Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Three: The Book Of Mormon


Recommended Posts

From my point of view, I still don't see why it's so important for this to be so, especially given our (professed) belief in the nature of continuing revelation.

While not all of the "Christians' who lived long, long ago advanced to the point where their words became words for all of us to learn from today, some of those old guys were just as advanced in their knowledge of the things of God as the best of us are today.

Abraham, for example. That man rocked! And yes, it was our Father who taught him, through our Lord and the Holy Ghost, but still. Look at how much he knew!

It's not as if God waited for us to come along in this generation or dispensation before he started to teach us all that we know today.

All that we have now is a rehash of what prophets of God had in the past, and to not realize that is to think they weren't as advanced as they really were.

I don't think it's a good idea to underestimate anyone.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment

It's not as if God waited for us to come along in this generation or dispensation before he started to teach us all that we know today.

All that we have now is a rehash of what prophets of God had in the past, and to not realize that is to think they weren't as advanced as they really were.

I disagree.

D&C 128:18: "And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times."

Plus, I don't think it's a matter of withholding, but a matter of our communal progression in working out what we need to work out in order to ask the right questions, and to understand and appreciate certain concepts in a more fulfilling manner.

Link to comment

I disagree.

D&C 128:18: "And not only this, but those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times."

Plus, I don't think it's a matter of withholding, but a matter of our communal progression in working out what we need to work out in order to ask the right questions, and to understand and appreciate certain concepts in a more fulfilling manner.

Name one thing we know today that wasn't revealed to at least one prophet of God in the past.

This is a "Restoration" dispensation, and while some things were new to US due to the apostasy, what we now know was already known to people of the past.

Link to comment

Wade,

You failed to understand the point I was making, which was that unqualified language (such as found both in the Book of Mormon text and in Paul's text) needs to be understood in context. My analogy to 1 Corinthians 7 was not "poisoning the well" because I was not using that analogy to characterize the Mormon theological position but to make a hermeneutical point.

You are obviously mistaken in your perception of what I meant. I did understand your point. It's just that, ironically, your point needs to be understood in the context of your criticism of what Dr. Peterson has said. Your point, in context, was an implied misrepresentation of Dr. Peterson's belief about theosis, and thus poisoned the well. Now, again, I am not saying that your misrepresentation was intended or the result of ignorance or neglect. I just don't know. In short, I wasn't poisoning the well, I was speaking to your well-poisoning misrepresentation. Did you get it that time?

What question do you claim I didn't answer?

Here it is in a more abbreviated form: "...could you please point out any explicit and pertinent qualifiers in the scripture above [3Nephi 28:10]?

The reason I gave for assigning Mormons the burden of proof for their proof-texting seems to have sailed right by you.

You obviously have reading comprehension problems if you think so.

Again, I don't think I failed to answer a question you asked. You had asked what qualifying wording in the verse itself proves my interpretation correct.

Wrong. See the cut/paste of my question above. Note that it doesn't mention your interpretation, correct or otherwise. The simple question was asked so as to establish a foundation for later addressing your interpretation.

My answer is that none is needed; if the context does not prove that your proof-texting interpretation is correct then the text fails to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon teaches the doctrine in question. That was the answer to your question.

You really are having reading comprehension problems. I didn't ask whether the passage needed qualifiers. I didn't ask you how YOU may qualify an unqualified passage. I simply and essentially asked you if the passage was explicitly qualified or not.

The simple and obvious answer is that it is not explicitly qualified. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

Name one thing we know today that wasn't revealed to at least one prophet of God in the past.

This is a "Restoration" dispensation, and while some things were new to US due to the apostasy, what we now know was already known to people of the past.

You're asking me to prove a negative, a bit of a logical fallacy. I can state clear Church doctrines we teach today that can be found nowhere in scripture, and there will still be the answers of either a) 'Oh, they knew that, just didn't write about it - prove they didn't know it!, or b) This phrase from this scripture is actually teaching very clearly this doctrine, but you must be blinded if you can't see it.

I did present a scripture that specifically states that in this dispensation, the Lord is revealing new things that have never been revealed. You shrugged it off, and didn't address it. Do you disagree with it? It's certainly fine if you do, I'd just like you to acknowledge it if that's the case. I think you should do that first before proceeding with your argument.

Link to comment
You're asking me to prove a negative, a bit of a logical fallacy. I can state clear Church doctrines we teach today that can be found nowhere in scripture, and there will still be the answers of either a) 'Oh, they knew that, just didn't write about it - prove they didn't know it!, or b) This phrase from this scripture is actually teaching very clearly this doctrine, but you must be blinded if you can't see it.

i believe this is a valid point, and one I am hoping to teach Rob.

In short, the scriptures are sufficiently vague as to provide ample room for differing opinions. The scriptures can reasonably be interpreted as either suggesting that theosis (or the plan of salvation and exaltation) was a basis tenant of the gospel and a part of the temple rituals throughout the dispensations of mankind, or that it was a latter-day revelation. And, the beauty of the gospel is that it doesn't ultimately matter one way or the other to the verity of the restored gospel and our divine potential in relation thereto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment

No, what I mean is that it's not the most natural reading for someone who has "no dog in the hunt." A non-Christian viewing the totality of the evidence from the Book of Mormon would most likely reach the same conclusion. I don't have any ax to grind on the issue because I recognize that some Mormon doctrines are in the Book of Mormon; my claim is that some aren't. I seek to determine which those are by studying the Book of Mormon on its own terms. Mormons "naturally" read later Mormon doctrine into the Book of Mormon; I fully understand that.

It is interesting that Origen of Alexandria stated a belief that differences evident among men on earth were attributable to differences in rank and glory attained by those men as premortal angels. And that God could not be viewed as "no respecter of persons" without such a premortal existence. In fact, if the differences of men on earth were not related in some way to our premortal condition, then God could be viewed as arbitrary, capricious, and unjust. He felt that a judgment of sorts had already taken place based on our premortal merit, with the result being the station into which we were placed in this life. As an example of this concept supported in the Bible, he referred to Jacob being preferred over Esau. Why was this so? Because "we believe that he was even then chosen by God because of merits acquired before this life."

Oh, wait! Origen had a "dog in the hunt" AND he was a Christian so your statement doesn't apply to him.

Edited to add,

In reference to the concept of premortal life, William de Arteaga stated:

"This question was hotly debated by Christians of late antiquity, and the faction of the Church which was bitterly opposed to preexistence gained the upper hand. By the sixth century belief in preexistence was declared heresy. All of this is quite astonishing in view of the clear and repeated biblical evidence for preexistence." William de Arteaga, Past Life Visions: A Christian Exploration (New York: Seabury Press, 1983), 127

Edited by Vance
Link to comment

You're asking me to prove a negative, a bit of a logical fallacy.

Uh, no, I'm really not., although I can see how you might see it that way. What I'm really asking you to do is tell me one thing we know today that you think is totally new and unique to our dispensation.

I can state clear Church doctrines we teach today that can be found nowhere in scripture, and there will still be the answers of either a) 'Oh, they knew that, just didn't write about it - prove they didn't know it!, or b) This phrase from this scripture is actually teaching very clearly this doctrine, but you must be blinded if you can't see it.

Forget about how I might respond to your example, for a moment. I could be like Rob and simply say that what you are saying simply ain't true, but you could still make your point anyway. Please provide an example, if you think you can. Even if you were to use an example of something that is revealed in the temple, I'm sure those things were known all the way back to Adam and Eve, and even before then.

I did present a scripture that specifically states that in this dispensation, the Lord is revealing new things that have never been revealed.

You provided a scripture that can be interpreted the way you are interpreting it, but you didn't provide an example of anything that has been revealed today which is totally new and unique to our dispensation.

You shrugged it off, and didn't address it. Do you disagree with it?

I agree with the scripture, but not with how you are interpreting it because to my knowledge there hasn't been anything new revealed in this dispensation that hasn't been known to at least one prophet of the past.

I await your example, if you really have one. Knock my socks off, please.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment

Even if you were to use an example of something that is revealed in the temple, I'm sure those things were known all the way back to Adam and Eve, and even before then.

Ha!!

Well color me convinced then.

With such a preemptive, presumptuous retort, all I can say is; GOOD LUCK NACK!!

Link to comment

I await your example, if you really have one. Knock my socks off, please.

I'll start you off with three.

  • Eternal Marriage with the clear expressed possibility of joint "continuation of the seed" beyond death, with individual family members 'sealed' to each other as a distinct eternal family unit.
  • Adam was an archangel prior to his life on earth who actively participated in the creation of the earth before forgetting everything.
  • Man's intelligent essence is co-eternal with God.

Oh, and I'll be on the watch for prooftexts taken out of their textual and cultural context. Be prepared to clearly back up your assertions before you slap it down with a commonly used scripture, and be prepared to defend how it makes sense in its immediate context. And please use scriptural texts with a provenance into antiquity, not texts that are debatable as modern inspired expansions by Joseph, such as the JST and Abraham.

*This is getting off track from the OP. Please start a new thread to continue this. I won't go any further on this point in this thread.

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment

I'll start you off with three.

Eternal Marriage with the clear expressed possibility of joint "continuation of the seed" beyond death, with individual family members 'sealed' to each other as a distinct eternal family unit.

You really think Adam and Eve didn’t know that and pass that on to at least some of their children? Interesting what that says about you, I think.

Adam was an archangel prior to his life on earth who actively participated in the creation of the earth before forgetting everything.

Oh come on now. Surely you’ve read about the family council Adam had with some of his children when some of THEM told him about that.

Man's intelligent essence is co-eternal with God.

Uh, yeah, because it’s the same or same “kind” of intelligence, although not always as developed as his is.

Oh, and I'll be on the watch for prooftexts taken out of their textual and cultural context.

Watch away to your heart’s content. Your approval isn’t what I’m seeking here.

Be prepared to clearly back up your assertions before you slap it down with a commonly used scripture, and be prepared to defend how it makes sense in its immediate context.

Are you really under the impression that I really care about whether or not you agree with me?

And please use scriptural texts with a provenance into antiquity, not texts that are debatable as modern inspired expansions by Joseph, such as the JST and Abraham.

Ha! How funny you are to want to limit our resources to only what is not debatable. Good luck with that.

Edited by Ahab
Link to comment

  • Eternal Marriage with the clear expressed possibility of joint "continuation of the seed" beyond death, with individual family members 'sealed' to each other as a distinct eternal family unit.

Right, because this promise is obviously going to be fulfilled in this world.

Gen. 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Link to comment

Right, because this promise is obviously going to be fulfilled in this world.

Gen. 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

Can you number the earthly descendants of Abraham?

Do you not think the concept of numberless stars and numberless sand particles is a pretty good metaphor for trillions of descendants?

Link to comment

I sense a hint of condescension.

My daughter informs me that when I go all "academicy" (meaning precise and formal in my writing) it comes across as very condescending when the only real intent (usually) is that I want to be as clear as possible in my words. Formal writing in an informal setting such as message boards and personal letters (which is what she was commenting on) can lead to misinterpretation of tone quite easily, I believe. And for some of us (meaning me), formal writing is such a habit that it's very hard to write anything extensive in any other style....hopefully this is not so formal as to sound condescending. ;)

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

Can you number the earthly descendants of Abraham?

Do you not think the concept of numberless stars and numberless sand particles is a pretty good metaphor for trillions of descendants?

Nah. Because it is off by several orders of magnitude.

Link to comment

And there it is. Thanks wink.gif

You still made your own points, for whatever they're worth.

If you know you're right what does it really matter if other people do not agree with you, or if they think they have refuted your points?

Be strong, bro, and whenever you can, choose the right side.

Link to comment

My daughter informs me that when I go all "academicy" (meaning precise and formal in my writing) it comes across as very condescending when the only real intent (usually) is that I want to be as clear as possible in my words. Formal writing in an informal setting such as message boards and personal letters (which is what she was commenting on) can lead to misinterpretation of tone quite easily, I believe. And for some of us (meaning me), formal writing is such a habit that it's very hard to write anything extensive in any other style....hopefully this is not so formal as to sound condescending. ;)

Ha! I've been condescended to by the best! :mellow:

Bernard

Link to comment

If you know you're right what does it really matter if other people do not agree with you, or if they think they have refuted your points?

I've had many of my strongly held opinions changed partially by considering and mulling over the arguments of those I did not initially agree with. I like to think if someone as stubborn as I can have massive paradigm shifts, then it's worth giving other's the same opportunity for the same material I also directly interacted with. I feel greatly blessed by the challenges, and stronger for them. I'm fine with individuals having differences of opinion based on, well, something. It is simple dismissive assertions without interacting with the actual arguments and using nothing more than smug surety as their argument that tends to bother me - because nobody benefits from that.

I am more than willing to be shown I'm wrong. (I have been many times, and I've acknowledged it, altered my thinking, and moved on!) Being smugly told I'm wrong without addressing or interacting in any way with my expressed concerns is highly annoying.

Unfortunately, too many of our missionaries use this as a tool in their proselyting kit, and then wonder why they aren't baptizing. They often mistake this as being the same as Teach and Testify.

As Mormons, the burden of proof is on us for our assertions. "Prove this didn't happen" is a terrible rejoinder when a historical claim is questioned.

I don't blame people for not believing many of our truth claims. At all. The difference I have with several other of my fellow practicing Mormons that I've seen participate on this board is that I don't feel my acceptance of certain principles on faith grants me the right to be a self-righteous and condescending jerk dismissing others' real concerns, and simply designating them as faithless, scripturally illiterate, or apostate.

* NOTE: I am not calling you a self righteous and condescending jerk, Ahab. I want to make that clear. It's a statement of general observation answering your questions as to why and how I value and tend to take seriously the way others react to my comments.

/Derail

Edited by nackhadlow
Link to comment
Here it is in a more abbreviated form: "...could you please point out any explicit and pertinent qualifiers in the scripture above [3Nephi 28:10]?

The simple and obvious answer is that it is not explicitly qualified. Right?

My reason for asking this question is to make the point that whatever qualifications any of us interpret into this unqualified scripture, it is a matter of opinion and something we are imposing on the scripture rather than what the scripture says of itself--not that such interpretive impositions are necessarily inappropriate or unreasonable.

This, to me, is fundamental to assessing Rob's so-called critique of Dr. Peterson's article. I say "so called" because I am not sure it is so much a critique as it is an expression of Rob's differing opinion. Rob has one opinion as to the meaning and application of various scriptures (3Ne. 28:10 in particular), and Dr. Peterson, and many LDS here, have a different opinion.

For Rob's online article to be a legitimate critique, one would either have to privilege, or grant superior authority to, Rob's opinion over that of Dr. Peterson, or demonstrate that Dr. Peterson's interpretation isn't reasonable. I can't speak for anyone but myself, I have to say that I don't find sufficient cause for either. In fact, given my bias, I would think it just the opposite (Dr. Peterson is the one speaking with authority, and there are points that Rob makes that are, in my opinion, unreasonable).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Wade,

You wrote:

Here it is in a more abbreviated form: "...could you please point out any explicit and pertinent qualifiers in the scripture above [3Nephi 28:10]?

The simple and obvious answer is that it is not explicitly qualified. Right?

My reason for asking this question is to make the point that whatever qualifications any of us interpret into this unqualified scripture, it is a matter of opinion and something we are imposing on the scripture rather than what the scripture says of itself--not that such interpretive impositions are necessarily inappropriate or unreasonable.

This, to me, is fundamental to assessing Rob's so-called critique of Dr. Peterson's article. I say "so called" because I am not sure it is so much a critique as it is an expression of Rob's differing opinion. Rob has one opinion as to the meaning and application of various scriptures (3Ne. 28:10 in particular), and Dr. Peterson, and many LDS here, have a different opinion.

For Rob's online article to be a legitimate critique, one would either have to privilege, or grant superior authority to, Rob's opinion over that of Dr. Peterson, or demonstrate that Dr. Peterson's interpretation isn't reasonable. I can't speak for anyone but myself, I have to say that I don't find sufficient cause for either. In fact, given my bias, I would think it just the opposite (Dr. Peterson is the one speaking with authority, and there are points that Rob makes that are, in my opinion, unreasonable).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Whether one argues that the statement should be understood in a qualified sense, or argues that the statement should be understood in an unqualified, universal sense, both arguments are defending a particular interpretation of the statement. This is just as true of the "unqualified" interpretation as the "qualified" interpretation. Context should be the key here, not the "authority" of the interpreter.

Link to comment

Contrary to your assertion, Alma 13:3 clearly teaches that both the callings and the priests were prepared and called from the foundation of the world. A plain reading of the entire verse, not your snipped version, demonstrates your error.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—

being called and prepared from the foundation of the world

according to the foreknowledge of God,

on account of their exceeding faith and good works;

in the first place being left to choose good or evil;

therefore they having chosen good,

and exercising exceedingly great faith,

are called with a holy calling,

yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with,

and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

This is just an example of the Book of Mormon's Arminianism. It simply means that God, by his foreknowledge, called and ordained men to be high priests even before they were born. In their earth life, they were given a chance to exercise their agency (lest you wrongly interpret this passage as Calvinism), and having made the choice that God knew they would make, he called them to a high calling. I'm not necessarily saying that Joseph Smith didn't believe in a preexistence when he translated this in 1829, but even if he did, that's not what this passage is about. This is just standard Arminianism.

You'll notice, in addition, that this passage differs from later Mormon theology in another way, as to the mechanism of ordination. According to this part of the Book of Mormon, men are foreordained to the high priesthood. Later, Mormons came to believe that the foreordination described in Alma 13:3 was actually not how men are ordained to the high priesthood. In addition, there had to be some line of succession back to the apostles--a concept that hadn't been incorporated into Mormonism circa 1829.

Link to comment

You'll notice, in addition, that this passage differs from later Mormon theology in another way, as to the mechanism of ordination.

Actually, no, it doesn't "differ".

According to this part of the Book of Mormon, men are foreordained to the high priesthood.

True!

Later, Mormons came to believe that the foreordination described in Alma 13:3 was actually not how men are ordained to the high priesthood.

False! The foreordination described in Alma (and also in the Bible) is a necessary PART of ordination.

In addition, . . .

YES!!! "In addition" to not in place of, or conflict with.

. . . there had to be some line of succession back to the apostles--a concept that hadn't been incorporated into Mormonism circa 1829.

Not exactly correct. It was through "some line of succession" that in 1829 priesthood authority was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in (Mormonism's) foundational events.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...