Jump to content

Mormon Cosmology


jason e.

Recommended Posts

began reading john l. brooke's "the refiner's fire: the making of mormon cosmology, 1644-1844." he says,

"both hermeticism and mormonism celebrate the mutuality of spiritual and material worlds, precreated intellugences, free will, a divine adam, a fortunate, sinless fall, and the symbolism and religious efficacy of marriage and sexuality..." (12).

i can think of only 3 options that explain these similarities (but im sure there are more);

1- smith lifted/adapted/modernized/adopted (whatever word you want) this worldview

2- the hermetics had it right (what must be in order for what is to be what it is? or however that goes).

3- there actually really are no similarities

what say you?

Link to comment

2- the hermetics had it right (what must be in order for what is to be what it is? or however that goes).

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individuallyâ??"

- D&C 1:30

Obscurity and darkness are pretty good terms for occultism, if you ask me. The Hermetics had it right.

Link to comment

"And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individuallyâ??"

- D&C 1:30

Obscurity and darkness are pretty good terms for occultism, if you ask me. The Hermetics had it right.

you, if you are lds, have no qualms with the stigma assocoaited with these people, and rest easy knowing that the closest people to the true gospel were these mystics?

Link to comment

you, if you are lds, have no qualms with the stigma assocoaited with these people, and rest easy knowing that the closest people to the true gospel were these mystics?

I'm one of those mystics, in addition to being LDS.

Link to comment

you, if you are lds, have no qualms with the stigma assocoaited with these people, and rest easy knowing that the closest people to the true gospel were these mystics?

"The inquiry is frequently made of me, "Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?" In reality and essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."

HotC 5:499

And...

""Mormonism" so-called, embraces every principle pertaining to life and salvation for time and eternity. No matter who has it. If the infidel has got truth it belongs to "Mormonism." The truth and sound doctrine possessed by the sectarian world, and they have a great deal, all belong to this church. As for their morality many of them are morally just as good as we are. All that is good, lovely, and praiseworthy belongs to this church and kingdom."

JoD 11:375

Link to comment

what say you?

I say, Don't trust John Brooke.

Don't trust him to represent either Mormonism or hermeticism accurately.

"Free will" as a similarity? Good grief. "Free will" is not merely a hermetic and LDS belief.

For a lengthy and detailed review of John Brooke's The Refiner's Fire, see Willam J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton, "Mormon in the Fiery Furnace or, Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge," FARMS Review 6/2 (1994):

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...=6&number=2

Link to comment

I say, Don't trust John Brooke.

Don't trust him to represent either Mormonism or hermeticism accurately.

"Free will" as a similarity? Good grief. "Free will" is not merely a hermetic and LDS belief.

For a lengthy and detailed review of John Brooke's The Refiner's Fire, see Willam J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton, "Mormon in the Fiery Furnace or, Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge," FARMS Review 6/2 (1994):

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...=6&number=2

"I say, Don't trust John Brooke."

-does he have an axe to grind with the church?

""Free will" as a similarity? Good grief. "Free will" is not merely a hermetic and LDS belief."

-true, there are also other overlaping ideas, but im speaking generally to the distinct ideas held by both the church as well as this philosophy (adam fall upward, creation, marriage, 3 levels of heaven...)

I will read these now, but as for a general response what is it? no similarities? that is a made up history as presented by brooke? yes they had it correct to some degree?

Link to comment

you, if you are lds, have no qualms with the stigma assocoaited with these people, and rest easy knowing that the closest people to the true gospel were these mystics?

You're suggesting I should decide what to believe based on society's general perception of those who believe similarly?

Dang, Christ screwed up meeting with all those horrible social outcasts.

I'm with Tsuzuki on much of this one. I've got a Luciferian friend. Based on my perception I think he's closer than the socially acceptable Christians who, relying on biblical precedent, tried to stone me for my beliefs.

Link to comment

I say, Don't trust John Brooke.

For a lengthy and detailed review of John Brooke's The Refiner's Fire, see Willam J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L. Mitton, "Mormon in the Fiery Furnace or, Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge," FARMS Review 6/2 (1994):

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/reviewvo...=6&number=2

i just read it;

"While we quite agree with Brooke on the failure of environmentalist models adequately to explain the origins of the Church, we find Brooke's counter-explanation even less satisfactory."

"admitting that Joseph "did not have a copy of the Corpus Hermeticum at hand" (p. 204), and, therefore, was not technically a hermeticist. His usage implies a definition that is much more vague, even metaphorical."

"A major element of Brooke's overall thesis is that, around 1825, "the hermetic-restorationist dialectic of purity and dangerâ??of divining, Freemasonry, and counterfeitingâ??reemerged in the history of the Smith family, formatively shaping the story of Mormon origins" (p. 150). But since these terms are never explained, it is impossible to tell what he means. All we really can know with certainty is that "the past for contemporary Mormons encompasses both purity and danger" (p. 293)."

"Although Brooke himself seems to have a predisposition to a "hermetic interpretation" of almost everything in sight, Joseph Smith and his followers undoubtedly did not have the remotest idea of what hermeticism was...To test Brooke's propositions, we undertook a computer search of early LDS historical writings. Although not exhaustive, the search is undoubtedly representative of basic early LDS attitudes on these matters. The texts searched include the so-called "documentary" History of the Church (HC), the Journal of Discourses (JD), the Times and Seasons (TS), the Messenger and Advocate (MA), The Evening and Morning Star (EMS), and the Elder's Journal (EJ).24 The terms "hermetic," "hermeticism," "hermetism," "Pimander," and "Trismegistus" never occur in any of these texts."

-Your test doesnt say much. because they would not have embraced such a connection (as we even see a retreat from smiths money digging nad peep stone; events and terms get changed to sound more pious. not to mention, even if they had no qualms with such terms perhaps they didnt even know them. do your test on the word "pelagianism" (prior to be coined as such) and see how many time that comes up.

"On the other hand, there are a number of texts and incidents which indicate a basically negative attitude towards the occult by most early Mormons." "Based on this extensive (but admittedly incomplete) survey of early Mormon writings, we can arrive at three logical conclusions: (1) the unique ideas that Brooke claims were central to the origins of Mormonism do not occur in early LDS primary texts; (2) early Mormons seldom concerned themselves with things occult; but (3) on the infrequent occasions when they mention the occult, it is without exception viewed negatively."

-do not the rod and the peep stone account for anything? do not the silence of the scriptures on many lds doctrine and even outright condemnation of other doctrines that later are introduced weaken your stance?

"Thus, while it may be true that some early non-Mormons or anti-Mormons occasionally described some activities of Joseph Smith and the Saints as somehow related to "magic," it is purely a derogatory outsider view. The Saints never describe their own beliefs and activities in those terms. "

-"the gift of working with the rod," "i have much treasure for you there"

"This is truly an alchemical transmutation of baseless assertions into pure academic fool's gold."

-i bet you loved when this came into your head!

"One of the most remarkable claims in The Refiner's Fire is that, for a lengthy period commencing in the early 1830s and continuing until fairly late in the nineteenth century, the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints "deemphas[ized] Christ's atonement" (p. 276). In fact, he asserts, the Church "came very close to . . . denying the necessity of grace and atonement in any form" (p. 259). ..(Accordingly, Brooke appears to be somewhat puzzled as to why the other apostles responded so strongly to Elder Lyman's heresy. And, indeed, their reaction would seem quite remarkable if they had actually believed what Brooke says they did.)"

-well i am to, its not so amazing, grace that is, because almost all of us get there w/o him or being obediant, what really should be saying is amazing ordinances. well maybe not, but i understand what he is saying and i know you do too.

"Thus he speaks, without adducing much, if any, evidence, of "the church's new focus on Christ's atonement" in the late nineteenth century (p. 292; cf. 294, 297), and declares that "the Mormon theological transformation since the 1890s . . . "re-Christianized' [the Church] to the point of confirming the centrality of Christ's atonement" (p. 296)."

-well sure! a call for the church to read the bible. ravi zacharias at the tab., "gospel fundementals" written in a very ev language, gbh's retreat/lack of giving meat (whatever you want to call it) on exaltation... you dont see the church attempting to appeal more to the mainstream and even abandoning/slowly backing off of core lds views (gospel principles manuals over the last 20 years)?

"

Link to comment

Honestly, bro. learn how to use the "quote" feature. Your lazy usage of the "-" makes me 88% less likely to actually read your posts. It's not tough, and it would make it a lot easier to tell what you are trying to say. If you have questions about how to use it, let me know.

Link to comment

Honestly, bro. learn how to use the "quote" feature. Your lazy usage of the "-" makes me 88% less likely to actually read your posts. It's not tough, and it would make it a lot easier to tell what you are trying to say. If you have questions about how to use it, let me know.

ha ha. i know its confusing. i actually dont know how to use it, so i would greatly recieve your instruction on the matter.

Link to comment

You're suggesting I should decide what to believe based on society's general perception of those who believe similarly?

Dang, Christ screwed up meeting with all those horrible social outcasts.

I'm with Tsuzuki on much of this one. I've got a Luciferian friend. Based on my perception I think he's closer than the socially acceptable Christians who, relying on biblical precedent, tried to stone me for my beliefs.

you misunderstand me.

im saying that in the same way it would be od for me to learn that christianity has been wrong for thousands of years but actually the phone pshycs and the hindu's are the ones who have it the most correct all along.

similarily i could possibly see, for the sake of argument, god instituting polygamy, but the means to that end (joseph DECIEVING and LYING about it) make me doubt the divine being behind it.

Link to comment

Honestly, bro. learn how to use the "quote" feature. Your lazy usage of the "-" makes me 88% less likely to actually read your posts. It's not tough, and it would make it a lot easier to tell what you are trying to say. If you have questions about how to use it, let me know.

learn how to use the "quote" feature.

testing 1 2 3.

Link to comment

you misunderstand me.

im saying that in the same way it would be od for me to learn that christianity has been wrong for thousands of years but actually the phone pshycs and the hindu's are the ones who have it the most correct all along.

similarily i could possibly see, for the sake of argument, god instituting polygamy, but the means to that end (joseph DECIEVING and LYING about it) make me doubt the divine being behind it.

Why are you comparing Vedics to phone psychics?

Link to comment

Why are you comparing Vedics to phone psychics?

cause they are both wrong.

im asking this;

would it not be difficult to recieve the supposed restored gospel if you look around and the ones who were the closest to having it right were (insert whatecer religion/practice you now to be wrong and at odds with what we know from the word of God)------------, and the way they were the closest was by their pagan activity (that is spoken against in the word of God)?

Link to comment

cause they are both wrong.

About what specifically? And keep in mind that Vedic (Hinu) is a religion while phone psychic is a profession. It's like comparing Catholicism to burger flipping.

Link to comment

About what specifically? And keep in mind that Vedic (Hinu) is a religion while phone psychic is a profession. It's like comparing Catholicism to burger flipping.

im trying to adress the point that i re-staed for you. that being; what if the resorations closest teachings/doctrines/beliefs were held by (insert what YOU think is totally wrong here) ----------? how would you recieve it.

It's like comparing Catholicism to burger flipping.

but we bothe would agree they are not christian.

alright skip the semantics and get the point please.

Link to comment

im trying to adress the point that i re-staed for you. that being; what if the resorations closest teachings/doctrines/beliefs were held by (insert what YOU think is totally wrong here) ----------? how would you recieve it.

I would reevaluate my prejudices about said group and recognize the truth that they have.

but we bothe would agree they are not christian.

alright skip the semantics and get the point please.

What are you talking about? LDS ideas about the apostasy aside, Catholicism is Christianity.

Link to comment
I would reevaluate my prejudices about said group and recognize the truth that they have.

ok, i did, heres what i found out;

"there is no other name by which man can be saved except it be jesus christ."

or

"all creeds (so naturally even beyond sectarians we must put the hindus there) are an abomination."

so either way christian or lds, hindus are not christians (by anyones definition).

so ive relized that if you consider these people christians then my question doesnt apply to you (because what im using as the wors case scenario you find no problems).

best,

jason e.

Link to comment

ok, i did, heres what i found out;

"there is no other name by which man can be saved except it be jesus christ."

or

"all creeds (so naturally even beyond sectarians we must put the hindus there) are an abomination."

so either way christian or lds, hindus are not christians (by anyones definition).

so ive relized that if you consider these people christians then my question doesnt apply to you (because what im using as the wors case scenario you find no problems).

best,

jason e.

I suppose nothing "hindus" believe is true, then?

Link to comment

I suppose nothing "hindus" believe is true, then?

did i say that? if i did then im very wrong, but im quite sure i didnt, in fact can you show me where i said that or how you arrived at that conclusion? all i said was that they are not christian, do you agree or not? not asking if they have some truth or alot or a little, just are they christian at all?

and remeber there is alot of truth out there and "all truth is God's thruth"

Link to comment

did i say that? if i did then im very wrong, but im quite sure i didnt, in fact can you show me where i said that or how you arrived at that conclusion? all i said was that they are not christian, do you agree or not? not asking if they have some truth or alot or a little, just are they christian at all?

and remeber there is alot of truth out there and "all truth is God's thruth"

Ah, so if the Mormons share some truth with what you see as evil pagans I guess it might not be that bad, after all. Glad to see we agree on something.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

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

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