Comments on: Joseph Smith Didn’t Believe in Watchers

By: Chris Jones

Chris Jones — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 16:56:00 +0000

Sorry, but your reasoning is poor. Nothing in the above statements say Joseph Smith did not believe in the watchers, but rather that later prophets did not believe in the watchers. Joseph seems entirely silent on the matter save for in Moses 8:13 which says the sons of Noah were called the sons of God. Good try though.

By: Jason

Jason — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 05:09:00 +0000

The fallen watchers who sired the Nephilim were Celestial beings. But, what most people don’t understand is Celestial beings are no different in fundamental physical makeup than ordinary persons are. The distinguishing difference is the spirit within them and the level of accountability they are operating by. Joseph Smith taught very plainly that the law by which a person lives determines the kingdom they are inhabiting. Where is the Celestial Kingdom to be? Here on earth. The whole point of the restored Gospel is to lay the foundation of the Celestial Kingdom so that we can enjoy the capacity to live in accordance to its laws without molestation from the world. The time in which this happened in the past was at the time that Adam and Eve bore Seth, who was the appointed replacement for Abel to carry out the birthright son responsibilities and to raise up seed to his deceased brother Abel so that his seed would not perish in the earth. Adam and Eve were redeemed and restored to their original purity by virtue of having the ordinances of salvation given to them. They did not have to wait for their redemption for thousands of years. Adam was returned to His throne and He continued as the King of all of Heavenly Father’s children. The fallen “Sons of God” were individuals who were under covenant to live in strict accordance with Celestial Law at this time. And, I am in agreement that these sons were of Seth, who is otherwise known as Son of Man. I say Son of Man because Adam is Man and Seth is Adam’s Son. So, Seth is Son of Man or Jehovah while Adam is Michael who becomes Eloheim upon His redemption by Jehovah. Seth is the means of His Father’s redemption. Put another way, Son of Man comes to make a restitution of all things, which includes restoring His Father to His throne. But, in the process of this, there is a portion of Seth’s seed that rebel and violate their Celestial Covenants. Perhaps it will help you to also know I view Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, etc. as bodies of flesh and bone and not as bodies of flesh and blood. I consider a body of flesh and bone as a societal body, meaning you have a group of individuals who are flesh and blood who are gathered into a body unified by a common spirit between them. Thus, their society is itself a single body of flesh and bone. Thus, Adam is the governing priesthood body while Eve is the body of saints gathered into the church. This is why the reported lifespan of these bodies of flesh and bone correspond with the lifespan of societies instead of individuals. Thus, the fallen watchers were from the body of Seth, meaning from among those gathered together as the body of individuals who are united together to perform the role of Seth or Son of Man. I could develop this considerably more but my fingers are tired for the moment.

By: richard the lion-hearted

richard the lion-hearted — Sat, 09 Apr 2011 03:02:00 +0000

Great read, appreciate the time you put into this, I picked up on the ‘Sons of God’ being rightous priesthood holders immediately. I prayed before I read the scriptures and pondered it afterwords.

By: Mike S

Mike S — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 00:11:23 +0000

#59: LayGuy

Vernal is a tiny town in Utah of probably less than 10,000 people. It’s also one of the largest cities in the US to not have a railroad, so it’s fairly isolated. If I lived there, I’m afraid I’d be bored too…

No offense to BiV

By: Velska

Velska — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:47:56 +0000

LaGuy, can I ask a question?

You say Noah was never called a prophet? Then, did the Lord speak to Noah? See, I’m a little confused how someone can be such a prominent figure in the Bible, so that Peter in his Epistle recounts Noah’s story, and not be a prophet?

I just mean to ask, what’s your definition for a prophet?

By: LayGuy

LayGuy — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:21:20 +0000

MC – I don’t listen to Art Bell. I just read my Bible. For you to dismiss what I say just shows you know nothing about this topic. And no. Noah was never called a prophet in the Bible – maybe in your book – but not in mine.

BiV – great post. But to reconcile your world view with mine would require me to dismiss the fact that I don’t give any authority whatsoever to any “sacred” writing apart form the Bible. I guess that’s the difference between Christian’s and Mormons. You guys hold on to “another gospel” – something Christian’s don’t accept at all.

To accept that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers and to believe that my eternal reality is to inherit a planet and populate it with my own spirit children – with me being their god is in direct contradiction to what mainstream Christianity believes in.

I respect you Mormons in that you study diligently and share your faith with a passion. However, I feel that you do so in vain due to the obvious errors and contradictions in your theology.

Wish you well and that life swings about in a way where you find yourself not so bored anymore wherever Vernal may be!

By: Bored in Vernal

Bored in Vernal — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:17:50 +0000

Layguy, you’ve stumbled on one of those bizarre little traits of Mormons! We tend to interpret ancient scripture with a modern gloss. In our defense, we believe our Church is a restored version of what existed anciently. So, even if it wasn’t the same, people marrying within the “covenant,” or among the people whom God had “chosen” equates to “marrying in the Church.”

By: M.C.

M.C. — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:39:57 +0000

And BiV, great topic.

By: M.C.

M.C. — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:38:30 +0000

Sorry, I just think it’s funny the couple of people on here that have said, essentially, “My concordance says it’s so.”

Well, I guess if it’s in a concordance, it MUST be correct!

To: LayGuy
Dude, you listen to WAY to much Art Bell. Just sayin’. Also, Noah was a prophet.

By: LayGuy

LayGuy — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:15:36 +0000

Did anyone stop for just a second and realize that there was no such thing as a “church” in Noah’s time? Nor was there a Law or Prophets as we came to know them? To equate the story of pre-flood Nephilim to marrying outside the “church’ has to be one of the most bizarre interpretations one could come up with.

By: Bored in Vernal

Bored in Vernal — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:01:45 +0000

msg, I wish you had! Or you could have told them they needed to get to work on their boats, since apparently the earth was again ripe for destruction. I’m sorry you had to sit through that, but some people just don’t think. You have to wonder if the Lord only saved 8 people because everyone else on the planet had married non-members.

Skeptic–OK… but then how do you reconcile Joseph Fielding Smith’s Answers and the CES manuals?

By: msg

msg — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:14:46 +0000

And yes, my children are devout members in spite of my pagan husband!

By: msg

msg — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:12:31 +0000

I actually sat in my ward’s GD class with 3 other sisters like myself who are married to non-members. (my husband happens to be Jewish.) The teacher stated right off that the sin for prompting the flood was marrying outside of the church. Several
members from Utah and Idaho raised their hands agreeing and making comments about the problems with marrying outside the church–all of those who made the ignorant comments of course had no firsthand knowledge of marrying outside and no one in their immediately families had either. They discussed and discussed as if I and my other women friends there were not there
and they knew we were. I wanted to do one of two things: I could stand up and say “Excuse me for leaving class early but
my husband, the pagan, is building an altar on which we will be sacrificing the neighborhood children this afternoon and I don’t want to be late for it” and I’d walk out. You have no idea how I wish I had done that! I also could have said, “Excuse me but it occurs to me that all of you making comments about marrying outside the church have no personal experience with doing so and I’m happy to take your questions and enlighten you.” Noah’s time had pagans and church members. Today that’s not the case as there are many good religious living people. I didn’t meet someone to marry in the church. But the Lord provided a good living man for me anyway and I am thankful He did. And those other sisters, I know their husbands–they are equally fine righteous living men. (The nerve of some people!)

By: SkepticTheist

SkepticTheist — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:19:00 +0000

I disagree on the interpretation that Joseph Smith did not believe in the watchers. Joseph Smith merely gave a more literal interpretation of the THEME of the watchers in the JST. This didn’t invalidate the story of angels coming down to cohabit with women. This story was introduced into the biblical text by some Jewish redactor who recognized this THEME as what had happened before the flood. This theme is mythical. It is the same theme as the Titans who fought against Zeus. The Watchers in the Book of Enoch were never meant to be interpreted literally, just like many things in the Book of Revelation were never meant to be interpreted literally. It was meant to have multiple interpretations of that theme that embody that theme. The whole epistle of Jude is heavily dependent on the Book of Enoch. And Jude interpreted the theme as the angels who kept not their first estate. Hugh Nibley likened this to both Satan as well as Lamech who revealed secrets in an unauthorized way, as well as to Cain:

“This is the classical account of the Watchers, angels who came to call the human race to repentance, but who, being tempted by the daughters of men, fell and gave away the covenants and the knowledge they possessed.” (Nibley, Temple and Cosmos, p. 63).

If we get too literal in our interpretations of the scriptures, we miss the whole point. There is nothing wrong with the Genesis account of the angels cohabiting with women. It was never meant to be interpreted literally. It was only meant to be applied to various historical things that happened. And what happened to the Sons of God at the time of Noah was only one of the literal embodiments of this myth.

By: Arthur H.

Arthur H. — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:47:51 +0000

I was going to say more but Mr. Smidt said it for me. I don’t know why an angel would have the same DNA or number of chromosomes as a human. Maybe they do. I don’t know. But generally, from what we observe here on Earth, when two species produce offspring (and this rarely happens), the result is a sterile offspring.

I’m open to being wrong, but I would like to know what the underlying mechanism is if it’s actually possible to produce non-sterile offspring with an angel.

By: Rameumptom

Rameumptom — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:17:45 +0000

While 1 Enoch has fallen angels, other ancient documents suggest fallen man as the Watchers. So it isn’t just modern men that can see both sides of this story. In fact, Nibley talks about the Cave of Treasures, and how Adam’s posterity at Jared’s time, leave the holy mountain because they are enticed by the daughters of Cain/men, who wear suggestive clothing, play seductive music, and dance for them (see Second Book of Adam and Eve).

I see it as Satan giving his priestcraft power to his sons. Cain was definitely a fallen son of God. Adam and Eve had only recently received the fullness of the gospel, prior to Cain’s death, so that Eve could declare that she had gotten a child from the Lord. Cain was raised as a priest, holding God’s power on earth.

In the medieval Book of Jasher, Adam’s garment is passed down, and stolen from Noah by Ham. Nimrod receives it, and the garment is used for evil purposes and getting gain and power. Yet, because it is the priesthood garment of Adam, it still retains great power. We get this same idea of God’s gifts being used for ill purposes, when the Urim and Thummim are described in the BoM: the person using it must not look for things he ought not.

The Watchers are described as having stolen knowledge and talents from heaven. These include music, craftsmanship, etc. Cain was able to create a new covenant with Satan that twisted God’s covenant with man. This covenant continued down his line to Lamech, who boasted about slaying a man for the covenant. When his wives spoke it everywhere, it allowed secret combinations to spring up everywhere, and the world was filled with violence. Why? Because Satan now had multiple covenants with mankind, and God only had one with man.

Even today, we note in LDS scripture how powerful knowledge is (D&C 130). Evil men are able to use knowledge to get great gain, riches, and government seats of power. Nimrod is described perfectly as the king of the earth, in his day. So powerful was he that he sought to then overthrow heaven. Isaiah’s prophesy against Nebuchadnezzar centuries later, aptly applies to Nimrod, whom Nebuchadnezzar sought to imitate (Isaiah 14). “How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning….”

So, while I do not think incorporeal angels were able to have mortal children and corrupt the world, I do think that mortal men who held the priesthood, changed alliances and gave their oaths to Satan, in exchange for worldly power and gain.

By: More Old Testament Lesson Resources | Heavenly Ascents

More Old Testament Lesson Resources | Heavenly Ascents — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:57:50 +0000

[...] Smith’s opinion of the Watchers (the “sons of God” of Gen. 6), see this post on Mormon [...]

By: Reed Russell

Reed Russell — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:27:13 +0000

This week, I’ve been watching a British series called “Hex.” One of the characters is Azazel – leader of the Nephilim. Wacky stuff.

By: FireTag

FireTag — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:42:43 +0000

Rico: #45

If it was natural, it was not freakish, but something that has happened dozens of times over the past 3 million or so years, and happened relentlessly rather than surprisingly.

By: Rico

Rico — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:10:16 +0000

[http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=75]

I think i remember that Hugh Nibley gives a different interpretation than the one above he makes it sound that the angels came down and corrupted the ordinances by making a mockery of them. This is another interpretation that includes fallen divine beings but not the weirdness of the sex issue.

By: Rico

Rico — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 18:57:08 +0000

The idea God can fall is contained in the BoM reference to the idea that ‘God can cease to be God’. Al 42. Moremakes mover I follow Blake Ostler’s interpretation of what this means.

To return to the issue at hand. Although I am sympathetic to the pagan borrowing idea, I think this still leaves us with the problem of explaining the flood. Assuming it was localized, it was either intended by God (but we have no adequate reason why) or it was a freak natural disaster that Noah was inspired to prepare for (and that the flood was attributed to God – because of his capricious nature – Ronan Head recently spoke about how this world view was present among the near east).

In this context the latter makes more sense but this means the whole story is taking a new turn.

By: LayGuy

LayGuy — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:46:32 +0000

Trust me - I'm dead serious - I just tend to write in my own style! :) Check out all my posts on this topic...Not too sure if the links will appear below. If not, just do a search on my blog.. The Demon Seed The Demon Seed – Pt 2 The Demon Seed – Text & Questions The Demon Seed – Fallen Angels The Demon Seed – The Nephilim The Demon Seed – Demon DNA The Demon Seed – And Also Afterward

By: Bored in Vernal

Bored in Vernal — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 06:03:02 +0000

Th: Here's his post on the Nephilim. Sounds like he takes the fallen angels story very seriously/literally.

By: Th.

Th. — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:58:30 +0000

If LayGuy happens to return, I hope he will state clearly exactly what tone he was going for. I’m really not sure how seriously to take what he’s saying because I can’t interpret the way in which he is saying it.

By: Jeff Spector

Jeff Spector — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 04:22:06 +0000

“Now, the Church still teaches that it is preferable not to marry outside of the covenant. But we’re usually not so un-PC as to suggest that marrying non-members is an abominable sin that may cause mankind to be swept off the earth.”

I think that the Sons of God marrying the Daughters of Men was not a primary reason for the flood but one of a chain of events that started with Cain. I spent a bunch of time on this since I am teaching this tomorrow as well. I prefer to think that this was almost a consequences of the wickedness that had fallen upon the people rather that a discrete thing that happened.

After all, these were the Sons of Adam (progenitors) not so far removed from the garden itself. But there is more to it than what is explained in Genesis 6. It starts back in Moses 5:51-56.

I prefer the simple answers that the Giants were tyrants or men who had fallen due to sin than any supernatural being.