marg wrote:Thanks Dale. So did the angel which you saw have human features?
I'm not sure how to answer. Dolphins and parrots can have "human features" in how they
inter-relate to human beings, but those are transitory and not part of their natural physical
appearance. I would say that angels have "human features" in the same way that you
might look into your dog's eyes and know whether she was happy to see you or not. Beyond
that, I would say that angels resemble moving fire, or brilliant sunlight upon rippling water,
moreso than they do humans. And yet, they have a form that is discernable to the human
perception, as something familiar --- perhaps in the same way that a very young infant
preceives something very recognizable in its mother's face.
Did you clearly observe them in detail? Did they wear clothes?
Just as the flames of a fire fade downward into smoke or invisible thin air, so the angels'
perceptible forms faded away in a downward direction. I did not see if they had legs or
other bodily features. I spoke earlier of a structure or form -- perhaps something like
the layers of an onion. Is the outermost layer the onion's clothes? I'm not sure the term fits.
Did you observe them move, talk?
They moved in the same way a vibrating object moves -- or perhaps an undulating object.
That is, they were not motionless statues. Their communication was something other than
talking -- more like choir singing. I comprehend why past writers describe angelic singing.
And yet, it was not singing -- and not directed specifically at or to me.
Did you see more than one at one time. If so did you observe them communicate with one another?
Just like you might see more and more of a landscape, as the early morning sun rises,
I discerned more and more of the angels, as they became more recognizable. That is why
I referred to the analogy of infra red earlier. Suppose that your eyes slowly became more
and more sensitive to discerning infra red light waves in front of you. You would slowly
begin to see more and more of the previously invisible rays, until at last you saw them all.
So there was a short passage of time -- but not much. Then they faded away, in the reverse
manner. During the span of the phenomenon, a very large number became visible. They
were obviously engaged in some sort of activity, which was intelligent and communicative.
Dale: My general description would agree with Tillich --- that they are "powers of being" and not "beings."
===Sorry I don't get that. What is the difference between a "power of being" versus a "being."
I don't mean to be critical but this sort of language sounds very obscure to me.
I don't have the Paul Tillich quote available -- but he interpreted the basic Israelite concept of
an angel rather like the "persona" of a Greek drama. That is, a power that communicates to the
audience, by use of the "persona," but which disappears when the scene is finished. Such a
communicative power originates in the playwriter, and exists only so long as the play is being
performed. Hamlet and Horatio are not "beings" like you and I -- they are Shakespearean vehicles
of communication. At least, I think Tillich was interpreting along those lines.
Do you think you saw angels which really existed (perhaps in some other dimension not
easily detected) but which you happened to be able to detect...
yes
or do you think the stress at the time affected and altered your perceptive abilities and you
chose to interprete your experience as observing angels.
I am a unitarian with a small "u" -- so I profess a unity in all things. At the basic level of
reality, I do not differentiate between an external "other" and my internal ego or self-identity.
Given that world-view, there is not much difference in my way of thinking, between another
person who interacts with me, and my own mental preceptions and interpretations of that
person. On the other hand, I see and talk to my next door neighbor on a continuing basis --
whether he is a figment of my imagination, a phantom, a delusion, or a physical person.
The angels, on the other hand, I only experienced once -- and would be happy to never
have such a "glimpse" again.
Finally -- we were speaking of the Book of Mormon witnesses -- who reported paranormal or supernatural
events. I can understand that sort of thing. I can choose to believe them, or not ---- but regardless
of that, I can still study other, less remarkable, things they said and did, somewhat aside from
the "spiritual" phenomena -- or delusions -- or mesmerism, or whatever.
That was the basic point I was trying to make, for your benefit and for Dan's.
UD