Clear

Hi Teddyaware and ZealouslyStriving While I don’t care to enter the debate, I might make a point regarding the underlying text to see if a linguistic insight changes your thoughts. In English, we have the phrase “Forever and ever”, which, on the surface, sounds redundant. However, the phrase in both the Greek and Hebrew of Psalms 90:2 (89:2 in Greek LXX) makes clear that it refers to God from “forever” of the past and into “forever” in the future. Thus, in Enoch the phrase (m’ olam, l’ olam – “forever and ever”) (וּֽמֵעֹולָ֥ם עַד־ע֝וֹלָ֗ם in Ben Chaim – לָ instead of עַד֥) the phrase means FROM eternity past and into eternity future. Notice that the same meaning is present in the Jewish Greek LXX και απο του αιωνος και εως του αιωνος συ ει (LXX 89:2) "Before the mountains existed and before the earth and the world even from the eons (past) and until the eon (future), you are God." (pslm 90:2 heb / 89:2 LXX) While the Hebrew Olam and the Greek eon don’t really mean “eternal” or “forever”, they do refer to an indeterminant amount of time. In any case, good luck coming to your own models as to what this verse means.

Pyreaux said: “Vogel's 2020 book, Book of Abraham Apologetics: A Review and Critique, there he claims that the purported "unique" elements found in the Book of Abraham; such as Terah's idolatry, Abraham's attempted sacrifice, and his astronomical knowledge, were known to Joseph Smith's contemporaries and available in popular religious literature of the time. This mirrors "CA Steve's" claim.” I very much agree that Terahs idolatry existed in the early literature and this can explain the single phrase in the Book of Abraham that Abrahams “fathers” engaged in idolatry. All of us have read this in the Old Testament record as well. How does this single and discrete reference explain the entire book of Abraham? Pyreaux said : “The argument that themes like the pre-existence were commonly debated in 19th-century American religious thought by figures like Noah Worcester and Hosea Ballou is also a standard feature of naturalistic explanations for the content of early Mormon scripture.” Very good. Will you give us actual references and quotes from Noah Worchester and Hosea Ballou so we can actually examine their discussions and how they actually relate to this claim? Pyreaux said: “Pre-existence and Cosmology: Themes like the pre-existence of spirits and a complex, hierarchical cosmology governed by a larger star, Kolob, in the Book of Abraham, were also actively discussed in the 19th-century religious environment, often driven by new scientific discoveries in astronomy.” I VERY MUCH agree that ancient Judeo-Christian literature discusses the pre-existence of spirits (e.g. 1 Enoch, etc) which later rabbinic Judaism prohibited and which Joseph re-adopted in a more mature and detailed form. Can you give us specific examples from the literature that you are referring to? (I can give references, I just want to know what, specifically, YOU are referring to). Can you give us specific references of this discussion of cosmology of being governed by a larger star Kolob (“all father” or “father of all” in Hebrew) so we can examine these discussions? 1) THE AGE OF AND PROCESS OF RESTORATION IS NOT SIMPLY THE PURVUE OF THE LDS. THERE ARE MANY NON-LDS PROCESSES GOING ON AND THE LDS SHOULD WELCOME CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RESTORATION OF ANCIENT RELIGION REGARDLESS OF THEIR SOURCE I would certainly agree with CA Steve if he maintains that not all of Josephs return to authentic ancient Judeo-Christian doctrines were by revelation. It makes no sense (to me) to require new revelation from heaven when reading early Judeo-Christian literature with simple confirmation of the spirit will provide the same insights. For example, religious historians are, increasingly, discovering the exact same principles in ancient Judeo-Christian literature that Joseph Smith taught. It isn’t merely Joseph Smith who restored early Judeo-Christian doctrines, but this process of restoration is on-going and involves many individuals in multiple historical fields of study whether they are LDS or not. I have given the example of Michael Heiser, whose PhD was on “The Divine council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature”. The non-Mormon, Heiser, simply discovered the same principle Joseph discovered and thus, Heiser, and individuals like him, are also play their role in the process of restoring ancient Judeo-Christianity, and confirming their historicity in their own right. I think it is a GOOD thing that non-LDS have and continue to discover the same principles Smith discovered and taught. It's not just a few individuals who are discovering the same principles Smith discovered. MANY non-LDS individuals and researchers are discovering the same principles discovered by Joseph Smith. I, for one, feel very comfortable allowing that non-LDS individuals are also able discover true doctrinal principles and Restorational assistance from any source it comes from. Thus, the continuing restoration of early Judeo-Christian religion is NOT a process exclusive to the LDS. For example, the Messianic Judaism movement that is gathering Israel to Christ is, (in my estimation) playing it’s own role in the Gathering of Israel to Jesus as much as the LDS attempts to do the exact same thing. Anyway, please give me some specific references and quotes from the individuals you referenced so we can examine and discuss their concepts and how they might relate to Joseph Smith and the process of restoration of those principles.

I mentioned "malachi" as a moniker but did not clarify that Mal'ak means messenger and mal'aki means "my Messenger" in hebrew just as Ab ("av") means "father" and abi (avi) means "my father". Thus, it is difficult to tell if the NAME is "malachi" or if it is simply a moniker for "my servant"...

Pyreaux said : "I made similar arguments as you about the parallels in the then undiscovered Apocalypse of Abraham, and he replied to me that Joseph had access to those same parallels in other contemporary works. I'm not an expert in Joseph's private book collection to refute him. I thought it was an interesting claim. I wanted your opinion." This is an interesting claim. Please give me specific examples from the books you referenced and lets discuss them.

Pyreaux quoted CA Steve as saying : "Smith was interested in learning throughout his life. At the time of his death he owned an impressive personal library, for that time, of at least 40 volumes and maybe many more. Many of the authors of those books, such as Josephus, Hebrew grammars, chrestomathys and lexicons by Stuart, Gibbs, Gesenius(maybe) and especially Seixas, Francis Barrett, Leipzig's Biblia Hebraica, Charles Buck, William Hone, Thomas Dic k, Thomas Taylor, all deal with themes we find in the Book of Abraham. Why does it take a genius to be aware of the material in the very books he owns? " I'm not sure what point CA Steve was trying to make. Pyreaux, Can you give me three specific examples from these books CA Steve is referring to and what point he is trying to make by these examples?

αγγελοσ/angel (greek) and מַלְאָךְ/mal'ak (hebrew) both simply mean "messenger" When I first read the Book of Mormon, especially now as I age, I wish we had the original text since much of it has hebraisms that would have had different and deeper meanings than the english in the same way the Greek New Testament is quite different than the english versions. For example, the word "Angel" simply means "messenger" whether the original word is in greek (angelos) or hebrew (malach). This means that whenever we encounter the word "angel" in either the Old or New Testament text, it is ONLY the context that can indicate whether one is speaking of an angelic messenger or simply a mortal messenger (such as would be sent out from a king with a message to another person). For example, the last book in the Old Testament, Malachi, means "my messenger". Thus one cannot tell if Malachi is the writers name or simply a moniker.

InCognitus said : “What you say above is not a “fact”. People who hear the true gospel of Jesus Christ in this life and understand it and knowingly reject it are not given the same opportunities as others in the next life. And as I said before, their being judged according to men in the flesh has to do with their living their mortal life in accordance with the truths that they given and understand while in mortality, even if those truths are few in number. People in that situation “obey all the ordinances” by accepting those ordinances as performed for them vicariously.” TelnetD replied: “Doctrine and Covenants 138:10 speaks of their being judged according to men in the flesh but these are the dead people in the spirit world, not those living a mortal life on earth.” I haven’t followed this discussion and, while I don’t particularly want to enter this debate, I felt there ancient Judeo-Christian texts give some context to this discussion. For example, the Talmud provides MANY wonderful anecdotes which are applicable in multiple levels and show certain judgments are independent of whether the person is alive or dead. For example (from tractate Sanhedrin): The Emperor Antoninus tries to convince Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi that the body and soul can each excuse themselves from sin by claiming that the transgression is the fault of the other, since without its counterpart, it is lifeless. R. Yehudah disputes this with a parable that is also a model of the relationship of the spirit and body. "Two guards–one blind and one lame–are in a garden. Together, they are able to steal some fruit from a high tree. When caught, each claims that he is obviously unable to commit the crime due to his disability. In the end, the orchard owner places the lame man on the back of the blind man, and they are judged as one" (91b). (while I've summarized the parable, I can quote the complete version if you are interested. There are at least two versions in different ancient literature) This represents the early doctrine where, God judges the actions of the body and spirit in partnership. In a similar fashion, Christian Gospel of Nicodemus relates the story of the two dead sons of Rabbi Symeon who, upon resurrecting at the time of Jesus’ resurrection (c.f. Matt 27:52) describe their time spend in the world of spirits prior to their resurrection. The narrative begins when Joseph of Arimathea approaches the Church leaders who were marveling at Jesus’ resurrection. “Joseph said: “Why then do you marvel at the resurrection of Jesus? It is not this that is marvelous, but rather that he was not raised alone, but raised up many other dead men who appeared to many in Jerusalem. And if you do not know the others, yet Symeon, who took Jesus in his arms, and his two sons, whom he raised up, you do know. For we buried them a little while ago. And now their sepulchers are to be seen opened and empty, but they themselves are alive and dwelling in Arimathaea.” They therefore sent men, and they found their tombs opened and empty. Joseph said: “Let us go to Arimathaea and find them.” Then arose the chief priests Annas and Caiaphas, and Joseph and Nicodemus and Gamaliel and others with them, and went to Arimathaea and found the men of whom Joseph spoke. So they offered prayer and greeted one another. They then went with them to Jerusalem, and they brought them into the synagogue, and secured the doors, and the chief priests placed the Old Testament of the Jews in the midst and said to them: “We wish you to swear by the God of Israel and by Adonai and so speak the truth, how you arose and who raised you from the dead.” The two sons then describe that they “were in Hades with all who have died since the beginning of the world. And at the hour of midnight there rose upon the darkness there something like the light of the sun and shone, and light fell upon us all, and we saw one another. And immediately our father, Abraham, along with the patriarchs and the prophets, was filled the joy, and they said to one another: “This shining comes from a great light.” The prophet Isaiah, who was present there, said : “This shining comes from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This I prophesied when I was still living: The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, the people that sit in darkness saw a great light.” Then there came into the midst another, an anchorite from the wilderness. The patriarchs asked him: “Who are you?” He replied: “I am John, the last of the prophets, who made straight the ways of the Son of God, and preached repentance to the people for the forgiveness of sins. ....And for this reason he sent me to you, to preach that the only begotten Son of God comes here, in order that whoever believes in him should be saved, and whoever does not believe in him should be condemned. Therefore I say to you all: When you see him, all of you worship him. For now only have you opportunity for repentance because you worshiped idols in the vain world above and sinned. At another time it is impossible. “ In this early theology, all individuals are able to progress morally (repent) until they are no longer allowed and the judgment ensues. The narrative continues: “ Now when John was thus teaching those who were in Hades, the first-created, the first father Adam heard, and said to his son Seth: My son, I wish you to tell the forefathers of the race of men and the prophets where I sent you when I fell into mortal sickness.” Seth, son of Adam then relates the promise to Adam that God would, at some point in the future, resurrect him from the dead. The text continues: “When the patriarchs and prophets heard this, they rejoiced greatly.” At the descensus of Jesus into the world of spirits several patriarchs in this world of spirits (hades/sheol/spirit world, etc.) rejoice and, they continue to describe the entry of Jesus into the world of spirits and the visit culminates when “....the King of glory stretched out his right hand, and took hold of our forefather Adam and raised him up. Then he turned also to the rest and said: “Come with me, all you who have suffered death through the tree which this man touched. For behold, I raise you all up again through the tree of the cross. These two resurrected sons end their witness by saying: “All this we saw and heard, we two brothers who also were sent by Michael the archangel and were appointed to preach the resurrection of the Lord, but first to go to the Jordan and be baptized. There also we went and were baptized with other dead who had risen again. Then we went to Jerusalem also and celebrated the Passover of the resurrection. But now we depart, since we cannot remain here. And the love of God the Father and the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (The Gospel of Nicodemus - Christ’s descent into hell) There are multiple ancient texts that describe the ability of spirits to continue to repent after death (though not after judgment begins).

Thank you InCognitus for the explanation and Calm for the "re-welcoming".

I do not think the LDS realize the historical strength of their theology. While some distance themselves from LDS theology because of the Pearl of Great Price, it is a text that brings me increasingly closer (historically) to Restorational theology. I grew up protestant and became interested and steeped in early Judeo-Christian literature (Talmud, haggadic literature, Zohar, Testament literature, Mishnas, lectionaries, Hellenistic Prayers, Nag Hamadi library, the Qumran Library, early ascension and descensus literature, etc…) and have noticed what I call, The “Heiser theological funnel”. THE HEISER THEOLOGICAL FUNNEL Michael Heiser, a wonderful Hebraist wrote his doctoral thesis on the council of the Gods in early Jahwist religion. Because it paralleled the LDS theology, his fellows at Liberty University claimed Michael was a “closet Mormon”. Michael denied the characterization and even wrote a response to LDS Scholars called “If you’ve met one Elohim, you’ve met them all” in an effort to distinguish his scholarly findings from LDS theology. The problem for Michael was that the LDS scholars agreed with his findings and pointed out the LDS beliefs paralleled Michaels research rather than disagreed with it. The historical data simply “funneled” Michael into conclusions that paralleled LDS theology despite Michaels efforts to distance himself from this conclusion. I’ve noticed that students of early Judeo-Christian literature are, increasingly, in the same position as Michael. For example, one cannot read Jewish Enoch, from 300 b.c. without coming face to face with pre-existence and themes that parallel Restorational theology. One cannot read 40 day literature (e.g. abbaton) without the same thing happening. One cannot read descensus literature such as the Gospel of Nicodemus without wondering if Smith himself somehow wrote such descriptions. Most of the parallel literature such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, dead sea scrolls, Nag Hamadi libraries were not discovered in Smiths life time. HOW WAS SMITH ABLE TO BORROW FROM FUTURE TEXTUAL DISCOVERIES? Thus, while one can easily explain rare potential errors in Smiths theology, I’ve never met anyone who could explain how he “borrowed” from future textual discoveries not available in his life time, yet describe his theology in wonderful detail.

MY LAST POST IS INCORRECT and I cannot tell how to edit it. Nehor responded (6-29) "No, the Greek makes it fractional. It might be symbolic but a strict reading means the three parts were roughly or exactly the same size." Actually WEEBLES is perfectly correct. The greek in Revelation is "το τριτο" (a neuter, articulated noun) which means "a third part". To say "one third" (33%), one uses "ενα τριτον". τριτοσ can represent a third part of any number (e.g. the third thing in a list of 100 things).

Nehor responded (6-29) "No, the Greek makes it fractional. It might be symbolic but a strict reading means the three parts were roughly or exactly the same size." Actually Nehor is perfectly correct. The greek in Revelation is "το τριτο" (a neuter, articulated noun) which means "a third part". To say "one third" (33%), one uses "ενα τριτον". τριτοσ can represent a third part of any number (e.g. the third thing in a list of 100 things).