Why Not Engage the Evidence for Historicity?

[Exiled]

16 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I hope you read my entire post, but I don’t think you understood my point.

I am not saying the BOM is not historical, I believe it is.  There are problems with the simplistic views of the BOM as a historical document in the way that the Federalists Papers are historical documents.  But, Cinepro said, “The problem is that believers and critics alike aren't required to support any theory.  It's not a competition where all the theories are lined up and whichever is best must be believed (and certainly, I agree that if we allow for God's intervention and can attribute anything we want to that intervention, then the theories involving God are far stronger).“

It is my position that the Church does not invite people to believe in the BOM because of the evidence many educated LDS (and a small number of educated non-LDS) find witnesses to its historical nature.  The Church instead invites people to pray to know if the BOM is from God (Not even if the BOM is historical).  This prayer is a very Biblical way of approaching truth and in many cases the results of these prayers can re-orient the worldview of those who doubt there is a God sufficiently to forever leave that atheist/agnostic idea behind.

Instead, critics of the church claim that one should recognize that the BOM is obviously not a historical book.  That there is NOTHING to the “God did it” hypothesis.  AND then those without testimonies must not pray to know and those with testimonies must dismiss these experiences as unreliable.  The critics claim the only rational response is to not believe the BOM came from God.

As a LDS, I do not need the BOM to be an obviously historical book.  I really do not expect God to produced evidence of Christ’s resurrection and 2000+ mile instantaneous journey to the New World that must be accepted by all scholars and rational people.  I merely suggest that there is enough evidence that the BOM is an ancient book and “God did it” that it is reasonable, intelligent, rational, … for LDS to continue to believe.  AND that it is reasonable, intelligent, rational, … for non-LDS who consider praying to know if the BOM is from God to in fact pray to know if it is from God.

This thread has pointed to a number of reasons I think the BOM is more likely to be a historical book AND more likely to be a historical book that came from God than not.  But, all the church needs from the efforts of folks like Brant Gardner or Daniel Peterson is a BOM that reasonably could have come from God.  I am an engineer.  I approached nuclear reactor issues and I approach microelectronics issues with study and reason.  I personally find great value in approaching the BOM in ways based on subjective evidence that all rational folks can weigh and measure.  I joined in my mid-20’s and became serious about KNOWING in my late 20’s.  I find the BOM emerges as a complex book that didn’t source solely from any 19^th century human and very very probably didn’t source from any solely non-supernatural means.  From here I think praying to know is a reasoned response.

Charity, TOm

 

I suspect your position would change if there were some discovery making historicity more probable. As it stands, however, possible plus prayer is really the only thing one can say. 

[clarkgoble]

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

I think your assessment of 2 Nephi 9 is incorrect. Verses 12 and 13 are clearly talking about a temporary “hell” and a temporary paradise where spirits go to await resurrection and then judgment (verse 15). This is no different than Alma 40-41. 

It says death must release it's prisoners, but it doesn't address there being a place nor the nature of the spirits. Again, for a naturalistic critic they can just point to the debate over Calvin's soul sleep (psychopannychia). I've not checked into it much, but I think it was still going on in the 19th century. The Book of Mormon rejects the Protestant views and adopts a quasi-Catholic like view. What Alma 40 does is fill this out.

Now I'll concede that 2 Nephi 9 clearly rejects the view that souls are destroyed at death and recreated at the resurrection. Further those Protestants adopting intermediatism of some sort, including soul sleep, typically the underworld is made up of two compartments. (I've not done a 19th century search, but I assume that's easily available for Joseph) However it's Alma 40-41 that clarifies all this. (As he emphasizes in verse 7 -- he's taking the ideas of 2 Nephi 9 for granted) More significantly what Alma calls outer darkness is this intermediary place and he emphasizes (13-14) that they are awake and having experiences even if how he describes this is highly hyperbolic. That's significant and is in opposition to the popular Protestant ideas of 1830. However again to be fair to the critic, a lot of the rhetoric of Alma 40-41 (as well as 2 Nephi 9) uses the terms discussing the controversy in Protestantism.

My own view is that Nephi/Jacob are just assuming the non-sleep ontology of the dead that was popular with the Canaanites but that the texts aren't clear. Alma seeks an answer to clarify the texts and gets the answer akin to the Canaanite view but with more definite place tied to it. (Ignoring Canaanite influence on Israel for the moment - this also lines up with most folk phenomenology of ghosts so you can see why it'd be selected for - typically it's just theologians focused on text rather than experience that reject ghost-like conceptions of spirits)

5 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

I missed your point. A waiting period between death and resurrection is implicit in Nephi 9, but the state of the the spirits is not addressed explicitly or implicitly.

Yup. Sorry I should have been clearer. Perils of writing these somewhat fast rather than over several days. My apologies as it's my fault.

13 hours ago, JarMan said:

In the Book of Mormon if you don’t accept Christ you end up in endless torment being ruled by Satan. In the D&C if you don’t accept Christ you end up in a kingdom being watched over by angels (D&C 76:86-89). This is not a “clarification.” This is almost a complete reversal of concepts. In other words the Book of Mormon concept has been abandoned and replaced. There’s just no honest way to reconcile these two views. 

The logic of course comes out of the idea of "judged according to works" implying degrees. (This is explicit in the description of the vision of the degrees - as found in the header to D&C 76) Even D&C 76 is incomplete as it lacks the idea of progress and conversion in the intermediate state.

All that said I'm not sure I agree with your characterizing of the degrees though. Those in terrestrial glory still accept Christ. "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." (79) "Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it." (74) So they accept Christ, but don't fully allow his grace to transfigure themselves. Now I do think the "afterwards received it" relative to vicarious work for the dead and Nauvoo era conception that acceptance in the intermediary stage is contradictory. But that's a conflict between D&C 76 & Nauvoo theology not Book of Mormon and contemporary theology.

Telestial is more ambiguous, as written, and there's various debates over how to interpret it. That ignores the ideas of Heber C. Kimball and the popularization of spiritualism during the late 19th century where the telestial kingdom is literally being sent back to start over again. However sticking to D&C 76 describes the telestial as "they who are thrust down to hell." (84) Even in popular contemporary usage when Mormons talk hell they almost always mean the telestial kingdom and not the hell of the intermediate stage nor outer darkness. Outer darkness very loosely corresponds to the occasional Catholic notion of Tartarus or lower hell in addition to hell. Some portray Tartarus as the destruction of the soul rather than merely a different level of hell - very similar to the late Nauvoo through early Utah period in Mormon thought. Particularly Brigham Young's thought.

I'd also add that there are some very interesting parallels to Catholic conceptions of the afterlife in Joseph's thought in this era. I'm surprised more critics haven't brought this up. 

Anyway my point is that what contemporary Mormons call heaven (Celestial and Terrestrial) and hell (Telestial and Outer Darkness) corresponds to Book of Mormon usage. While Mormons will sometimes call the Telestial Kingdom heaven, it's pretty rare. Further most of the BoM rhetoric is still applied to Telestial glory in D&C 76. The main difference, as you note, is whether the Devil permanently reigns over them.  I'd simply note that Alma 40 isn't as opposed to this as you suggest. Take verse 26 which has them not inheriting the kingdom of God (celestial glory in contemporary parlance). 41:4 states they "inherit the kingdom of the devil" but doesn't state that the devil rules over them anymore. Rather the emphasis is on a restoration to what they truly desired. Which again remains the contemporary Mormon view of telestial glory. So this could easily be interpreted not as continuing to be buffeted by the devil but merely receiving a level of glory akin to that. (Recognizing that contemporary Mormonism doesn't do well distinguishing outer darkness from telestial glory - but that's more a problem of contemporary thought)

Edited July 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

It seems pretty obvious that the book of mormon condemned the universalist rhetoric of Nehor and Alma's son Corianton. In the book of mormon, not everyone was going to be saved or merely beaten with a few stripes and then saved as Nephi condemned. Along with the rest of christianity at the time, mormons believed in the heaven and hell scheme. With the "vision" as it was called, now the church embraced universalist thinking, e.g., practically everyone was saved somehow from endless torment. It was the opposite. They would now suffer a little and then would be saved into a kingdom of glory instead of having to suffer in hell for eternity. A lot of people left the church because of the move in the opposite direction. 

https://history.lds.org/article/doctrine-and-covenants-revelations-in-context-the-vision?lang=eng

I do not disagree that a casual reading of the book of Mormon would show a binary heaven on hell scenario. I was a bit confused by that rhetoric also for some time until I researched it a bit more deeply, as noted by the references I cited. Nothing explicit, but certainly not in direct opposition to the later revelations that explained the three degrees of glory spoken of by Paul in the NT.

Glenn

[JarMan]

6 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Oh, I do see a way to honestly, not to reconcile the two views, but to clarify the two views. I believe that Alma 41:4-5 is more than binary. It shows people coming being resurrected to differing states.

 

The Doctrine and Covenants clarifies that the the Kingdom of God is composed of three Kingdoms of glory one of which which all but those who have desired to do evil all the day long will inherit, according to his or her desires for happiness and his or her desires to do good. And the final hell will be inherited by those who have desired to do evil all the day long will become sons of perdition "for whom there was no mercy, according to the word of Chris" as noted in 3 Nephi, 29:7.

Glenn

This doesn't address my point at all. Let me try again. What I'm addressing is the final fate of those who don't accept Christ. In the Book of Mormon that fate is "fire and brimstone" or endless torment in hell while being ruled by the devil. In the D&C the fate is a kingdom (a lesser kingdom, to be sure, but a kingdom nonetheless) that is ministered to by angels. Surely you can see the difference between endless torment/devil and kingdom/angels.

 

[Exiled]

49 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I do not disagree that a casual reading of the book of Mormon would show a binary heaven on hell scenario. I was a bit confused by that rhetoric also for some time until I researched it a bit more deeply, as noted by the references I cited. Nothing explicit, but certainly not in direct opposition to the later revelations that explained the three degrees of glory spoken of by Paul in the NT.

Glenn

I think it is only mormons that view Paul as talking about 3 degrees of glory. He speaks of bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial that he saw, e.g., heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Paul didn't see telestial bodies or even speak about such things ever. It appears Joseph Smith invented the term "telestial" for his "vision" commonly known as section 76 of the D&C:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/01/27/the-etymology-of-telestial/

So, was Paul even talking about the same thing as section 76? I think that is debatable as Paul talks about many different glories as stars differ from one another in 1 Cor. 15. So, is it three or two categories comparable to the sun and moon and then many comparable to the many stars that have differing light in the night sky?  Paul also talks about having spiritual bodies after the ressurrection which seems to contradict what mormonism teaches.

[clarkgoble]

21 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think it is only mormons that view Paul as talking about 3 degrees of glory. He speaks of bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial that he saw, e.g., heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Paul didn't see telestial bodies or even speak about such things ever. It appears Joseph Smith invented the term "telestial" for his "vision" commonly known as section 76 of the D&C:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/01/27/the-etymology-of-telestial/

So, was Paul even talking about the same thing as section 76? I think that is debatable as Paul talks about many different glories as stars differ from one another in 1 Cor. 15. So, is it three or two categories comparable to the sun and moon and then many comparable to the many stars that have differing light in the night sky?  Paul also talks about having spiritual bodies after the ressurrection which seems to contradict what mormonism teaches.

I don't think non-Mormons have any particular reason to think Paul was talking about degrees. However the idea of degrees is certainly common. You have the three levels of holiness in the traditional Jewish conception of the temple. In 1 Enoch you have the place of people, the place of the mists, and the place of paradise. In platonic conceptions you have the idea of the level of the soul, the lower intellect and the upper intellect. (Quinn and others think Joseph got the idea of three degrees from platonism - and some think telestial may have come from the term telestic than Thomas Taylor used in his translations of classic platonic texts especially Iamblichus) Kevin's hypothesized etymology also makes sense and has the benefit of allowing terrestrial to remain earth with telestial being the underworld. There's lots of other examples of tripartite divisions of glory or ascent in the Ancient Near East even if seven tends to be a more common figure. There are similar ideas in masonry as well.

I'd just note that Mormons don't oppose the idea of Paul speaking of different kinds of bodies. And I'm fine with Joseph merely using Paul as a catalyst for further revelation. Heaven knows the NT itself tends to read OT texts in a similar deconstructive manner or just as proof texts for an existing idea.

The reason to think Paul is speaking of more than just terrestrial as our current bodies and then heavenly bodies are his metaphors that go beyond just two and get into degrees such as the heavenly lights. Even if he's not intentionally getting at that as his emphasis he appears to be making use of an idea that participates in that notion of degree. That's fairly common at the time of Paul in the well known heavenly ascents described in various pseudopigrapha. We know Paul references this with his comment about being caught up to the third heaven. (Which likely means paradise as the third of seven heavens - although one can find other numbers used)

26 minutes ago, JarMan said:

What I'm addressing is the final fate of those who don't accept Christ. In the Book of Mormon that fate is "fire and brimstone" or endless torment in hell while being ruled by the devil. In the D&C the fate is a kingdom (a lesser kingdom, to be sure, but a kingdom nonetheless) that is ministered to by angels. Surely you can see the difference between endless torment/devil and kingdom/angels.

I think the point of D&C 76 is that eventually everyone accepts Christ except those cast to outer darkness who then get the rhetorical treatment you outline. (76:31-38) As I said I don't think Mormon theology does a good job dealing with this. However it is there. While they don't receive the gospel or testimony and thus not the fulness they appear to accept some of it.  Even with respect to the telestial you get that BoM rhetoric. 

• These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth. These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

The idea is that they still accept Christ just not willingly. At least as I read it. With those in outer darkness as those who completely reject it like Satan.

Edited July 16, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Exiled]

6 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think non-Mormons have any particular reason to think Paul was talking about degrees. However the idea of degrees is certainly common. You have the three levels of holiness in the traditional Jewish conception of the temple. In 1 Enoch you have the place of people, the place of the mists, and the place of paradise. In platonic conceptions you have the idea of the level of the soul, the lower intellect and the upper intellect. (Quinn and others think Joseph got the idea of three degrees from platonism - and some think telestial may have come from the term telestic than Thomas Taylor used in his translations of classic platonic texts especially Iamblichus) Kevin's hypothesized etymology also makes sense and has the benefit of allowing terrestrial to remain earth with telestial being the underworld. There's lots of other examples of tripartite divisions of glory or ascent in the Ancient Near East even if seven tends to be a more common figure. There are similar ideas in masonry as well.

I'd just note that Mormons don't oppose the idea of Paul speaking of different kinds of bodies. And I'm fine with Joseph merely using Paul as a catalyst for further revelation. Heaven knows the NT itself tends to read OT texts in a similar deconstructive manner or just as proof texts for an existing idea.

The reason to think Paul is speaking of more than just terrestrial as our current bodies and then heavenly bodies are his metaphors that go beyond just two and get into degrees such as the heavenly lights. Even if he's not intentionally getting at that as his emphasis he appears to be making use of an idea that participates in that notion of degree. That's fairly common at the time of Paul in the well known heavenly ascents described in various pseudopigrapha. We know Paul references this with his comment about being caught up to the third heaven. (Which likely means paradise as the third of seven heavens - although one can find other numbers used)

I think the point of D&C 76 is that eventually everyone accepts Christ except those cast to outer darkness who then get the rhetorical treatment you outline. (76:31-38) As I said I don't think Mormon theology does a good job dealing with this. However it is there. While they don't receive the gospel or testimony and thus not the fulness they appear to accept some of it.  Even with respect to the telestial you get that BoM rhetoric. 

• These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth. These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire. These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

The idea is that they still accept Christ just not willingly. At least as I read it. With those in outer darkness as those who completely reject it like Satan.

I thought the consensus among us apostates is that Swedenborg gave Joseph Smith the ideas of the "vision."  Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View."  If one looks at what Swedenborg was saying at the time, in "Heaven and Hell," it seems to be a close match.  https://holybooks-lichtenbergpress.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Heaven-and-Hell-by-Emanuel-Swedenborg.pdf

[clarkgoble]

25 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I thought the consensus among us apostates is that Swedenborg gave Joseph Smith the ideas of the "vision."  Quinn, "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View."  If one looks at what Swedenborg was saying at the time, in "Heaven and Hell," it seems to be a close match.  https://holybooks-lichtenbergpress.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/Heaven-and-Hell-by-Emanuel-Swedenborg.pdf

Quinn appealed to both - although Swedenborg himself was highly influenced by the resurgence of platonism. Swedenborg is a big influence on later neoplatonists like Emerson as well. So while I mentioned Thomas Taylor's translation of Plato and the platonists there's a broad influence of platonism of which Swedenborg is a part. Also recall that hermeticism is also basically a form of platonism arising from the religious form it took in the waning days of paganism in the Empire given a slight twist with its resurgence in the renaissance.

Scholarship since Quinn & Brooke have refined things a bit. Steve Fleming's work on neoplatonism in particular. (Here's a link to his thesis on the topic) His thesis advisor was Taves and folks here know I'm not that enchanted by her take on Smith. Steve's defender her thesis over at JI. I'm still quite skeptical but think Steve's overall take is much more defensible.

Edited July 17, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

On 7/15/2018 at 3:56 PM, clarkgoble said:

As I mentioned elements definitely go back to Nephi and in particular his vision. However Alma is pretty clear he has new info.

"Behold, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet. Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know—that is concerning the resurrection."

Now to anticipate skeptical charges, a skeptic might say Joseph Smith was merely weighing in on the debate in Protestantism over whether the soul slept and death or was destroyed and recreated. (These didn't arise in Catholicism given that Catholicism held to the idea of saints intervening on behalf of the dead) I tried to find how the various Arminian figures viewed "intermediatism" (the idea that there's an intermediate state and in some cases intermediate judgment) but couldn't find much. Maybe Jarman will chime in as that's his big deal. It does seem the Book of Mormon takes a rather different view though.

There's not consistency in Nephi/Jacob. You have Nephi talking about death as "the sleep of hell" (2 Ne 1:13) although it's not clear if he means that literally or more as a reference to Isaiah 5 (see 2 Ne 15). Jacob likewise uses the imagery in Jacob 3:11 "awake from the slumber of death and lose yourselves from the pains of hell" That one is interesting since he's saying it to people who aren't physically dead but spiritually dead. That is hell is already present.

Jacob 9 is great, although it just says that after we die we'll see God in our bodies. He uses a bit of Mot imagery in 2 Ne 9:10. As I've argued before I think the main source for Nephi's and Jacob's theology is reading the Isaiah passages on captivity and release from exile along multiple contexts. It applies to Babylon but also to the individual in terms of spirituality, to death with resurrection as the freedom (Jacob 9:11-13), and of course to the future. While I'll bring in Egypt and Canaan that's more or less just to explain imagery, rhetoric and structure. The main argument is pretty clearly made in the texts itself by appeal to Isaiah.

Anyway, back to your point, while Jacob has people passing from death to life (15) to be judged and then put in heaven or hell, he doesn't address the period between death and the resurrection. That's what Alma gets that is new. Although you're completely right that even Jacob bifurcates the dead into the masses who are captive in hell and paradise with the spirits of the righteous. (Possibly tied to the broad Canaanite view of royalty or great warriors as dead being treated differently from the masses)

Are you saying that Lehi's & Nephi's visions have nothing to do with their conceptions of paradise and hell? (The mists of darkness as hell; paradise and the tree of life as heaven) Also you're creating a false dichotomy as if it has to be purely one or the other. I think a critic can argue that the imagery in those visions was lifted by Joseph Smith from Enochian literature with the Enochian literature famously largely appropriating Canaanite mythology. (Bautch A Study of the Geography of 1 Enoch 17-19 is worth reading for some this) 1 Enoch 77 has the earth divided into three regions. The first is the place where people dwell normally (i.e. this world). The second is a place of waters, deserts, darkness and mist. The third place is a garden of righteousness. There's also seven rivers. Milik reads 77:3 as the great river Okeanos and the Great Deseret. His reading of them as singular rather than plural has been challenged though and Bautch doesn't accept it. The idea is that 1 Enoch 77 & 17-19 follow roughly the same geography. That geography is pretty darn similar to Nephi's and characterizes a preliminary type of hell & heaven. 

The other argument is that the pit of Isaiah 14 & 24 is the prison of the watchers in 1 Enoch. While that's not a general hell, it suggests an exegesis of Isaiah that Nephi easily could have adopted earlier. (While 1 Enoch is late, the typical assumption is that the mythology is much earlier - sometimes dated pre-exilic) Isaiah 24's date we've already discussed - while frequently put as early post-exilic (within the first century after the conquest) others put it pre-exilic even if its final form is likely early in the Persian period. Isaiah 14 usually is dated as 8th century although some date it to the later Isaiah 13.

As Glenn noted though, we have elements of Alma's later distinction in 2 Nephi 9. That is we have to distinguish between the first death and the period after judgment. Both are called hell but there are important differences. As I said, the conception evolves in the Book of Mormon with Alma 40-41 being an important development. 

I think others have noted the similarity in 2 Ne 9:46 to the Egyptian conception of judgment with memory. Again Egypt is not my thing. 

You're completely right that the degrees of glory aren't clearly taught in the Book of Mormon though. 

 

 

You've said a mouthful and I don't have time to answer everything, but I'll address one thing. The Book of Mormon view of the time between death and the resurrection seems to be Calvinist. The following quote is from the 1646 (Calvinist) Westminster Confession (Calvin didn't believe in soul sleep; that was Luther) :

Quote

The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption: but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.

I will have to do further research to see where Arminianism comes down, but my guess is it will be very similar. The reason is that Arminianism split from Calvinism in the early 1600's over the issue of predestination but retained Calvinism in almost all other aspects.

[clarkgoble]

Whoops. Quite right. I wrote Calvin and meant Luther. Calvin attacked Luther on this point. My bad. Thanks for correcting me. I'd tried to look up Arminianism but couldn't find much. I'd imagine you're correct that they follow Calvin in this regard. I'd tried to look up views in 1830 and kept finding support for soul sleep. I assumed that was the popular view of the era but you may be correct that is wrong.

I'd probably quibble a bit since the Book of Mormon doesn't say the souls awaiting resurrection are "received to the highest heavens" nor anything like that. There's paradise, but paradise doesn't appear to be the highest heaven and appears to have important differences. Joseph Smith appeared (admittedly later than 1830) to think paradise was lower as well - possibly due to exposure to heavenly ascent literature. Often in heavenly ascents paradise was the third heaven of seven. It was frequently tied to Eden and in later Jewish traditions was the source of spirits being born as well. Paul in 2 Cor 12:1-4 seems to also equate the third heaven with paradise. It's significant that Joseph also comments on this suggesting higher heavens. 

Of course to badger again the old view of God living on a mountain and the geography of Nephi/Lehi then paradise would be down on this mountain even if above the valley with the rivers (sometimes of lava). Again though to anticipate critics, this is found in 1 Enoch and while still controversial some suggest Joseph read it. Quinn notes it was mentioned in a scholarly overview of the Old Testament advertised in Palmyra in 1825. However even some critics are doubtful Joseph had access. 

 

Edited July 17, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Glenn101]

22 hours ago, Exiled said:

I think it is only mormons that view Paul as talking about 3 degrees of glory. He speaks of bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial that he saw, e.g., heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Paul didn't see telestial bodies or even speak about such things ever. It appears Joseph Smith invented the term "telestial" for his "vision" commonly known as section 76 of the D&C:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2010/01/27/the-etymology-of-telestial/

So, was Paul even talking about the same thing as section 76? I think that is debatable as Paul talks about many different glories as stars differ from one another in 1 Cor. 15. So, is it three or two categories comparable to the sun and moon and then many comparable to the many stars that have differing light in the night sky?  Paul also talks about having spiritual bodies after the ressurrection which seems to contradict what mormonism teaches.

Of course it is only LDS that view Paul as talking about three degrees of glory as it seems to be a uniquely LDS Doctrine among current Christian denominations. Paul definitely talks about three different degrees of glory in the resurrection but does not expand further on it. The early church fathers also had some ideas on differing levels or degrees of salvation. One may reject the revelations that Joseph Smith had on the subject. It is my belief, based on those revelations, that Paul was indeed talking about the three kingdoms. But without hose revelations, yes it is debatable. But I am LDS and that is what we are discussing, i.e. LDS beliefs.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

23 hours ago, JarMan said:

This doesn't address my point at all. Let me try again. What I'm addressing is the final fate of those who don't accept Christ. In the Book of Mormon that fate is "fire and brimstone" or endless torment in hell while being ruled by the devil. In the D&C the fate is a kingdom (a lesser kingdom, to be sure, but a kingdom nonetheless) that is ministered to by angels. Surely you can see the difference between endless torment/devil and kingdom/angels.

It does and it doesn't. The Book of Mormon text is pretty binary. I have acknowledged as much. The scriptures that I cited can be read though as embracing various graduations with only the sons of perdition being the ones in final bondage to the devil as clarified by the Doctrine and Covenants.

Glenn

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Whoops. Quite right. I wrote Calvin and meant Luther. Calvin attacked Luther on this point. My bad. Thanks for correcting me. I'd tried to look up Arminianism but couldn't find much. I'd imagine you're correct that they follow Calvin in this regard. I'd tried to look up views in 1830 and kept finding support for soul sleep. I assumed that was the popular view of the era but you may be correct that is wrong.

I'd probably quibble a bit since the Book of Mormon doesn't say the souls awaiting resurrection are "received to the highest heavens" nor anything like that. There's paradise, but paradise doesn't appear to be the highest heaven and appears to have important differences. Joseph Smith appeared (admittedly later than 1830) to think paradise was lower as well - possibly due to exposure to heavenly ascent literature. Often in heavenly ascents paradise was the third heaven of seven. It was frequently tied to Eden and in later Jewish traditions was the source of spirits being born as well. Paul in 2 Cor 12:1-4 seems to also equate the third heaven with paradise. It's significant that Joseph also comments on this suggesting higher heavens. 

Of course to badger again the old view of God living on a mountain and the geography of Nephi/Lehi then paradise would be down on this mountain even if above the valley with the rivers (sometimes of lava). Again though to anticipate critics, this is found in 1 Enoch and while still controversial some suggest Joseph read it. Quinn notes it was mentioned in a scholarly overview of the Old Testament advertised in Palmyra in 1825. However even some critics are doubtful Joseph had access. 

You may be over-thinking this. The paradise spoken of in the Book of Mormon seems to derive from the NT paradise mentioned in Luke 23:43: - "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." It seems that Calvin drew the same conclusion, and even though the Westminster Confession uses the phrase "highest heavens" instead of "paradise," it's pretty clear that the same concept is being described. The concept is that there is a place where the spirits of the righteous go to dwell with God to await the resurrection. To quibble over the word "paradise" seems quite strange when the comparison you want to draw is with Egyptian or Canaanite religion where these concepts simply don't exist in this form, and even if they did, it would be wholly unclear whether they could or would have had an influence on the Lehites. I enjoy apologetic work that looks to find Book of Mormon parallels to its proclaimed setting. I really do. But at some point the apologist needs to come to grips with the fact that the Book of Mormon is a book of modern or early modern Protestant teachings. I'll put this challenge out there for anybody who cares to listen. Find me one teaching in the Book of Mormon that doesn't exist in Protestant teaching before about 1650.

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

It does and it doesn't. The Book of Mormon text is pretty binary. I have acknowledged as much. The scriptures that I cited can be read though as embracing various graduations with only the sons of perdition being the ones in final bondage to the devil as clarified by the Doctrine and Covenants.

Glenn

Which cited scriptures are you referring to? Alma 41:4-5? This says that evil people go to hell to be ruled over by the devil. This is in stark contrast to the D&C version which has the evil going to paradise to be ministered to by angels. Making essentially a 180 degree turn is not a clarification. It's a whole new story.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I'll put this challenge out there for anybody who cares to listen. Find me one teaching in the Book of Mormon that doesn't exist in Protestant teaching before about 1650.

I'll actually up the ante here. I challenge anybody to find anything in the Book of Mormon: doctrine, cultural practices, government, war tactics, or anything else that would be out of place to a European scholar pre-1650. (I can think of a single sentence - the first sentence of 2 Nephi 3:15 that fits this criteria, but I would explain this as an 1829 insertion made by Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery.)

As an analogy, imagine finding a hoard of coins buried somewhere in the world. Now imagine that most of the coins were European and were dated to the 16th and 17th Centuries with the newest coin dated to 1650. This hoard of coins would give us an idea of who collected and buried them. We would expect a European person or persons would have collected them. And we would expect that they were buried in 1650 or fairly soon after. It would seem unlikely (though not impossible) for them to have been buried in 1700 since we would then expect some of the coins to have dates near 1700. And it would seem even more unlikely for the treasure to have been buried in, say 1829, because surely there would be coins approaching that year wouldn't you think? If you take that same approach with the Book of Mormon you should be able to find the date of the "latest coin" and thus have a good idea of when it was produced. Based on my research the "latest coin" in the Book of Mormon is about 1635, but I've rounded this up to 1650 for the purposes of this experiment. Additionally, all the coins in the Book of Mormon seem to be Protestant and to date to the 16th and 17th Centuries.

Edited July 17, 2018 by JarMan

[Ryan Dahle]

10 minutes ago, JarMan said:

I'll actually up the ante here. I challenge anybody to find anything in the Book of Mormon: doctrine, cultural practices, government, war tactics, or anything else that would be out of place to a European scholar pre-1650. (I can think of a single sentence - the first sentence of 2 Nephi 3:15 that fits this criteria, but I would explain this as an 1829 insertion made by Joseph Smith.)

As an analogy, imagine finding a hoard of coins buried somewhere in the world. Now imagine that most of the coins were European and were dated to the 16th and 17th Centuries with the newest coin dated to 1650. This hoard of coins would give us an idea of who collected and buried them. We would expect a European person or persons would have collected them. And we would expect that they were buried in 1650 or fairly soon after. It would seem unlikely (though not impossible) for them to have been buried in 1700 since we would then expect some of the coins to have dates near 1700. And it would seem even more unlikely for the treasure to have been buried in, say 1829, because surely there would be coins approaching that year wouldn't you think? If you take that same approach with the Book of Mormon you should be able to find the date of the "latest coin" and thus have a good idea of when it was produced. Based on my research the "latest coin" in the Book of Mormon is about 1635, but I've rounded this up to 1650 for the purposes of this experiment. Additionally, all the coins in the Book of Mormon seem to be Protestant and to date to 16th and 17th Centuries.

I know you've probably articulated this on other threads, but what exactly is your theory of the text's origin/translation? 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Which cited scriptures are you referring to? Alma 41:4-5? This says that evil people go to hell to be ruled over by the devil. This is in stark contrast to the D&C version which has the evil going to paradise to be ministered to by angels. Making essentially a 180 degree turn is not a clarification. It's a whole new story.

Alma 41:5 The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh.

The portions I highlighted first hint at a graduated resurrection of the righteous according to their "desires of good." This takes in a lot of territory as there are many people who are living pretty sinful lives, but yet have good qualities on up to people who are trying their best to do good. Contrast that with the evil person that Alma describes as "he who has desired to do evil all the day long." If one reads this standing lone, it is only a hint. But if one reads this in the context of the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, it makes sense.

[JarMan]

45 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I know you've probably articulated this on other threads, but what exactly is your theory of the text's origin/translation? 

God inspired an early modern prophet to compose the Book of Mormon. This work was done sometime between the years 1635 and 1645 by Dutchman Hugo Grotius or one of his close associates (the early modern prophet). The text was probably originally written in Latin, however Grotius also knew French, Dutch, Hebrew, Greek, and probably other languages, as well. It was soon thereafter translated into English, presumably by one of Grotius' English associates. (Grotius knew some English but I don't think he was fluent enough to have written the Book of Mormon in English.)

So how did this text get to Joseph Smith? Answer: I don't know but I'll give three theories.

1) Joseph received the text through the use of the seer stone even though he never had a physical manuscript or gold plates. This would be similar to other revelations he received through the seer stone such as D&C 7 or, as some have hypothesized, the Book of Abraham.

2) The actual manuscript was brought into Joseph's possession, which he copied, but he never had a set of gold plates.

3) In this theory a 17th Century "Moroni" (an associate or family member of Grotius) made a set of gold plates and brought them to upstate New York (where both the Dutch and English had a presence at the time) and buried them in the Hill Cumorah. An angel delivered these plates to Joseph. Joseph transmitted the Book of Mormon through the use of the seer stone. As with theory number 1, he transmitted the translation originally made in the mid-1600's.

Why did God bring about the Book of Mormon in this way? Answer: I don't know but I have some ideas. But I don't want to derail the thread with more crazy talk.

[clarkgoble]

5 hours ago, JarMan said:

You may be over-thinking this. The paradise spoken of in the Book of Mormon seems to derive from the NT paradise mentioned in Luke 23:43: - "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." It seems that Calvin drew the same conclusion, and even though the Westminster Confession uses the phrase "highest heavens" instead of "paradise," it's pretty clear that the same concept is being described. The concept is that there is a place where the spirits of the righteous go to dwell with God to await the resurrection. To quibble over the word "paradise" seems quite strange when the comparison you want to draw is with Egyptian or Canaanite religion where these concepts simply don't exist in this form, and even if they did, it would be wholly unclear whether they could or would have had an influence on the Lehites. I enjoy apologetic work that looks to find Book of Mormon parallels to its proclaimed setting. I really do. But at some point the apologist needs to come to grips with the fact that the Book of Mormon is a book of modern or early modern Protestant teachings. I'll put this challenge out there for anybody who cares to listen. Find me one teaching in the Book of Mormon that doesn't exist in Protestant teaching before about 1650.

I'm here more speaking of Paul's use of paradise rather than just the Book of Mormon's. More or less general consensus is that 2 Cor 12 is tied to heavenly ascent literature and Paul's use of paradise (and likely Christ's) is the Eden or Eden-like location in the heavenly ascent typically associated with the third heaven.

With regards to the Book of Mormon the question is whether paradise is the early protestant conception or the more apocalyptic 1st century Jewish conception or the older strata the apocalyptic tradition is borrowing from. I suspect it's a combination of all three since I think it's an ancient text but translated in a loose expansive way in the 19th century.

8 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Of course it is only LDS that view Paul as talking about three degrees of glory as it seems to be a uniquely LDS Doctrine among current Christian denominations. Paul definitely talks about three different degrees of glory in the resurrection but does not expand further on it. The early church fathers also had some ideas on differing levels or degrees of salvation. One may reject the revelations that Joseph Smith had on the subject. It is my belief, based on those revelations, that Paul was indeed talking about the three kingdoms. But without hose revelations, yes it is debatable. But I am LDS and that is what we are discussing, i.e. LDS beliefs.

Somewhat. There's near consensus that apocalyptic literature involves a progression through heavens and that the higher the heaven the greater the glory. Typically the one ascending is also transformed. The best example of this is The Ascension of Isiah (6-11). That this is becoming like the beings of each level is also made clear. Isaiah's angelic guide is told at the sixth heaven to no longer call him Lord but companion (8:5) Now all this is usually tied to 2 Cor 12 not 1 Cor 15.

That said 1 Cor 15 is frequently seen as apocalyptic in nature and derived from Dan 7 & 12. While the focus is between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, the heavenly bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-45 are seen as having different degrees of splendor and glory. Many commentaries note this as well. The common Mormon error is conflating the type of resurrected body with the kingdom. (This pops up even in manuals) We use the term kingdom rather than heaven (as is typical in apocalypses) but the idea is the same.

While Mormons misused the verse, the Ascension of Isaiah gets at a lot of the ideas Mormons attribute to Paul. (That text is fairly late - probably 2cd century - but most scholars see it as very similar to Paul's views) The word used there is garment which gets at the traditional enrobing in ascent literature but is also supposed to represent the different body one is acquiring. (The original body may be left behind - see 6:11) Scholars typically link 2 Cor 12 to the Ascension of Isaiah. (See for example Only the Third Heaven?: 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 and Heavenly Ascent although most commentaries mention it)

I'm not sure it's a huge leap to suggest the different heavenly bodies with differing degrees of splendor also entails these levels of heaven that Paul clearly believed in. Joseph treats them as three although he clearly sees the telestial as having multiple levels. (D&C 76:98) Joseph as I mentioned is also explicit that he  ascended to more heavens than Paul. (Some scholars see Paul's only ascending to the third heaven as a failure of Paul - matching Joseph's view) So by the Nauvoo period Joseph clearly believed in heavenly ascent literature and connected Paul to that. Joseph also explicitly connected 2 Cor 12 to 1 Cor 15. Now all that is in Nauvoo not 1832 Ohio, but it probably should inform how Mormons use 1 Cor 15 more.

The Book of Mormon indicates no idea of the later apocalyptic notion of multiple heavens or mansions. However as I've noted earlier it does appear to have the mythic element from the general ANE in Lehi's & Nephi's vision which does have something similar to degrees as one ascends the mount of the Lord. That in turn is made heavy use of a few centuries later in apocalyptic literature.

Edited July 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Rajah Manchou]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'll put this challenge out there for anybody who cares to listen. Find me one teaching in the Book of Mormon that doesn't exist in Protestant teaching before about 1650.

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

20 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them.

1650 is too early for anybody in Europe to know about the Gentiles in America being delivered out of the hands of all other nations.

[Rajah Manchou]

5 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So by the Nauvoo period Joseph clearly believed in heavenly ascent literature and connected Paul to that.

By ascent literature do you mean merkabah literature?

[clarkgoble]

43 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

By ascent literature do you mean merkabah literature?

Merkabah literature is an example of it (although much calls it a descent for confusing reasons related to platonism). But not all ascent literature need be tied to Merkabah or Hekhalot literature. So 3 Enoch is usually considered a Merkabah tradition. However 1 Enoch often isn't. Most Merkabah literature is from the late ancient period through early medieval era. (Roughly 200 AD - 800 AD) There are arguments the tradition goes back earlier - and of course Ezekiel is considered the classic Merkabah text that influences all the rest. 

The very old strata of heavenly ascent typically are ascending a mountain. You get elements of that in the later texts such as during the apocalypse genre. But more often they are ascending more platonic like heavens or proceeding through rooms/palaces within the heavenly temple or city. Some of the older strata and even the later texts can be seen as going through a temple - either a Solomon like temple, an idealized temple such as in Ezekiel, or a more Babylonian temple. (Some non-Mormons see both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 tied to a more Babylonian temple with the garden as part of that movement) Mormons (particularly Joseph) tend to see Jesus' ascent to the mountain with Peter, James and John where he builds the huts as tied to all this too - there are echoes of 1 Enoch for instance. The high places in the pre-exilic period that were halted via the Josiah reforms likely were recreating a heavenly ascent of a sort. Even Ziggurats in Babylon which formed the basis for the legend of Babel were also tied to heavenly ascents with echoes of that in the Genesis text about Babel. As Zepplin put it, "she's buying a stairway to heaven."

Anyway heavenly ascents are characteristic of most of the Ancient Near East region and religions. Judaism was hardly unique in it and there was lots of cross-pollination between groups. Often the ascent gave deification of a sort. (There's even a tradition that Zeus was originally human and ascended to become the God Zeus -- an interesting parallel to Enoch becoming Metatron and then the Lesser YHWH in Merkabah texts)

They pop up in Genesis as well although not as detailed as what comes after the exile. Enoch's being carried off the heaven is well know as is Elijah's. (And indeed Elijah's ascent on a chariot is the basis for the Merkabah tradition with the focus on chariots and wheels) Exodus 24 where Moses and the Elder ascend to get God's word is typically seen as an early ascent. (Forget the dating on that) Deut 30, while not and ascent refers to such ascents in verse 12 and that dates to the Josiah period. One of the traditions of Moses is that he didn't die but ascended (like Elijah) on a chariot. Isaiah 6 was often seen as tied to such ascents as well - particularly the merkabah tradition of chariots. 

As for Joseph it's not completely clear what he was reading although we know he and his peers were reading general history of Christianity by Nauvoo. There's pretty compelling reasons to think that learning about Tertullian's Stoicism was the catalyst for the "all spirits are material" revelation (IMO). While I think it's hard to get 1 Enoch or any useful summary to him in the 1828-1832 era, by Nauvoo that was much more reasonable. There also were the Masonic traditions as well. Jacob's Ladder is an example within that tradition and we know Joseph knew of that in Nauvoo. Although the main emphasis in Masonry with the ladder were getting the virtues. That is its allegorical significance. Here's an 1820 text on the ladder as a heavenly ascent. The basis for Joseph's comment about Paul going to the third heaven but he more isn't clear although he's asserting an actual ascent perhaps informed by 1 Enoch or books about merkabah traditions. There's similar things in the broad hermetic culture that comes out of a platonized "egyptian" conception.

Edited July 18, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

14 And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

15 And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

16 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

17 And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

18 And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

19 And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations.

20 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that they did prosper in the land; and I beheld a book, and it was carried forth among them.

1650 is too early for anybody in Europe to know about the Gentiles in America being delivered out of the hands of all other nations.

I’ve addressed this a couple of times previously. The Gentiles that were delivered out of captivity were the Dutch and English Protestants while the mother Gentiles were the Spanish and Portuguese Catholics. The Dutch fought an 80 year war of independence against Spain from 1568-1648. The English fought against Catholicism and against the Spanish, most famously, in defeating the Spanish Armada in 1588 (with Dutch assistance). The larger war lasted from about 1585-1604 and two more invasion attempts by the Spanish in 1596 and 1597 also failed largely, as in the first, because of storms. The war between the Dutch/English and the Spanish/Portuguese was primarily a naval battle which makes sense given that verse 17 more prominently mentions naval warfare. And of course the English and Dutch both believed God was on their side and, particularly, that he had brought the storms to defeat the Spanish Armadas, which makes sense in light of verses 18 and 19.

Edited July 18, 2018 by JarMan

[Rajah Manchou]

Just now, JarMan said:

I’ve addressed this a couple of times previously. The Gentiles that were delivered out of captivity were the Dutch and English Protestants while the mother Gentiles were the Spanish and Portuguese Catholics. The Dutch fought an 80 year war of independence against Spain from 1568-1648. The English fought against Catholicism and against the Spanish, most famously, in defeating the Spanish Armada in 1588 (with Dutch assistance). The war between the Dutch/English and the Spanish/Portuguese was primarily a naval battle which makes sense given that verse 17 more prominently mentions naval warfare. And of course the English and Dutch both believed God was on their side which makes sense in light of verses 18 and 19.

Yes, but we never resolve the problems with that interpretation. The Gentiles obtain the promised land first. They then scatter and smite the Lamanites. This all took place where the Nephites had been slain, not in Europe. The battles on land and water were in the New World. Its difficult to fit the Spanish Armada into 1 Nephi 13.

[JarMan]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm here more speaking of Paul's use of paradise rather than just the Book of Mormon's. More or less general consensus is that 2 Cor 12 is tied to heavenly ascent literature and Paul's use of paradise (and likely Christ's) is the Eden or Eden-like location in the heavenly ascent typically associated with the third heaven.

With regards to the Book of Mormon the question is whether paradise is the early protestant conception or the more apocalyptic 1st century Jewish conception or the older strata the apocalyptic tradition is borrowing from. I suspect it's a combination of all three since I think it's an ancient text but translated in a loose expansive way in the 19th century.

Somewhat. There's near consensus that apocalyptic literature involves a progression through heavens and that the higher the heaven the greater the glory. Typically the one ascending is also transformed. The best example of this is The Ascension of Isiah (6-11). That this is becoming like the beings of each level is also made clear. Isaiah's angelic guide is told at the sixth heaven to no longer call him Lord but companion (8:5) Now all this is usually tied to 2 Cor 12 not 1 Cor 15.

That said 1 Cor 15 is frequently seen as apocalyptic in nature and derived from Dan 7 & 12. While the focus is between heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, the heavenly bodies in 1 Cor 15:40-45 are seen as having different degrees of splendor and glory. Many commentaries note this as well. The common Mormon error is conflating the type of resurrected body with the kingdom. (This pops up even in manuals) We use the term kingdom rather than heaven (as is typical in apocalypses) but the idea is the same.

While Mormons misused the verse, the Ascension of Isaiah gets at a lot of the ideas Mormons attribute to Paul. (That text is fairly late - probably 2cd century - but most scholars see it as very similar to Paul's views) The word used there is garment which gets at the traditional enrobing in ascent literature but is also supposed to represent the different body one is acquiring. (The original body may be left behind - see 6:11) Scholars typically link 2 Cor 12 to the Ascension of Isaiah. (See for example Only the Third Heaven?: 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 and Heavenly Ascent although most commentaries mention it)

I'm not sure it's a huge leap to suggest the different heavenly bodies with differing degrees of splendor also entails these levels of heaven that Paul clearly believed in. Joseph treats them as three although he clearly sees the telestial as having multiple levels. (D&C 76:98) Joseph as I mentioned is also explicit that he  ascended to more heavens than Paul. (Some scholars see Paul's only ascending to the third heaven as a failure of Paul - matching Joseph's view) So by the Nauvoo period Joseph clearly believed in heavenly ascent literature and connected Paul to that. Joseph also explicitly connected 2 Cor 12 to 1 Cor 15. Now all that is in Nauvoo not 1832 Ohio, but it probably should inform how Mormons use 1 Cor 15 more.

The Book of Mormon indicates no idea of the later apocalyptic notion of multiple heavens or mansions. However as I've noted earlier it does appear to have the mythic element from the general ANE in Lehi's & Nephi's vision which does have something similar to degrees as one ascends the mount of the Lord. That in turn is made heavy use of a few centuries later in apocalyptic literature.

As far as I can tell Grotius held a view of paradise very similar to or the same as what is in the Book of Mormon. I haven’t been able to read the primary sources on this since I can’t find an English translation of his NT commentary. But secondary sources indicate his view was based on Luke 23:43 and other passages. He apparently believed paradise to be opposite Gehenna in Hades/Sheol and to have been a place near to God, although not the final heaven of the resurrected righteous.