309 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

DaddyG, on 04 October 2011 - 11:59 AM, said:

I responded to it already with a thorough list of references from LDS authoratative teachings and scriptures.  See my linked sources.

I did. I saw nothing addressing the CFR.

[KevinG]

Rob Bowman, on 04 October 2011 - 12:19 PM, said:

DaddyG,

You wrote:



I did. I saw nothing addressing the CFR.

DaddyG, on 03 October 2011 - 05:59 PM, said:

http://lds.org/ensig...uery=god+father

The Apostle Boyd K Packer on the pattern of our parentage.  It contains some authoratative writings on the LDS idea of deification and how we will become like our Father in Heaven.

This does not negate the fact that God the Father will always be our Father and as we are glorified, He is increased in glory.

http://lds.org/ensig...hrough+children

We never claim we will become greater than the Father who is perfect.  That is an anti-Mormon canard - if I had more time I'd look for a refutation of it but it may simply be the charge is so silly that it has not deserved that much attention.

DaddyG, on 03 October 2011 - 07:34 PM, said:

Regarding LDS believing that they will have as much glory as the Father...  Some more references.

I might quibble a bit with altersteves quote "We will never have as much glory as Heavenly Father" but only in the sense that God has promised us a fullness of His blessings.  What we don't preach, teach or believe is that we would ever surpass God the Father in glory.  I seriously doubt we would ever even "catch up" in any sense.  We certainly don't believe we will surpass God in glory.

This would be impossible no matter how exalted we become through Christ's atonement.  Because the very act of our glorification glorifies the Father further.

From the very authoratative Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...

D&C 132:63 "...for they [wives] are given unto him to ^amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be ^bglorified."

We glorify God by accepting the atonement of Christ adn returning to our Father in Heaven.

Moses 1:39 "For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

There is authoratative reference from our scriptures that our exaltation glorifies the Father.  So as we progress and obtain what He has, or become joint heirs with Christ, he continues to be increased.  This is of course as natural as any parent glorying in their own children growing into adulthood.

Quite simple as we increase we increase the Father's glory.  Therefore our exaltation is His further glory.  We will therefore never surpass our Father in Heaven no matter how much of His attributes we gain.

The Bible supports this concept of the Father being glorified in His children.  As we read in John 17 the Son glorified the Father through our atonement.  We glorify God by accepting the atonement and becoming one with God.

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy ^aSon, that thy Son also may ^bglorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him ^apower over all flesh, that he should give ^beternal life to as many as thou hast ^cgiven him.
3 And this is ^alife ^beternal, that they might ^cknow thee the only true ^dGod, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast ^esent.
4 I have ^aglorified thee on the earth: I have ^bfinished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the ^aglory which I had with thee ^bbefore the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me ^aout of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast ^agiven me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the ^awords which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I ^bcame out from thee, and they have ^cbelieved that thou didst send me.
9 I ^apray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which ^bthou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the ^aworld, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be ^bone, as we are.

[volgadon]

Quote

If I quoted Anselm of Canterbury to show that a particular idea was "ancient," would that be unreasonable?

In this case a better example would have been Maximus the Confessor.

[volgadon]

Rob Bowman, on 04 October 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

volgadon,

You might want to consult Bill, who has already lectured me about the cosmological ignorance of ancient Jews and Christians. To my knowledge ancient Jews did not have a concept of other "planets" where people might live. To ancient peoples, the "planets" were wandering stars (planet meant "wanderer"). The Mishna saying you cite does not say that the righteous will be given their own planets, nor that they will be given their own earths (the closest equivalent term, I think, to "other planets" in our sense), but that they will be given 310 "worlds" each. It is possible that the term means something like "planets" in our modern sense, but I'm not sure.

The Mishnah does say that they will be given their own, or else what do you think "each" means? The ancient Jews certainly called this earth "olam."

Quote

I think you are also reading something into the text that isn't there when you speak of the righteous receiving 310 planets "to rule over." In the sense that the 310 worlds have been given to him and are therefore his possession, one might speak of the righteous man ruling over those worlds. But the text says nothing about the population of these 310 worlds. It does not indicate whether this enormous domain is populated by rational beings at all (other than the righteous individual), let alone that it is populated by the righteous man's "spirit children."

Quote

The import of the 310 worlds may not have anything to do with ruling; it might be expressing the vastness of the realm in which the righteous person can enjoy life. There is another Jewish bit of lore according to which Eden had 310 worlds; the saying you cited may be a colorful way of saying that each righteous person (with his wife) will have his own Eden (just as Adam and Eve had Eden to themselves before their sin). The point may be the vastness and richness of the blessings the righteous will receive, not the idea of the righteous man being deified to exercise divine rule over his own little galaxy.

I find it richly ironic that you would be quoting that specific "Jewish bit of lore" which you found in Ginzberg. Ginzberg's note doesn't source that lore, so I'll make it easy. "Chronicles of Jerahmeel" 18:6. "Over it hang seven clouds of glory, and the winds blow from all the four corners and waft its many odours from one end of the world to the other. Underneath sit the scholars and explain the law. These have each two canopies, one of stars and the other of sun and moon, and clouds of glory separate one from the other. Within this is the Eden containing 310 worlds, as it is said, "That I may cause those that love Me to inherit Substance" (Prov. viii. 21) [the numerical Value of the Hebrew word (yesh) Substance is equivalent to 310] .
If you wanted a perfect example of a medieval text of checkered history this is it.
A 14th century biblical history mainly drawing upon the 10th c. "Sefer Yosippon," a Hebrew adaptation of Pseudo-Hegesippus (itself a Latin reworking of Josephus) with many later interpolations, and even more so, the writings of Jerahmeel b. Solomon, a 12th c. contemporary of Rashi's grandson.
Ok, there is an earlier source. The author of the Chronicles took this portion from Seder Gan Eden, which can be found in Jellinek. Guess what, this is from the same circles that produced the Zohar! This midrash draws upon the Mishnah for the ammount of worlds and their prooftext. The context, however, is significantly different. In the Mishnah the righteous are each given 310 worlds, whereas in the Seder the Garden of Eden consits of 310 worlds. The focus of this midrash is Paradise. That is where the righteous will be, with no autonomy. In other words, they are not talking about the same thing.

Quote

I am also not sure as to whether the statement is ancient. According to Louis Ginzberg in The Legends of the Jews (1925; Johns Hopkins, 1998), the passage that you cite from the end of the Mishnah "does not belong to it, but is a later insertion" (5:12). I have not been able to find any other comments confirming or disputing Ginzberg's statement, and I do not have enough information to substantiate an independent opinion on the matter. If Ginzberg is correct the statement might date from the middle of the first millennium or possibly a bit later, but this would be a guess at best. If Ginzberg is incorrect the statement would be ancient; if he is correct it might barely be ancient or it might be early medieval.

Do you consider the Babylonian Talmud medieval?

[wenglund]

Rob Bowman, on 04 October 2011 - 10:14 AM, said:

No one disputes that Dan understands deification to mean becoming a God. If it is "reasonable" to understand ancient to mean any time through the end of the first millennium, why stop there? If I quoted Anselm of Canterbury to show that a particular idea was "ancient," would that be unreasonable?

Yes. Why? Because I have a broad and flexible lexicon (one that allows for different legitimate usages of terms even beyond how I tend to use them), and my priority is the pursuit of important matters like trying to correctly understand what the other person means, rather than insignificant and counterproductive things like nit picking words into oblivion.

Quote

"To each their own" is arguably appropriate if the subject matter is "beauty," but not appropriate or relevant if the issue is truth. No offense to Dan, but I don't think he intended his article to be seen as a work of "simple beauty." I think he was presenting an argument.

To me, for the those of us who aren't ****-retentive, and who have broad minds that are able to grasp the basic concept of critical thought called "compassionate reconstruction," will reasonably see Peterson's brief newspaper article as both a thing of "simple beauty" and a reasonable argument that is "true" as he understands things.

We may also find valueless continuing attempts to reason with those good but intractable souls on the polar extremes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Quote

I think you are also reading something into the text that isn't there when you speak of the righteous receiving 310 planets "to rule over." In the sense that the 310 worlds have been given to him and are therefore his possession, one might speak of the righteous man ruling over those worlds. But the text says nothing about the population of these 310 worlds. It does not indicate whether this enormous domain is populated by rational beings at all (other than the righteous individual), let alone that it is populated by the righteous man's "spirit children."

I forogt to post a reply. In the same post that you state this you also raise the possibility of there being the wife of the righteous man. A very reasonable conclusion, and I would go further and include a man's household. Even if this were not so then there would be the angels. The point is the rule.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

wenglund, on 05 October 2011 - 08:50 AM, said:

Yes. Why? Because I have a broad and flexible lexicon (one that allows for different legitimate usages of terms even beyond how I tend to use them), and my priority is the pursuit of important matters like trying to correctly understand what the other person means, rather than insignificant and counterproductive things like nit picking words into oblivion.



To me, for the those of us who aren't ****-retentive, and who have broad minds that are able to grasp the basic concept of critical thought called "compassionate reconstruction," will reasonably see Peterson's brief newspaper article as both a thing of "simple beauty" and a reasonable argument that is "true" as he understands things.

We may also find valueless continuing attempts to reason with those good but intractable souls on the polar extremes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Even if I had time to continue this discussion, which I don't, your comments make me feel my efforts would be better spent elsewhere.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

I am leaving on a trip out of state, after which I will have another such trip. That makes it unlikely I will be able to post much if at all during the next couple of weeks.

[wenglund]

Rob Bowman, on 06 October 2011 - 12:24 PM, said:

Even if I had time to continue this discussion, which I don't, your comments make me feel my efforts would be better spent elsewhere.

Given your blog comments and your comments here, I believe your intractable dogmatism and hyper gnat straining is a waste of time wherever it is spent. But, as always, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 06 October 2011 - 01:02 PM.

[Ares]

Since Rob has no time to respond to his own thread and others are getting testy it is a good time to close this one down.