Gospel Principles and Job 38:7

[zerinus]

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

The point is about God's power and great Wisdom in contrast with Job's weakness and inability to control the Creation (God's ability to defeat the Mythic Cosmic Leviathan is contrasted with Job's inability to wrangle a lesser mortal sea-beast).

The doctrine of pre-existence isn't taught in Job. It's not a purpose of the text, and looking for it to prove or disprove the point completely misses the mark. I think it's completely unnecessary for LDS to try to defend this reading of it. I think it's unfortunate that it's used as a proof text in the manual (and in common LDS discourse), because the context is not made clear. It's not by far a necessary text in defense of a premortal existence.

While the language is useful when reapplied as a poetic image discussing and reinforcing an originally unrelated separate doctrinal principal ( like the authors of the NT were wont to do), I agree that it does us a disservice when it's used to say, "Look! This is what the Book of Job, as originally written, is supposed to be teaching us about the pre-mortal life!" Because it simply isn't.

That is not what we say at all. We don't use Job to "prove" the preexistence. That is just the interpretation that we put on that verse. Don't forget that the LDS Church is led by prophetic and Apostolic leadership, who are able to give authoritative interpretation of scripture; and that is how they have interpreted this scripture. If you are able to disprove that interpretation, fine, let's see your arguments; but we don't use Job to prove the preexistence. It is just the interpretation that we put on that verse.

[David T]

That is not what we say at all. We don't use Job to "prove" the preexistence. .

I've definitely been in the company of Missionaries, and Gospel Doctrine / Priesthood Quorum teachers who think, and have taught (and been taught) otherwise.

I don't doubt that the doctrine of pre-mortal life is true. I don't doubt that we were joyful at the creation of the Earth, and the announcement of the Plan of Salvation. I don't doubt that the verse is useful in applying a scriptural poetic language to such a doctrine and event.

However, I don't think it contextually holds up as an intended original meaning of the text, and think it's unnecessary to contend that it does. That's the difference.

I also believe many of the NT gospel writers mixed in illustrative non-prophetic poetry and applied them to events in Christ's ministry, in addition to the words of literal prophecy. I think that was a fine, fluid use of scriptural texts to teach True principles that didn't necessarily need to depend on the words' original intent or context. For that reason among others, I see no difficulty with modern Apostles and Prophets applying those words to this true teaching.

[David Bokovoy]

Job's a rather late book that appeals to a wide variety of ideologies. It does not espouse the premortal existence.

I

[consiglieri]

And could someone please explain why Gospel Principles and Ezra Taft Benson

[David T]

P.S. I have read scholars who think that Job is actually the most ancient of all the books of the Old Testament, basing that opinion primarily due to the absence of any reference to Abraham, Isaac or Jacob (or anybody else one might expect to get honorable mention) if it were written subsequent to the writings mentioning them.

Margaret Barker in her The Older Testament presents a very interesting reading of Job as we have it as being edited as a particularly late text, re-crafted with asking specific exilic-era questions. It was pointed out while there are some very old elements at the core, they clash with some of the other exilic material that seems to be inserted at a later date. She actually used Job as one of ways to test the hypothesis that had been presented during the balance of the book. It fit it quite well, actually. I know Barker is controversial, but her reading of Job was actually quite fresh and enlightening to me.

[maklelan]

I

[zerinus]

I've definitely been in the company of Missionaries, and Gospel Doctrine / Priesthood Quorum teachers who think, and have taught (and been taught) otherwise.

I am sure there are some Church members who would use that verse in that sense. Most Church members are not theologians. But I don't think that the Church officially uses that scripture as proof text of the preexistence.

I don't doubt that the doctrine of pre-mortal life is true. I don't doubt that we were joyful at the creation of the Earth, and the announcement of the Plan of Salvation. I don't doubt that the verse is useful in applying a scriptural poetic language to such a doctrine and event.

Thank you! I didn't know whether you were LDS or not; and judging by your post I thought you weren't. Your profile doesn't tell us whether you are a Mormon or not. Nobody's does in fact! On other boards I can tell what religion a poster is by looking at their profile; this is the only place where you can't.

However, I don't think it contextually holds up as an intended original meaning of the text, and think it's unnecessary to contend that it does. That's the difference.

I don't claim that it does either. Evidently you didn't read my post carefully. I said that is how that verse is interpreted in the LDS Church. I didn't say that it can be used as evidence of the preexistence.

[David Bokovoy]

I think we agree that this does not purport to teach that Job himself was present, and hence Job was not one of the sons of God who sang together at the creation.

It is common, though, for LDS to use this scripture to teach that we were present, and that in fact, we are the sons of God who shouted for joy at the Creation.

This seems to me to be a huge leap.

Actually, I don't maintain that the text automatically precludes the possibility that Job was present at the time of creation. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue that God's question "where were you when [X] occurred" implies that at that specific point in time, the individual did not exist. That's taking the rhetorical question as it stands further than the text itself allows, and I have yet to see an argument that I find requires this reading.

Note Rob's problematic response to Zerinus's claim that Psalm 38:4 assumes the answer "You were there with me but have forgotten." Said Rob:

With regard to Job 38:4, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you that the rhetorical question "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" assumes the answer "You were there with me but have forgotten." If that were true, we would have expected God to say, "You were there when I laid the foundation of the earth, but you have forgotten."

Rob's argument suggests that he has probably not devoted much effort to studying the book of Job. Contrary to Rob's assertion that if the question assumed the answer "you were there," the subsequent poetic line would provide the answer, in reality, the rhetorical questions found throughout the book of Job are intentionally left unanswered. Ambiguity is part of the fundamental theological/literary premise running throughout the entire book. Readers familiar with the text would never argue that God would provide the answer to his question.

Note the parallel to verse 4 in 38:18:

"Hast thou perceived the breadth of the earth? declare if thou knowest it all."

If God then provided the answer in verse 19, telling Job the exact "breadth of the earth," Rob would have raised a good point, namely we would expect God to answer "you were there" in response to the question, "where were you." Instead, notice the subsequent line:

"Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof" (v. 19)

In terms of the book of Job, this pattern of unanswered rhetorical questions is not unique to chapter 38. Note the only other verse in Job to use the interrogative particle 'yph "where" other than 38:4 :

"Remember, I pray thee, who ever perished, being innocent? or where were the righteous cut off?" (Job 4:7)

The contextual implication to Eliphaz's question is "they weren't," but the answer itself is never explicitly stated!

So, no offense to Rob, but I wouldn't take his analysis too seriously.

There's simply no way of knowing from this text alone whether the original author intended to suggest that Job did or did not exist prior to the earth's creation. Again, as I illustrated, the book of Job states that the first man existed prior to the formation of the earth, and texts such as Psalm 139:15 indicate that at least some biblical authors believed in the premortal existence of the human soul, but granted, there are no biblical texts that explicitly identify premortal humans as part of the heavenly council, "Sons of God." Note, however, the parallel between the "gods/stars" of the council in Job 38:7 and premortal humanity profoundly established in Abraham 3.

In my mind it comes down to this, since Job 38:7 indicates that a council of gods (possibly even the literal offspring of Elohim) shouted for joy when God created the earth, and Latter-day Saints believe via modern revelation that human beings are the divine offspring of God who were with him prior to the formation of the world, I fail to see how anyone could argue that the use of Job 38:4-7 in LDS writings such as Gospel Principles when teaching the Plan of Salvation is in anyway inappropriate.

Best

[Zakuska]

Mr. Bokovoy has won me as a convert to Job 38:7.

BRAVO!

[David T]

I don't claim that it does either. Evidently you didn't read my post carefully. I said that is how that verse is interpreted in the LDS Church. I didn't say that it can be used as evidence of the preexistence.

Fair enough In which case, it appears we agree.

[handys003]

Indeed references to the very

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

I

[Zakuska]

That isn't what Job 38:7 says, but if it did, it would indeed pose a challenge for LDS theology. LDS theology teaches that the spirit sons and daughters of Heavenly Father at the time of the creation of the world were not yet gods. Indeed, according to Mormon doctrine, they must first become human beings, become mortal, die, resurrect from the dead, and only then some of them will go on to attain exaltation as gods.

Not necessarily true. Even the Bible calls the 'spirits of men'... 'gods'.

1 Sam 28

13 And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth.

[consiglieri]

In my mind it comes down to this, since Job 38:7 indicates that a council of gods (possibly even the literal offspring of Elohim) shouted for joy when God created the earth, and Latter-day Saints believe via modern revelation that human beings are the divine offspring of God who were with him prior to the formation of the world, I fail to see how anyone could argue that the use of Job 38:4-7 in LDS writings such as Gospel Principles when teaching the Plan of Salvation is in anyway inappropriate.

Okay.

Now I think I get what you have been driving at. I agree with you that it is in no way inappropriate for LDS, with the benefit of modern revelation, to use this passage to teach the doctrine of the pre-mortal existence.

If I may refine my point accordingly, I think it may be a bit much for LDS to use this passage as a proof-text in discussing the pre-mortal existence with non-LDS friends who do not believe in modern revelation.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

Actually, I don't maintain that the text automatically precludes the possibility that Job was present at the time of creation. Honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue that God's question "where were you when [X] occurred" implies that at that specific point in time, the individual did not exist. That's taking the rhetorical question as it stands further than the text itself allows, and I have yet to see an argument that I find requires this reading.

True, the question "Where were you when X occurred," in some contexts, need not imply that at that point in time the individual did not exist. What the question clearly does imply is that the individual was not present when X occurred. Whether this further implies that he didn't even exist would depend on context. If I asked you, "Where were you when I had a flat tire last week?" this question would only imply that you were nowhere around me or my car when the event took place; you were unavailable to help. It wouldn't imply that you didn't exist. On the other hand, if a World War II veteran is talking to a ten-year-old kid about the War and he asks him, "Where were you when my division landed at Normandy? What do you know about it?" these questions in context would imply that the child was not even born yet. When God asks Job, "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding" (Job 38:4), the question in the context of the challenge for Job to show that he knows anything about creation assumes that Job was nowhere around when God created the earth. Since in this context it would really not make much sense to inject the thought that Job might have existed at the time of creation but simply been somewhere else (!), the rhetorical question in context presupposes that Job didn't exist at all.

You wrote:

Note Rob's problematic response to Zerinus's claim that Psalm 38:4 assumes the answer "You were there with me but have forgotten." Said Rob:

With regard to Job 38:4, I'm afraid I cannot agree with you that the rhetorical question "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?" assumes the answer "You were there with me but have forgotten." If that were true, we would have expected God to say, "You were there when I laid the foundation of the earth, but you have forgotten."

Rob's argument suggests that he has probably not devoted much effort to studying the book of Job.

Please, tell me approximately how many hours you have devoted in your life to studying the book of Job. Would you say 50, 100, 500, 1000? Have you ever taught the book of Job in an academic setting?

You wrote:

Contrary to Rob's assertion that if the question assumed the answer "you were there," the subsequent poetic line would provide the answer, in reality, the rhetorical questions found throughout the book of Job are intentionally left unanswered. Ambiguity is part of the fundamental theological/literary premise running throughout the entire book. Readers familiar with the text would never argue that God would provide the answer to his question.

I'm afraid you didn't understand my point. I certainly understand that God asks rhetorical questions in the speeches without giving answers to them. I'll take some responsibility for not wording my response more carefully. In the rhetorical style of the speeches, we might have expected a question like "Do you remember what you saw when I laid the foundation of the earth?" if indeed the point of the verse was that Job had been present at creation but subsequently forgot about it.

[David T]

David,

That isn't what Job 38:7 says, but if it did, it would indeed pose a challenge for LDS theology. LDS theology teaches that the spirit sons and daughters of Heavenly Father at the time of the creation of the world were not yet gods. Indeed, according to Mormon doctrine, they must first become human beings, become mortal, die, resurrect from the dead, and only then some of them will go on to attain exaltation as gods.

Take Abraham 4 into consideration, where the council at creation were referred to as the gods. According to LDS doctrine, Children of God are elohim from the beginning. Exaltation is being brought to the fullness of the nature of the Head God, or Godhead. Mankind falls into mortality from their status as elohim, and need to be readopted through Christ for Exaltation (going higher than the original state) to be possible. It's actually a core teaching of the Church, and is a major framework for the Temple experience (where as premortal elohim, we witness the creation).

Upon further thinking and reflection, I also concede the position I was making earlier, due to David Bokovoy's presentation. Touche'.

[David Bokovoy]

LDS theology teaches that the spirit sons and daughters of Heavenly Father at the time of the creation of the world were not yet gods. Indeed, according to Mormon doctrine, they must first become human beings, become mortal, die, resurrect from the dead, and only then some of them will go on to attain exaltation as gods.

Bit of advice, Rob. Probably not the wisest of moves as an anti-Mormon to come onto an LDS message board and attempt to instruct Latter-day Saints what our doctrine professes.

Of course you

[Vance]

Bit of advice, Rob. Probably not the wisest of moves as an anti-Mormon to come onto an LDS message board and attempt to instruct Latter-day Saints what our doctrine professes.

Anti-Mormons telling Mormons what we believe and getting it wrong is what anti-Mormons do best.

And here you are getting down on one for doing what they do best. Shame on you.

[BCSpace]

It's not regarding Job 38:7, but I've always considered Genesis 2:1 is the best Biblical evidence for the premortal existence of man (and everything else). Lexically, a host of people (and everything else) was created before Adam was placed on the earth. I think the Church should use it, but it doesn't as far as I can tell.

Genesis 2:1 is referring to all of the living things that populated the heavens and the earth. This would include all of the birds of the sky, all of the fish and other sea animals, all of the land animals, and the first human beings.

Yes it does.

It might also have included the angels, though this isn't explicit in Genesis 1. Since God could (as Christians and Jews traditionally believe) have created numerous angels without ever intending that any of them become humans, I see no way for Genesis 2:1 to be evidence that humans had a premortal existence.

Why not? You just said "host" includes humans. The creation of angels in Jewish or nonLDS Christian theology intending to become human or not, does not in anyway preclude the inclusion of humans in this verse. In addition, angels and humans are the same in LDS theology.

Furthermore, in context I would argue that Genesis clearly teaches that human beings' existence begins with the beginning of their physical lives on earth.

That would not match the scriptures as this host is created before humans are physically placed on the earth. This more closely matches the LDS doctrine of a spiritual creation and that man existed pre-mortally as spirits.

I have to stop at this point, but perhaps that would be a good discussion for a separate thread.

I shall create another thread with this post as the OP.

[Rob Bowman]

David,

You wrote:

Bit of advice, Rob. Probably not the wisest of moves as an anti-Mormon to come onto an LDS message board and attempt to instruct Latter-day Saints what our doctrine professes.

You don't know me well, but I work hard to make sure I state LDS doctrine correctly, and I definitely respect people's prerogative to state their own beliefs. I only offer such corrections when I think I'm on solid ground, as I think I am here.

You wrote:

Of course you

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

I wondered how long it would take for someone to seize on this idea.

Well, of course, Rob, the passage professes that the first human existed prior to the creation of the world and participated in the heavenly council. So it

[David Bokovoy]

David,

You wrote:

You don't know me well, but I work hard to make sure I state LDS doctrine correctly, and I definitely respect people's prerogative to state their own beliefs. I only offer such corrections when I think I'm on solid ground, as I think I am here.

You wrote:

I was and am well aware of the fact that LDS teaching refers to Jesus and the Holy Ghost as each being a "God" and a member of the Godhead prior to creation. That is totally irrelevant to the issue here, which has to do with whether the group of beings called "the sons of God" in Job are all gods. I say that no authoritative LDS source describes premortal spirits (other than Jesus Christ, in addition to the mysterious Holy Ghost) as "gods."

You wrote:

This is still consistent with my statement that the sons of God, as a group, were not (yet) gods.

You wrote:

The above statement can be understood to mean that these famous individuals assisted the three Gods in forming the earth, without implying or meaning that these human beings were already gods.

You wrote:

I can just imagine the groans, boos, hisses, and catcalls that would have ensued, had I quoted McConkie to document a particular point of LDS doctrine. Even here, your argument seems to be inferential, rather than something McConkie actually taught. But consider the following statements:

[Rob Bowman]

David,

By the way, I would like to say that although I vigorously disagree with you, I admire your knowledge and intelligence, as I do Dan's, and find our discussions quite engaging and educational.

In this post, I will respond only to your comments pertaining to Eliphaz's question in Job 15:7-8. I'll try to pick up your other comments later as time permits.

You wrote:

I am certainly willing to accept the possibility that the author(s) of Job did not believe in a general premortal human existence, since the account is never explicit one way or another, however, the mere fact that the book of Job states that the primal human existed prior to the creation of the earth does not in and of itself eliminate the possibility that the author(s) believed that all humans had a similar premortal existence.

Your proposal is merely an argument from silence, i.e. "the account does not explicitly say that all humans existed as sprits prior to creation (only the first man), therefore the author did not believe the doctrine." This manner of textual analysis represents an extremely problematic way to approach the Bible (or any other text for that matter).... You

[Rob Bowman]

David,

Thanks for sharing your impressive resume. It sarcastically illustrates a point we agree upon, namely, that not all "Where were you" questions presuppose the nonexistence of the person to whom they are directed. It does not in any way touch the actual argument I gave on Job 38. Nor does it amount to anything more than a fallacious appeal to authority with respect to the doctrinal point at issue in LDS theology.

Look at it this way: I am not "trying to teach you Mormon theology." I am presenting my honest understanding as differing from yours and inviting you to correct me if you can. If I'm incorrect, I welcome the correction, because I desire to represent what others believe as accurately and fairly as I can. I won't learn nearly as much, however, if I meekly roll over and accept what you assert in the face of what appears to me to be contrary evidence.

In an effort to understand the correct meaning of God's questions in Job 38, this might help:

In terms of trying to teach me Mormon theology, where were you when I was sustained by the Harvard committee as an official LDS chaplain at Harvard University? Where were you Rob when I worked for the LDS Church writing Institute college curriculum? Where were you when I graduated from BYU? Where were you Rob, when I served a full-time mission in Brazil? Where were you when I graduated from Seminary? Rob, where were you when I was baptized at age eight? Where were you when I sat taking notes in every General Conference from 1980-2009?

I know you existed, Rob, but you really have no business trying to tell me what my Church and I believe.

Hope that helps.

[David Bokovoy]

I don't agree at all. Let me explain why. Eliphaz's question presupposes that the "primal man" (to continue using that terminology) would have had access to knowledge that other human beings did not. If that was not presupposed by Eliphaz's question, it really wouldn't make sense. If Job, Eliphaz, the other guys there, you, me, and everyone else was around at the same time, it would really make no sense to ask, "Hey, who do you think you are, the primal man or something? What, are you older than the hills? Some of us are older than your father, bub!" (Rob's Uninspired Paraphrase, copyright 2010, all rights reserved.) Thus, my argument is not an argument from silence, but from the logic of Eliphaz's question in relation to the concept of the primal man.

I'm hoping that is a sufficient explanation that you will grasp my reasoning, but if I haven't made myself adequately clear, let me know.

I understand your point here, Rob, and on this specific issue, you may be right. Eliphaz's question may imply that only the first human existed prior to the creation of the world. As you know, modern revelation refers to this dispensation as a time in which "God shall give.. knowledge by his Holy Spirit... that has not been revealed since the world was until now" (D&C 121:26), so I have no problem accepting the possibility that the author of Job only possessed a partial understanding of human premortal existence. So, I accept your position on this specific issue as logical and as a reasonable possibility.

Best.

--DB