Aaron Shafovaloff on D&C 19

[Rob Bowman]

C.I.,

My comment in no way suggested that you were an ignoramus or a moron. I simply expressed my view that the Apocalypse of Peter does not support Joseph Smith's explanation in D&C 19 of the expression "eternal punishment." I shall explain.

As you know, Joseph claimed that the words "Endless" and by implication also "Eternal" were both names of God, so that the expressions "endless punishment" and "eternal punishment" did not mean punishment that lasted forever, but rather "God's punishment" (D&C 19:6-12). My point was that there is nothing in the Apocalypse of Peter that supports this innovative interpretation that the words "endless" and "eternal" are to be interpreted as names of God when used as qualifiers for the word "punishment."

Now, inasmuch as the Apocalypse of Peter (in the extant Ethiopic translation) held out the possibility of a reprieve from punishment in the lake of fire, you can say that it agrees with Joseph Smith in blunting or denying eternal punishment. But lots of people have rejected eternal punishment or found creative ways around the biblical statements on the subject.

Of course, I take it you understand that the Apocalypse of Peter was not written by the apostle Peter and is not an apostolic document. It's just one of many uninspired writings that Christians of varying beliefs produced in the second and third centuries.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

C.I.,

My comment in no way suggested that you were an ignoramus or a moron. I simply expressed my view that the Apocalypse of Peter does not support Joseph Smith's explanation in D&C 19 of the expression "eternal punishment." I shall explain.

As you know, Joseph claimed that the words "Endless" and by implication also "Eternal" were both names of God, so that the expressions "endless punishment" and "eternal punishment" did not mean punishment that lasted forever, but rather "God's punishment" (D&C 19:6-12). My point was that there is nothing in the Apocalypse of Peter that supports this innovative interpretation that the words "endless" and "eternal" are to be interpreted as names of God when used as qualifiers for the word "punishment."

I don't think that CI's argument was that the "Apocalypse of Peter" claimed that God's name was Endless or Eternal. Maybe I am wrong. It would seem you have crafted a nifty strawman here.

There are some similarities that you did note that CI did bring up and it would seem that you do agree with those similarities.

The main similarity is that in teh AoP that hell is viewed as not eternal. In teh D&C JS claims the apostles knew this mystery. It would seem that teh AoP confirms this. That is, what I can tell, is the main argument.

[Confidential Informant]

Don't you hate it when you make a post that you think is really interesting and then everyone else completely ignores it and it goes to the second page never to be seen again?

Yea, I hate that too.

C.I.

[mfbukowski]

Don't you hate it when you make a post that you think is really interesting and then everyone else completely ignores it and it goes to the second page never to be seen again?

Yea, I hate that too.

C.I.

I thought it was a bullseye, and I don't think it was ignored. A reference to the Apocalypse might help.

Rob is not appreciating the importance of such a point to Mormons who of course believe that not all truth made it into the canonized Bible; it is at least evidence that the idea was current and accepted at the right time and place.

[Confidential Informant]

I thought it was a bullseye, and I don't think it was ignored. A reference to the Apocalypse might help.

Rob is not appreciating the importance of such a point to Mormons who of course believe that not all truth made it into the canonized Bible; it is at least evidence that the idea was current and accepted at the right time and place.

Whoops, I actually missed Rob's reply. I am curious as how he determines that something is

one of many uninspired writings that Christians of varying beliefs produced in the second and third centuries.

What, exactly, was the inspired process that resulted in our current canon? Who made the "inspired" decision of what should and should not be there?

At any rate, the above post is correct in that Aaron's attempt to shame Joseph for D&C 19 is an abject failure as the notion of "eternal punishment" not being eternal as we understand it isn't new.

C.I.

[Rob Bowman]

C.I.,

The following statement, from two well-known LDS scholars, ought to be sufficient to persuade you that the Apocalypse of Peter is not an inspired text:

The Apocalypse of Peter is one of fifty-three religious treatises that make up the Coptic Gnostic Library that was discovered near Nag Hammadi, Egypt, in 1946. This particular treatise is narrated by Peter, who is sitting with the Savior in the temple the day before the Crucifixion. (The Savior himself is referred to by various names and titles, including "The Strong One," "The Enlightener," "Christ," and "The Living Jesus.") During their conversation, Jesus says that those who follow him will be able to distinguish between wickedness and righteousness. He discusses spiritual blindness, opens to Peter a vision, and reiterates that Peter will be a spiritual leader to the righteous. The second part of his discourse focuses on the apostasy, the nature of immortal souls, and deceptive leaders. Some of the more peculiar doctrines of the Apocalypse of Peter can be traced to the Docetic Christians of the first century A.D. They believed that the real Jesus was a spirit who only seemed to have a body of flesh. Because the divine Christ could not suffer, he only united himself to the physical personage of Jesus at baptism, and later separated from his physical counterpart before the suffering in Gethsemane and on the cross. The article includes an explanation of the passages, as well as the translated passages themselves.

S. Kent Brown and C. Wilfred Griggs, "What Is the Apocalypse of Peter?" LDS FAQ (BYU Studies)

Does this sound like an inspired scripture text to you?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

C.I.,

The following statement, from two well-known LDS scholars, ought to be sufficient to persuade you that the Apocalypse of Peter is not an inspired text:

Does this sound like an inspired scripture text to you?

I think I will waite for CI to offer a rebuttle here.

[Confidential Informant]

Does this sound like an inspired scripture text to you?

I never said it was, so your insinuation that I did is off base. I asked who gets to decide such things and how such determinations are made, that's all.

However, one funny thing that I did notice. Even though you clearly disagree w/ the doctrines taught in this ancient document, you have no problem referring to them as "Christians", an appelation which you deny to LDS.

Go figure.

C.I.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I never said it was, so your insinuation that I did is off base. I asked who gets to decide such things and how such determinations are made, that's all.

However, one funny thing that I did notice. Even though you clearly disagree w/ the doctrines taught in this ancient document, you have problem referring to them as "Christians", an appelation which you deny to LDS.

Go figure.

C.I.

No reason for me to respond, you nailed it.

[Vance]

Even though you clearly disagree w/ the doctrines taught in this ancient document, you have problem referring to them as "Christians", an appelation which you deny to LDS.

Didn't you really mean to say,

Even though you clearly disagree w/ the doctrines taught in this ancient document, you have NO problem referring to them as "Christians", an appellation which you deny to LDS.

????

Rob likes to show that he doesn't deny us the title of Christian. But he likes to do it in such a way as to not ruffle the feathers of those who would.

It really gets contorted.

[mfbukowski]

Does this sound like an inspired scripture text to you?

The point is, it is a apostate text which contains certain ideas which are true and inspired. The truth is like a broken bottle with shards everywhere, and what we have here is a little piece of that "true bottle". What is being said is that it is like some future archaeologist picking up a piece of a broken bottle and saying "See! They had true Coca Cola in this culture"!

What you want to do is drink the coke, when all there is is a fragment of a bottle. THAT is the point here. It is an indication that the idea was present at the right place and time, even if other portions of the text were distorted, or even if the idea itself was distorted.

I mean how do you personally know that the Bible itself is inspired? Perhaps it is a fragmented distorted bunch of silly legends.

Deciding what is "true" is a problem no one can escape in this question- it's just a question of how far you take it- to the individual doctrine level, to verse, chapter book or compendium of books level. You have made your decision for whatever reason that the "Bible is true" on some level.

We are saying that "this doctrine is true". The process is the same regardless of if you find your personal justification on the level of a single verse or an entire compendium of separate books- as the Bible is. At some point, you have to decide HOW you decide what is spiritually "true".

And that is what Mormonism gives- a methodology for finding what is true, based on Moroni 10:4, which relates directly to James 1:5. The message is the same; a spiritual confirmation is necessary. It is just not "rational" to think that a supernatural being spoke words to people who wrote them down, even if that is exactly what actually happened. How do you know the Avesta is "not true" but the bible is? What if there are inspired true principles in the Avesta? Is that impossible?

And yet there are many scholars who might maintain that Christianity ultimately evolved from the Avesta through the cult of Mithras. So which is right? The bible or the Avesta? How do you know?

[Rob Bowman]

C.I.,

You wrote:

I never said it was, so your insinuation that I did is off base. I asked who gets to decide such things and how such determinations are made, that's all.

A quick review: I pointed out that the Apocalype of Peter was not written by the apostle Peter and was not inspired Scripture. You questioned my statement by asking who gets to decide these things. Rather than debate authority issues with you, I pointed out that my statement should not be controversial to you, since it clearly teaches what you and I both agree is false doctrine. I wasn't insinuating that you accepted it as scripture.

You wrote:

However, one funny thing that I did notice. Even though you clearly disagree w/ the doctrines taught in this ancient document, you have no problem referring to them as "Christians", an appelation which you deny to LDS.

Go figure.

I could not have been clearer on this point. I have said it over and over again. Mormons are "Christians" in the broad sense that everyone who considers himself a Christian is one. I was also clear that the Apocalypse of Peter represented a heretical form of Christianity.

Is it possible to keep the discussion on relevant matters and not continually get side-tracked with irrelevant criticisms that aren't even based in reality?

[noel00]

I could not have been clearer on this point. I have said it over and over again. Mormons are "Christians" in the broad sense that everyone who considers himself a Christian is one. I was also clear that the Apocalypse of Peter represented a heretical form of Christianity.

Is it possible to keep the discussion on relevant matters and not continually get side-tracked with irrelevant criticisms that aren't even based in reality?

Bob, I was once an avid reader of your site, as I got older logic and further thinking made me question some of my previous views. Take the question of treating Mormons as Christians. When I was young one of my older brothers married a Lutheran girl outside our Lutheran Synod (Missouri Synod type). All hell broke loose, how could he marry someone in a Lutheran Synod that was a member of the (liberal) Lutheran World Foundation.Next another brother actually married a Catholic (good grief). If Dr Packer, a Calvinist can associate with Catholics like Father Neuhaus in Evangelicals and Catholics Together, why not cut some slack with Mormons, because Catholics believe their church is God's church,have extra scripture (apolc). In my thinking on judgement day is Jesus is not going to ask you which view of the Trinity you have (classical or Social Trinitarian) but how you treated your fellowman. Also interested in what your view of hell is. Traditional, Metaphor or Clark Pinnock's view? If I end up in hell do I get the same punishment as Adolf Hitler?