this test was followed but we know that it's possible for angel's of darkness to mimic angels of light, and in Lehi's case he was led into darkness.

D&C 129

1 There are two kinds of beings in aheaven, namely: bAngels, who are cresurrected personages, having dbodies of flesh and bones—

2 For instance, Jesus said: Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not aflesh and bones, as ye see me have.

3 Secondly: the aspirits of bjust men made cperfect, they who are not resurrected, but inherit the same glory.

4 When a messenger comes saying he has a message from God, offer him your hand and request him to shake hands with you.

5 If he be an angel he will do so, and you will feel his hand.

6 If he be the spirit of a just man made perfect he will come in his glory; for that is the only way he can appear—

7 Ask him to shake hands with you, but he will not move, because it is contrary to the aorder of heaven for a just man to bdeceive; but he will still deliver his message.

8 If it be the adevil as an angel of light, when you ask him to shake hands he will offer you his hand, and you will not bfeel anything; you may therefore detect him.

9 These are three grand akeys whereby you may know whether any administration is from God.

It is also unclear whether or not Joseph followed this counsel for determining the angel's source, when the angel with a flaming sword threatened to destroy him if he did not embrace polygamy more enthusiastically. Perhaps this is another example of a prophet being misled by an angel of darkness.

[rongo]

It was a dream/vision. Not an actual visitation. The handshake test in D&C 129 wouldn't apply.

[Calm]

I am not sure we can assume it was the man who led him into darkness or Lehi's own personal state that he came to realized and asked to be saved from.

[rongo]

I think the premise of this approach is legitimate (i.e., is it possible that Joseph Smith was deceived by an evil entity?), but it is not brought up in good faith. That is, those seeking to make a point using it don't actually believe that there are evil or good entities (not really) ---- they are just seeking to show that Joseph Smith didn't use his own criteria. 

 

It seems to me that critics/unbelievers strenuously avoid going down even the "evil" supernatural road, because that leaves the door open for the alternative (and that just can't be allowed). Hence, the exclusive preference for "Joseph Smith or some committee of people wrote the Book of Mormon" approaches.

[ksfisher]

When Lehi recounts his vision of the tree of life he describes how a man in a white robe asks him to follow. He does and then realizes he's in darkness and then prays to be rescued. Is this an example of a prophet being fooled by an angel of darkness?

 

 

We all followed the Savior's plan when we chose to enter this "dark and dreary waste" or a world.  That's what I've always understood the symbolism to mean.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I think the premise of this approach is legitimate (i.e., is it possible that Joseph Smith was deceived by an evil entity?), but it is not brought up in good faith. That is, those seeking to make a point using it don't actually believe that there are evil or good entities (not really) ---- they are just seeking to show that Joseph Smith didn't use his own criteria. 

 

It seems to me that critics/unbelievers strenuously avoid going down even the "evil" supernatural road, because that leaves the door open for the alternative (and that just can't be allowed). Hence, the exclusive preference for "Joseph Smith or some committee of people wrote the Book of Mormon" approaches.

 

How would you possibly know whether or not it was brought up in good faith? You can choose to assume the worst if you like but it's interesting that you call the approach legitimate yet done in bad faith.

I appreciate the comments on this so far. Thanks.

[rongo]

Experience. Everybody I have ever had who has used this approach doesn't believe in any type of supernatural, good or evil.

 

Question for you, Happy Jack. Do you believe in evil spirits or actual angels?

[rongo]

 

 

You can choose to assume the worst if you like but it's interesting that you call the approach legitimate yet done in bad faith.

 

It is a legitimate question whether or not Joseph Smith could have been led astray by an evil spirit. I think many TBMs refuse to even consider the possibility, even hypothetically.

 

The reason that I think people who bring this up as a discussion point against the Church don't bring it up in good faith is because, in my experience, all of them to a man deny the existence of any type of afterlife, preexistence, or supernaturalism. It's interesting to me that critics who do believe in an afterlife or supernaturalism avoid discussion of whether Satan or evil spirits actually influenced Joseph Smith or appeared to him, because evil spirits necessitates the existence of good ones. That opens up the possibility that God really appeared to and called Joseph Smith, and they don't want to go anywhere near that.

 

It's interesting to me that "it was a total fabrication completely within the capabilities of Joseph Smith and Friends" is the only approach for both religious and unbelieving critics.

[oremites]

It is also unclear whether or not Joseph followed this counsel for determining the angel's source, when the angel with a flaming sword threatened to destroy him if he did not embrace polygamy more enthusiastically. Perhaps this is another example of a prophet being misled by an angel of darkness.

 

Let's say Joseph was misled by an angel of darkness.  What does that say about those around Joseph who had spiritual experiences supporting polygamy?  Were they all being deceived?

[Flyonthewall]

I look at this event as sort of a guided tour or something like The Christmas Carol.

It was an object lesson.

[The Nehor]

I would suggest that it was an angel that led him and the moral of the story is that sometimes following the gospel leads us to dark places for what seem metaphorically like hours praying for relief. Then he found the field and the tree in it and the angel led him the right way. The path was just not that nice as it often seems to be.

[CCRW]

I look at this event as sort of a guided tour or something like The Christmas Carol.

It was an object lesson.

exactly my thoughts ... something he needed to see

[CCRW]

I would suggest that it was an angel that led him and the moral of the story is that sometimes following the gospel leads us to dark places for what seem metaphorically like hours praying for relief. Then he found the field and the tree in it and the angel led him the right way. The path was just not that nice as it often seems to be.

hmmm, yes there is that concept that if one is ever going to reach the tree, its going to be h double l of a trial before hand

[drums12]

Why would an angel of light and a mist of darkness be mutually exclusive?  Don't we all need angels of light, as it were, to lead us through this dark and evil world?

[mfbukowski]

This is actually kind of an odd epistemological problem, for anyone who brings it up.

Whoever brings it up should have the burden of proof to show that they can know that THEIR spiritual experiences are only from God.

The usual answer is that if they conform to the Bible, they must be "good".

The problem with that is how do they prove the Bible itself was not revealed by Satan to get them to believe in the false God of Christianity?

At that point they usually go away.

[mfbukowski]

It was a dream/vision. Not an actual visitation. The handshake test in D&C 129 wouldn't apply.

What? You can't shake hands in a dream?

There is no way of knowing the difference between a dream and an "actual visitation"

Some folks have pain in an amputated hand. Is the pain not "real"?

How do you know if you "really" have a toothache?

Edited April 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[rongo]

Sure you can. But, it wouldn't tell you anything as far as the handshake test is supposed to tell you. It's a dream, after all . . .

[mfbukowski]

Sure you can. But, it wouldn't tell you anything as far as the handshake test is supposed to tell you. It's a dream, after all . . .

I don't follow... how do you know?

[mfbukowski]

I see the handshake test as temple oriented, and not about senation.

Itnis about what you know informationally, not about sensation if you catch my drift

So only the good guys are permitted to shake your hand, if you know what I mean

Edited April 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This is actually kind of an odd epistemological problem, for anyone who brings it up.

Whoever brings it up should have the burden of proof to show that they can know that THEIR spiritual experiences are only from God.

The usual answer is that if they conform to the Bible, they must be "good".

The problem with that is how do they prove the Bible itself was not revealed by Satan to get them to believe in the false God of Christianity?

At that point they usually go away.

And if you think this is totally wacko, I just found this on another thread

http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/Reuchlin.htm

"WHY WE WELCOME YOU TO THE INNER CIRCLE

The INNER CIRCLE or INNER RING is the most exclusive club in history. It has consisted of those religious, political and literary leaders having knowledge of the GREAT SECRET: that the Calpurnius Piso family of ancient Rome created the fictional Jesus, the New Testament, the Church, and Christianity. In welcoming the general public to this knowledge, the following introduction is appropriate. "

Edited April 23, 2015 by mfbukowski

[rongo]

I don't follow... how do you know?

Ummm . . . because it's "Lehi's dream?"  

 

"Behold, I . . . dreamed a dream"

 

". . . methought I saw in my dream"

[rongo]

I see the handshake test as temple oriented, and not about senation.

Itnis about what you know informationally, not about sensation if you catch my drift

So only the good guys are permitted to shake your hand, if you know what I mean

Okay.

 

I interpret it to be completely literal, and in the D&C for practical reasons for those who need it.

 

A few weeks ago, I subbed for the 11 year-old class in Primary. The lesson was the Easter lesson centering on the resurrection. One of the kids asked about shaking angels hands to see if they are from God or not, and I had them turn to D&C 129. It wasn't on my personal lesson and not in the manual, but since it was brought up . . .

 

I was impressed that the kid knew about that, and wanted to show him and the rest where that comes from.

 

I didn't treat it as a metaphysical, symbolic thing . . .

[mfbukowski]

Ummm . . . because it's "Lehi's dream?"  

 

"Behold, I . . . dreamed a dream"

 

". . . methought I saw in my dream"

Oh yeah, ok then that works. If someone else says he knew it was a dream,I suppose he was sure- it's someone else's experience not mine.

But I have thought about Moroni appearing to Joseph, while Joseph was in bed the whole time, and wondered how it could possibly make a difference if it was a dream or not

[mfbukowski]

Okay.

 

I interpret it to be completely literal, and in the D&C for practical reasons for those who need it.

 

A few weeks ago, I subbed for the 11 year-old class in Primary. The lesson was the Easter lesson centering on the resurrection. One of the kids asked about shaking angels hands to see if they are from God or not, and I had them turn to D&C 129. It wasn't on my personal lesson and not in the manual, but since it was brought up . . .

 

I was impressed that the kid knew about that, and wanted to show him and the rest where that comes from.

 

I didn't treat it as a metaphysical, symbolic thing . . .

Very smart kid who obviously is getting well taught at home!

I always had problems with the handshake thing until I went to the temple, then I had an "Aha!" moment, and it all made more sense that the whole story was not in the D&C

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Ummm . . . because it's "Lehi's dream?"  

 

"Behold, I . . . dreamed a dream"

 

". . . methought I saw in my dream"

 

Would you also agree then that the First Vision was a vision and not a physical visitation?

After all, it's the first "vision".

Edited April 23, 2015 by HappyJackWagon