Jacob's Wrestle With An Angel

[nuclearfuels]

23 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

"And he strove with God."

Thank you, sir! 

Seems like a Temple ordinance - though I don't quite understand the wrestle part of it; wouldn't it be more reverant?

[nuclearfuels]

On 3/2/2022 at 10:06 AM, bluebell said:

the second option.  He’s not an angel who ministers.  

Dude - that's intense. 

I never knew that but it makes sense

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Thank you, sir! 

Seems like a Temple ordinance - though I don't quite understand the wrestle part of it; wouldn't it be more reverant?

The pre-1990 veil matches somewhat.  What Nibley called the sacred embrace.

Edited March 3, 2022 by JLHPROF

[bluebell]

Here is what Dr. Jeffrey Chadwick says about this chapter in the Follow Him podcast:

Dr. Jeffrey Chadwick: 11:27 Okay. So let's do Genesis 32, where Jacob's given the name Israel, because this is really key. I'm going to just look at a couple of verses here. It's when Jacob is getting ready to come over the Jabbok River, where in Genesis 32:24, he's at the banks of the Jabbok River. In fact, verse 22 mentions that most of his family, his two wives Leah and Rachel and a lot of the kids and others, had passed over this forwarding point, this crossing point, and he had remained on the other side of the river. It's the breaking of day. In verse 24, it says, "Jacob left alone, wrestled with a man at the breaking of day," not until, but at, in terms of the Hebrew. "When he prevailed not he touched the hollow of his thigh, the hollow of Jacob's thigh, was out of joint as he wrestled with him." This is a weird story, frankly, that doesn't make a lot of sense to people, and it doesn't to me, except that what I see here is the hand of an editor trying to make sense of a story that he, the editor, doesn't understand either.

Dr. Jeffrey Chadwick: 12:29 So, I'm going to come back to verse 25 and 26, because I've actually put Xs through 25 and 26, meaning don't rely on these two verses to understand the story, go from 24 to 27. So in 26 where it says, the guy wrestling with Jacob said, "Let me go for the day breaketh, and Jacob said, I will not let you go, except you bless me." Then in verse 27, when the guy says to him, "What is thy name? And he said, Jacob," that's where you pick it up with what's really going on. Now, let me go back to the word "wrestled" in verse 24. In Hebrew, this is the word Vayeavek, which is a fine term in Hebrew for, "to grasp around and to wrestle." It's used to indicate wrestling in Hebrew, but what it indicates is a grasping around, a clasping. It's also a cognate to the word "avek," which means dust, which is why people think of it as wrestling, because you wrestle around on the ground and get dusty.

Dr. Jeffrey Chadwick: 13:29 But that's not really what it's saying here. What it means is that there is a grasp going on. Jacob is in the grasp of someone at daybreak and being in the grasp of someone doesn't make sense to the editor. So he makes it out into a battle where Jacob's thigh is injured. By the time you get to verse 32, it says, "The children of Israel don't eat of the sinew that shrank upon the hollow of the thigh to this day because of Jacob's thigh injury." That's a very strange way to end a story, but what it means is that the editor's not sure about this, and an earlier edition mentioned that his thigh was hurt and a later editor said, "Okay, so that thigh must be the reason we don't eat this certain cut of meat."

Dr. Jeffrey Chadwick: 14:18 You could really see people try to figure this out. But if you skip from 24, which is this clasping around episode, down to 27 and you start the dialogue, this may seem familiar, because Jacob is asked, "What is your name?" And he gives him his given name, Jacob. Then as the exchange goes on, he says, "Well by name show no more be Jacob, but Israel." He gets another name, Israelʾ, which means God prevails. Some people will say that this means you shall prevail with God. The idea of let God prevail is very important here, but whatever it is, it's God prevails, and that becomes Jacob's new name, his other name, his additional name. He doesn't lose his given name, but this becomes the additional name by which the Covenant people become known. We don't talk about the house of Jacob as often as we talk about the house of Israel. By the way, when you go to the house of the Lord, notice how many times we are taught today that we are royalty in Israel.

Dr. Jeffrey Chadwick: 15:23 Israel is mentioned again and again and again, in the teachings and Covenanting that we do. Ultimately, when we go into those greatest of the ordinances of the house of the Lord, which is marriage, the blessings of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob become full. So this whole idea of being Israel and having all the Covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is inherent again in this most important place for us. But going back to this, then, you have this interview where names are mentioned, a given name and an additional name. Then, in verse 29, Jacob says, "Tell me, I pray thee, thy name," and the person asks back, "Why do you ask?" Then, the account stops because whatever the name is that must be given back to Jacob cannot be reported.

Dr. Jeffrey Chadwick: 16:17 But the editor, the author, everybody there stops completely with the dialogue. After exchanging given names and additional names, the dialogue stops at that question, the name back can't be reported. Then in verse 30, after it's all over, Jacob gives the name to that place, just the way called his place years before Bethel, he calls this Peniel, not Penial, but Peniel. Peni means face, Peniel, the face of God. Because he said, "I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved. So the sun rose on him there at," Panuel" is actually a corruption of Peniel here, "and he was done." Then it says he halted on his thigh, and so you get that whole other part of the story that I don't really think originally was there. But if you just read 24, 27, 28, 29 and 30 together, you have an idea of what's happening to Jacob. And again, it is something we're very familiar with as Latter Day Saints who have taken out those great Covenants.

[Lemuel]

On 3/2/2022 at 4:10 PM, Calm said:

We don’t teach multiple mortal probations (though there was a variation with at least Adam and Eve having immortal bodies prior to the world being created rather than being given them during the creation and putting them aside in the past, I believe that has been rejected by leadership) and we do teach the only way to receive a physical body is to be born on earth…though we don’t explain how God formed Adam and Eve’s Garden of Eden bodies, were they formed the way we are formed or were they formed in another fashion, God having the ability to construct bodies in other ways just as he has the ability to form an earth (which did not have a father and mother earth that sexually produced a baby earth).  [Speculation by some being Mom and Dad ate food that was grown on earth which is where the “dust of the earth” used to form/organize their bodies through pregnancy came from, but another option could be something similar to 3D printing which some are speculating could be used to create organs for transplants…we are partway there already https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_printing ]

How do you suggest he came by a flesh and bone immortal body prior to birth here? 
 

added:  if given to him by God as God perhaps formed and gave them to Adam and Eve, why would Christ claim he was only spirit when seen by the brother of Jared?

I don't have any strong opinions as to the mechanism by which bodies happen in the eternities.  I strongly suspect our immortal form after this life does not come about by sexual reproduction and the same is probably true for bodies before this present world.

You make a strong point here:

Ether 3:16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

An even bigger question is what is the main difference between a spirit-only body and a physical body?  Joseph said that "it is all matter". And if Jesus' spirit body can interact with physical objects such as rocks, then what does the physical add?  For some reason, on the other hand, people who don't have physical bodies see it as a form of bondage "D&C 45:17 For as ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies to be a bondage"

 

[Lemuel]

On 3/2/2022 at 5:27 PM, Durangout said:

That is a fair question and Nephi answers it for us:

1 Ne 11:11 And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof—for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another.

Seems pretty clear to me that Jesus was a spirit before he came to earth.

"Spirit of the Lord" seems to have many connotations:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/search?lang=eng&query="Spirit of the Lord"&facet=scriptures&subfacet=bofm&highlight=true&page=1

For example 1 Nephi 13:15 "And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles" seems like something more like the HG.  But I agree that your example in 1 Nephi 11 is actually referring to a personal appearance of Jesus.  Is it certain that "the Spirit of the Lord", (even when referring to a personal visitation) is referring to the disembodied spirit of Christ?  It isn't certain to me, but I see how one could take that position.  I would've taken it myself at one time.

All in all however, I think we miss some of the point when we say in LDS circles that one of the purposes of coming to this earth was "to gain a body".  Some of this comes from William Clayton's notes quoted in TPJS:

         "That which is without body, parts and passions is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones… We came to this earth that we might have a body and present it pure before God in the celestial kingdom. The great principle of happiness consists in having a body." (p181)

If you look in Words of Joseph Smith William McIntyre records the same sermon differently:
           "he also said in testimony of the situation the saints in the presence of God. that they had flesh & bones & that was the agreement in Eternity to come here & take on them tabernacles…"

By no means do I have an absolute scriptural proof here.  But I think bodies come and go.

[Durangout]

On 3/5/2022 at 10:59 AM, Lemuel said:

But I think bodies come and go.

Are you referring to reincarnation here?

[CV75]

On 3/5/2022 at 12:32 PM, Lemuel said:

I don't have any strong opinions as to the mechanism by which bodies happen in the eternities.  I strongly suspect our immortal form after this life does not come about by sexual reproduction and the same is probably true for bodies before this present world.

You make a strong point here:

Ether 3:16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

An even bigger question is what is the main difference between a spirit-only body and a physical body?  Joseph said that "it is all matter". And if Jesus' spirit body can interact with physical objects such as rocks, then what does the physical add?  For some reason, on the other hand, people who don't have physical bodies see it as a form of bondage "D&C 45:17 For as ye have looked upon the long absence of your spirits from your bodies to be a bondage"

 

I think a physical body "adds upon" the spirit's range of sensation, both physically and spiritually. For example, a sprit is so refined they cannot feel, for example, heat or the various elements comprising the covenants such as water and hands. The spiritual range of sensation is also enhanced because meaning is added to these physical sensations. And while Creation was ordered but not carried out by designated, disembodied spirit delegees (but by element and beings with a body, i.e. Adam's parents), a spirit probably cannot personally manipulate a white stone.

Edited March 8, 2022 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

Here is a link to an Interpreter article I wrote a few years back

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think a physical body "adds upon" the spirit's range of sensation, both physically and spiritually. For example, a sprit is so refined they cannot feel, for example, heat or the various elements comprising the covenants such as water and hands. The spiritual range of sensation is also enhanced because meaning is added to these physical sensations. And while Creation was ordered but not carried out by designated, disembodied spirit delegees (but by element and beings with a body, i.e. Adam's parents), a spirit probably cannot personally manipulate a white stone.

I'm not certain you need to limit your thinking to physical beings of how change can be brought about in the physical world.  I don't know exactly how it works, but miracles take place every day through the power of the priesthood.  Is the use of the priesthood limited to physical beings?  Did the white stones need to be manipulated by a spirit being, or could that have been done by the spirit being through the power of the priesthood?  The same goes for creation.

[mfbukowski]

Here is a review I wrote for The Interpreter about "Wrestling the Angel" by Givens a few years ago.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/untangling-scripture-from-the-philosophies-of-men/

Abstract :

"Review of Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2014). 424 pp.

Abstract: Terryl Givens’ masterful work Wrestling the Angel takes on the daunting task of examining the history of Christian belief while also examining the worldly philosophies which shaped its scriptural interpretation. As in the biblical story of Jacob’s struggle with the angel, we all must forge our own testimonies while confronting a secular world including godless philosophies. Sometimes testimony wins, and tragically sometimes the world wins and a testimony is lost. In dealing with this intellectual “matter unorganized,” interpretation of the secular philosophy becomes the key. With the right interpretation, philosophies deemed “secular” or “godless” can be seen as helpful and even providentially provided by the Lord to help provide a philosophical grounding for a testimony instead of destroying it. Aspects of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant can be seen as laying a groundwork for much of contemporary American philosophy, Continental philosophy, and a possible basis for interpretations of these philosophies, which help rather than hinder the spread of the gospel. Kant’s concept of the synthetic a priori, for example, can help us understand how humans organize our individual ideas about reality from “matter unorganized,” perhaps in a way similar to how our “human” God organizes our world. Kant’s philosophy had vast influences, arguably resulting in a new way to see the relationship between God and mankind, which is compatible with the gospel. Finally I examine Givens’ view of humanism and how it can be interpreted as helpful rather than hindering the gospel."

Edited March 8, 2022 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

17 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I'm not certain you need to limit your thinking to physical beings of how change can be brought about in the physical world.  I don't know exactly how it works, but miracles take place every day through the power of the priesthood.  Is the use of the priesthood limited to physical beings?  Did the white stones need to be manipulated by a spirit being, or could that have been done by the spirit being through the power of the priesthood?  The same goes for creation.

But the elemental component of the soul does "add upon" the spirit's experience, particularly of joy and fulness in using the priesthood power. The spirit is never the same once it becomes a soul, and the soul is never the same once it becomes inseparable. Thus, the change that spirits can bring about in the physical world is added upon by their bodies and the resulting personal interaction with other souls. The miracles take place between and in the living souls, where they are experienced. Since the white stones (Revelation 2:17) are given to the resurrected and not spirits, there is a connection there. The sixteen small stones touched by the premortal Lord (Ether 3) are examples of spirits affecting the physical world, but this would have meant nothing to the Jaredites without their having bodies to experience it, and the Lord Himself had yet to be "added upon" before He could be perfected. He could not have carried out His atonement without it because He would not have personally been in and through all things, including a physical experience.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

But the elemental component of the soul does "add upon" the spirit's experience, particularly of joy and fulness in using the priesthood power. The spirit is never the same once it becomes a soul, and the soul is never the same once it becomes inseparable. Thus, the change that spirits can bring about in the physical world is added upon by their bodies and the resulting personal interaction with other souls. The miracles take place between and in the living souls, where they are experienced.

Rather than seeing these as two or more realms of experience I see it more as a maturation of one being on one journey, like life itself.

There are many experiences that change us permanently, though we tend to bifurcate the spiritual from the temporal perhaps due to the bifurcation found first in the Greeks, then on to Descartes, and finally to logical positivism.

I think it is more useful to see these changes as a maturation than positing they are different metaphysical realms.

It's just a different way to see it

 

[CV75]

9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Rather than seeing these as two or more realms of experience I see it more as a maturation of one being on one journey, like life itself.

There are many experiences that change us permanently, though we tend to bifurcate the spiritual from the temporal perhaps due to the bifurcation found first in the Greeks, then on to Descartes, and finally to logical positivism.

I think it is more useful to see these changes as a maturation than positing they are different metaphysical realms.

It's just a different way to see it

 

Absolutely -- that is what "added upon" involves -- more than just adding a piece of spirit to a pierce of element. At some point, we passed from a simple spirit to becoming separably connected with element that makes us what we are now, living (mortal) souls. As opposed to living pre-mortal souls (which in this case would be an oxymoron, unless one wishes to call a "soul" a "spirit").

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely -- that is what "added upon" involves -- more than just adding a piece of spirit to a pierce of element. At some point, we passed from a simple spirit to becoming separably connected with element that makes us what we are now, living (mortal) souls. As opposed to living pre-mortal souls (which in this case would be an oxymoron, unless one wishes to call a "soul" a "spirit").

But spirit IS matter according to our paradigm!

I see it more like going from childhood to adulthood, there is something in the being that turns on (perhaps like hormones) or like the stages of cognitive development that change us in very basic ways without changing the - pardon the expression - "physical substance" or "element" of which we are composed. 

-Like going from a Caterpillar to a butterfly.

Our purpose/ function/ goal as a being changes from being focused on becoming incarnate to being focused, as a child, at first to seeing how this "body thing" works now that we have one, to learning about the world, then doing the Adam and Eve experience, wanting to have a family, then as we grow old, concentrating on perfecting our relationship with Christ through revelation, then returning to the other side, and hopefully aiming at perfection and nothing else, as we see him guiding us personally, perhaps as his disciples learned and grew.

I see it as the ladder metaphor of changing priorities/ purposes/ goals ever upward, rather than changing "substance"

But words can't nail it precisely anyway, but for me that is MY personal metaphor.

Perhaps I am still rebelling from the Aquinas substance paradigm. 

Works for me !!

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But spirit IS matter according to our paradigm!

I see it more like going from childhood to adulthood, there is something in the being that turns on (perhaps like hormones) or like the stages of cognitive development that change us in very basic ways without changing the - pardon the expression - "physical substance" or "element" of which we are composed. 

-Like going from a Caterpillar to a butterfly.

Our purpose/ function/ goal as a being changes from being focused on becoming incarnate to being focused, as a child, at first to seeing how this "body thing" works now that we have one, to learning about the world, then doing the Adam and Eve experience, wanting to have a family, then as we grow old, concentrating on perfecting our relationship with Christ through revelation, then returning to the other side, and hopefully aiming at perfection and nothing else, as we see him guiding us personally, perhaps as his disciples learned and grew.

I see it as the ladder metaphor of changing priorities/ purposes/ goals ever upward, rather than changing "substance"

But words can't nail it precisely anyway, but for me that is MY personal metaphor.

Perhaps I am still rebelling from the Aquinas substance paradigm. 

Works for me !!

 

Yes, spirit is certainly a kind of matter, and haploid cells can be considered “more fine or pure” than an embryo; similarly, I think the “focus on becoming incarnate” also takes on a couple of forms depending on the kind of matter: encoded instructions in the womb and vested interest on the other side of the veil/womb.

I occasionally talk about this in terms of a continuum, or that our spirits, bodies and souls are different forms of the same stuff as we advance / devolve through the stages of fineness and purity as we come into the world and leave it. While this allows for our sprits to develop concurrently with our physical bodies (contrary to the traditional sense of pre-mortally existing spirit bodies), there is only so much we can experience without bodies after death.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, CV75 said:

I occasionally talk about this in terms of a continuum, or that our spirits, bodies and souls are different forms of the same stuff as we advance / devolve through the stages of fineness and purity as we come into the world and leave it.

I think I get your point, but find it impossible to define the mechanics, so they become unimportant ; I try to concentrate on what we CAN understand which for me is answering the Why questions- the function and purpose of the changes, rather than the mechanics, which we will never understand on this side of the next rapidly approaching veil. 

If we really need a model, perhaps an analogy would suffice; maybe the phase changes of water would work, beginning with the created unity between hydrogen and oxygen, the yin and yang, as a vapor, /gas, then as water, then a solid as ice, then as the energy increases eventually back to being a gas.

 

Edited March 10, 2022 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think I get your point, but find it impossible to define the mechanics, so they become unimportant ; I try to concentrate on what we CAN understand which for me is answering the Why questions- the function and purpose of the changes, rather than the mechanics, which we will never understand on this side of the next rapidly approaching veil. 

If we really need a model, perhaps an analogy would suffice; maybe the phase changes of water would work, beginning with the created unity between hydrogen and oxygen, the yin and yang, as a vapor, /gas, then as water, then a solid as ice, then as the energy increases eventually back to being a gas.

 

Yes, "All things are spiritual," so no bifurcation is necessary. A cupful of water is a cupful of molecules at various speeds (the speeds of vapor, steam, water, ice, etc. corresponding to the phase), some remaining with the body of water, some escaping into the air. The phases of water in this cup are never really inseparably connected; as we freeze it, fewer molecules tend to separate but some always do. We do not drink the "finer and purer" phases -- ouch! Similarly, we bifurcate life from death, and in matters of faith, the pre-mortal from the resurrection. Naturally I am a composite of the same eternal material of different phases and levels of connectivity and separableness, but one phase primarily acts and the other is primarily acted on. I would not want to be one without the other, a "compound in one".

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

A cupful of water is a cupful of molecules at various speeds (the speeds of vapor, steam, water, ice, etc. corresponding to the phase), some remaining with the body of water, some escaping into the air. The phases of water in this cup are never really inseparably connected; as we freeze it, fewer molecules tend to separate but some always do

Yes! But we all need to realize that all the words here are describing human experience, not "reality" or we would not even have words like freeze, or molecules or phase or air, or for that matter, "correspondence".

I wish I could erase that word from existence!

Perhaps elevated beings just perceive "clouds" of what we call "energy".

Whatever it is, we don't have the words or concepts. We need to understand that words are like playing with toy models of reality, or paradigms, toy cars with some semblance of what is out there, but not anything you can drive anywhere.

The difference doesn't usually matter, except when you are using language to describe language. Words are not things, or reality, they are tools.

[CA Steve]

4000± years after the fact do we really believe we are reading accurate accounts of events that happened?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

4000± years after the fact do we really believe we are reading accurate accounts of events that happened?

Some yes, some no.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

4000± years after the fact do we really believe we are reading accurate accounts of events that happened?

Why is that relevant?

What IS relevant is the lessons to be learned. These events MAY or may not have happened.

It doesn't matter 

Regard them as parables if you like

[CV75]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes! But we all need to realize that all the words here are describing human experience, not "reality" or we would not even have words like freeze, or molecules or phase or air, or for that matter, "correspondence".

I wish I could erase that word from existence!

Perhaps elevated beings just perceive "clouds" of what we call "energy".

Whatever it is, we don't have the words or concepts. We need to understand that words are like playing with toy models of reality, or paradigms, toy cars with some semblance of what is out there, but not anything you can drive anywhere.

The difference doesn't usually matter, except when you are using language to describe language. Words are not things, or reality, they are tools.

Now a few have lived to describe an experience with death -- which means it is still part of their life, not death, experience --  . You mentioned here or elsewhere that we lean toward substituting a belief system for, or adding a belief system to, generally accepted facts concerning death, and I suppose the various descriptions of NDEs is one reason why (in addition to filling in a big blank).

This conversation, for me, started with the question, "What can resurrected beings do with themselves that they cannot do as spirit beings?" Or, to avoid bifurcation, "What can we do with ice that we cannot do with vapor?" ...which still yields a can / cannot bifurcation... yikes! But as the phases of water interact differently with their surroundings to various effects, I suppose the "phases" of a person do also.

I was thinking about your idea (I probably have it wrong) of a spirit person phasing into a person of mortal matter who then phases into a zygote person and so on, and upon death phases back into a spirit. and then a resurrected person. I think depending on what part of the world you are from, this would make perfect sense, and "inseparably connected" simply means the person's phases attain an equilibrium (the glory by which they are quickened). But one phase or equilibrium of phases can do some things, and not others. For example, God cannot lie as that would upset this equilibrium, and He would cease to be God.