Monolatry - Existence of other gods

[volgadon]

I'm thinking of one day writing an overview comparing the DC as it appears in the ANE, the Bible, the intra-testamental period, and from early rabbinic thought through Hasidism and also early LDS thought and restoration scripture, but such would be a massive and limited undertaking. Perhaps overly ambitious.

[Joseph Antley]

I'm right there with you, Brother! I think there's nothing more exciting than the Prophet's views regarding the council of Gods reflected in Latter-day revelation and Joseph's Smith's sermons. I'm currently working on what I consider to be some amazing DC motifs in the Book of Mormon.

Can we get a preview? Obviously I assume 1 Nephi 11 is making the list -- what others?

[Mudcat]

Latter-day Saints use the word 'God'/'god' in a number of ways, as far as I understand it.

1) As a name/title for God the Father.

2) As a name/title for the Godhead collectively.

3) Less often, as a name/title for Jesus Christ and/or the Holy Ghost individually.

4) God's children, including his mortal children (as in the LDS context of Psalm 82).

5) Exalted, glorified beings (both God our Father's progenitors and potentially his children).

6) Pre-mortal beings who were made rulers and were instrumental in the Creation (Christ, Michael, and others).

7) Angels, which overlaps with one or more of the above.

And possibly other uses that I can't think of off the top of my head.

Thanks for all those who responded to my question... map, Zerinus and others.

Joseph, appreciate the details on your reply. I have got one more for (or anyone) regarding your point (5) I bolded.

If I understand you correctly, God the Father's literal father would be referred to as a god relative to you or me. Right? But if that is the case, what does God the Father refer to his father as... I mean is he a god relative God the father or is he God the Father to God the Father? That last bit was difficult to articulate, but hopefully you follow.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Joseph Antley]

Thanks for all those who responded to my question... map, Zerinus and others.

Joseph, appreciate the details on your reply. I have got one more for (or anyone) regarding your point (5) I bolded.

If I understand you correctly, God the Father's literal father would be referred to as a god relative to you or me. Right? But if that is the case, what does God the Father refer to his father as... I mean is he a god relative God the father or is he God the Father to God the Father? That last bit was difficult to articulate, but hopefully you follow.

Regards,

Mudcat

Hey Mudcat. I understand it to mean that God our Father has a father in the same sense that our Heavenly Father is our Father. He will remain our Father even after we ourselves are exalted, and I thus assume that our Heavenly Father's father remains His father as well.

[zerinus]

Note that the JST revision to Genesis 1:26 presents an inspired interpretation of the passage, but it is NOT the only correct interpretation of this passage, nor does the JST in fact restore and/or reflect the original author's intended meaning by the use of the plural cohortative.

I see no logical basis for that conclusion. The JST is called a

[David T]

Zerinus,

Questioning David Bokovoy's testimony is one of the silliest things I've seen here.

It also happens that agree with him. I believe Joseph's work on the JST was inspired. I also don't believe it restores the ur-text. In fact, BYU's study on the JST comes to many of the same conclusions. In a discussion of types of changes:

5. Changes to provide modern readers teachings that were not written by original authors. Perhaps there are JST changes in which Joseph Smith was inspired to alter or adapt an author's original words, or even to remove them from their original context, to reveal teachings needed by the latter-day Church. Elder Bruce R. McConkie, speaking of the differences between the early Genesis chapters in the Bible and the JST, said "both of them are true." He stated that John 1 in the Bible "is true," yet the JST gives it "an entirely new perspective." "These are illustrations of the fact that there can be two translations of the same thing and both of them can be true."30 There is an important JST change at Romans 13 in which Paul's teaching regarding the Saints' submission to secular political power is changed to submission to the authorities of the Church. Perhaps both versions are correct. If the Bible preserves accurately Paul's original thoughts and intent, then the JST revision would be viewed as a latter-day revelation intended to instruct us on a topic not anticipated by Paul.31Some have dismissed the JST because its changes are not verified in ancient manuscripts.32 The claim is that if the JST revisions were justifiable, they would agree with the earliest existing manuscripts of the biblical books. But this reasoning is misdirected in two ways. First, it assumes that all JST changes are intended to restore original text, a claim made neither by the JST itself nor by the Prophet Joseph Smith. ...

... The original language of those changes is the English of Joseph Smith. Perhaps this helps explain some questions about the JST-why some JST additions to Old Testament poetic material do not match the style of the passages in which they are found, or why some JST changes in the New Testament do not use vocabulary or style common to the ancient writer's other preserved words, or why JST changes sometimes produce a reading different from that found on the plates of brass and copied in the Book of Mormon.35 Because some JST passages were perhaps never in the Bible, we would not expect to find evidence for them in ancient manuscripts, no matter how close in date those manuscripts are to the original biblical texts.

The scriptures give examples of prophets revising, reusing, editing, and adding to the writings of earlier prophets. There are places in Old Testament books where it appears that a later writer may have added to an original author's words.36 New Testament authors frequently used in their own writings passages from the Old Testament in ways that may not have been anticipated by the earlier prophets.37 Matthew and Luke seem to be, to some extent, expansions on Mark.38 Moroni put together a lengthy string of Old Testament passages from various diverse contexts to teach Joseph Smith.39 Elder Bruce R. McConkie suggested that much of the content of Malachi is actually reused form the earlier prophet Zenos.40 Nephi apparently wove his own revelation in and out of the words of Isaiah in order to teach the destiny of his prophetic record (see 2 Nephi 27). And Mormon so thoroughly infused his own inspired commentary into the teachings of Nephite prophets that it is sometimes difficult to tell where Alma, for instance, ends and Mormon begins. Joseph Smith's labor on the Bible was to make it not a museum piece for antiquity but a living revelation for the Saints of the latter days. He was appointed to the work by God (see D&C 76:15), and God endorsed it in strong language: "And the scripture shall be given, even as they are in mine own bosom, to the salvation of mine own elect" (D&C 35:20). Because the Lord revealed the Joseph Smith Translation for the salvation of His elect, Latter-day Saints can embrace it as they do the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

One needs to understand that the scriptures are filled with many literary genre. the work on the JST is more of the genre of Midrash, or Targum. David Bokovoy agrees with Bruce R. McConkie above, that "both are true".

[Lachoneus]

Abraham:

(Abraham 3:19)

One of the many problems with using this particular verse to prove the existence of a Most High God above whom there are no other Gods is that Abraham 3:19 is speaking of Christ, not the Father. At least that is what Elder Maxwell said on a number of occasions.

[zerinus]

The council of the gods is mentioned in Psalms 82. I think that's where Satan goes in Job as well.

I don

[Joseph Antley]

These verses (which are a continuation of verse 1) clearly refer to the Israelites at that time who were being

[Cold Steel]

Patrimony means that the estate is undivided and all the heirs have responsibility for the estate in toto. Our individual responsibilities may be different, but we are acting under authority and assignment of the Father. Thus we believe in "one God".

Amen. I recently watched the DVD Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith by a rabid anti-Mormon group. The makers quoted the familiar passages in Isaiah about there being only one God and that if there were any other gods, He would know it. But what then of Jesus? If the Father knew of no other gods but Him, then certainly there could be no Jesus (or Jehovah). Of course they would point out that Jesus was "one" with the Father. But if so, then why not others? If we become "joint heirs with Christ," what does that mean? And how do they explain that much of the New Testament differentiates between God and Jesus? Why did Stephen say that he saw Jesus on the right hand of God? Does this mean that Jesus wasn't God? How dare they make vain and hypocritical accusations against us?

Indeed, God invites us to be one with Him and that is the gift and blessing of eternal life. That we may be one, even as the Father and the Son are one.

[zerinus]

It also happens that agree with him. I believe Joseph's work on the JST was inspired. I also don't believe it restores the ur-text. In fact, BYU's study on the JST comes to many of the same conclusions. In a discussion of types of changes:

One needs to understand that the scriptures are filled with many literary genre. the work on the JST is more of the genre of Midrash, or Targum. David Bokovoy agrees with Bruce R. McConkie above, that "both are true".

You can believe as you like. I prefer to take the words of Joseph Smith who did the

[zerinus]

"Clearly"?

Yes, clearly. What makes you question?

[Joseph Antley]

Yes, clearly. What makes you question?

It's just that I can't help but wonder, if it's so clear, why it's rejected by the majority of the academic world. Do scholars like David Bokovoy have some sort of malicious intent that keeps them from accepting the obvious interpretation that the gods of Psalm 82 are mortal men?

[zerinus]

It's just that I can't help but wonder, if it's so clear, why it's rejected by the majority of the academic world. Do scholars like David Bokovoy have some sort of malicious intent that keeps them from accepting the obvious interpretation that the gods of Psalm 82 are mortal men?

That sentence you quoted referred specifically to verses 2 to 5, not all of the Psalm:

2 How long will ye

judge unjustly,

and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

These verses (which are a continuation of verse 1) clearly refer to the Israelites at that time who were being

[Joseph Antley]

That sentence you quoted referred specifically to verses 2 to 5, not all of the Psalm:

Can you tell me what is not clear to you about what I said, and why?

Perhaps I did misunderstand you. Do you agree with that gods in the "congregation of the mighty"/"council of the gods" in Psalm 82:1 are actual divinities? When you said that verses 2-5 were a continuation of v. 1, and you identified those judging unjustly in v. 2-5 as Israelites, I understood you to mean that the gods in Psalm 82:1 were Israelites.

Is that not what you meant? If not, what did you mean?

[zerinus]

Perhaps I did misunderstand you. Do you agree with that gods in the "congregation of the mighty"/"council of the gods" in Psalm 82:1 are actual divinities?

If you call men "divinities" yes! The context suggests that it is not referring to "divinities" in heaven.

When you said that verses 2-5 were a continuation of v. 1, and you identified those judging unjustly in v. 2-5 as Israelites, I understood you to mean that the gods in Psalm 82:1 were Israelites.

Is that not what you meant? If not, what did you mean?

Yes, that is what I meant; and I explained my reasons for it.

[Joseph Antley]

If you call men "divinities" yes! The context suggests that it is not referring to "divinities" in heaven.

Yes, that is what I meant; and I explained my reasons for it.

Now that we established that, I repeat my original post:

It's just that I can't help but wonder, if it's so clear [that Psalm 82 refers to mortal Israelites], why [that interpretation is] rejected by the majority of the academic world. Do scholars like David Bokovoy have some sort of malicious intent that keeps them from accepting the obvious interpretation that the gods of Psalm 82 are mortal men?

[David T]

You can believe as you like. I prefer to take the words of Joseph Smith who did the

[zerinus]

I think David and I both agree that the JST does restore 'many important points touching the salvation of man'. What we disagree with you on is the means by which the Lord did this through Joseph.

It appears evident to me that clear and pure truths were made known to Joseph by and through revelation as he studied and pondered the Bible, which he then interpolated into the familiar Biblical narrative for didactic purposes.

I think in many ways, this would have made the truths far more evident, and been a far more concise teaching method, than if a literal reconstruction of the original source texts had been accomplished. I've heard the PoGP texts referred to as "Gospel Concentrate" - and I feel this is why they are able to be as such - they are presented to clearly contextualize profound truths for the understanding of unlearned 19th Century saints.

That is not "restoring" anything that was "lost" or "taken from the Bible" before it was "compiled". It contradicts your own initial statement as well as Joseph Smith's.

[David T]

So for you, in order for a Truth to be restored, it needs to be brought back in the very same context and document in which it may have first been recorded, or it isn't valid?

For you, if the Lord revealed a Truth to Peter, that he wrote about for the first time in some letter we don't have any more, if, in the 19th Century, the Lord just told the Truth to Joseph, which he wrote in a section which was published in the Doctrine and Covenants, but didn't bring back the actual letter Peter wrote, you'd say the Truth wasn't really restored? Is that your position?

[zerinus]

So for you, in order for a Truth to be restored, it needs to be brought back in the very same context and document in which it may have first been recorded, or it isn't valid?

For you, if the Lord revealed a Truth to Peter, that he wrote about for the first time in some letter we don't have any more, if, in the 19th Century, the Lord just told the Truth to Joseph, which he wrote in a section which was published in the Doctrine and Covenants, but didn't bring back the actual letter Peter wrote, you'd say the Truth wasn't really restored? Is that your position?

No. You need to make up your mind whether Joseph Smith was restoring something that was lost, or merely clarifying things and adding new insights what what was already revealed. This is what you said:

It appears evident to me that clear and pure truths were made known to Joseph by and through revelation as he studied and pondered the Bible, which he then interpolated into the familiar Biblical narrative for didactic purposes.

I think in many ways, this would have made the truths far more evident, and been a far more concise teaching method, than if a literal reconstruction of the original source texts had been accomplished. I've heard the PoGP texts referred to as "Gospel Concentrate" - and I feel this is why they are able to be as such - they are presented to clearly contextualize profound truths for the understanding of unlearned 19th Century saints.

That is neither "restoring" what was "lost" nor what was "taken away;" nor indeed can it be described as a "translation," which is what the Lord calls it throughout the D&C. How was Moses' encounter with Satan an "interpolation"? It either literally took place or it didn't. If it took place, either it is a translation or it is a brand new revelation. But the Lord tells us that it is something that Moses wrote down. That proves that it is a translation not a brand new revelation, nor an "interpolation".

[David T]

No.

Then you are inconsistent, or not paying attention.

You need to make up your mind whether Joseph Smith was restoring something that was lost, or merely clarifying things and adding new insights what what was already revealed.

My position is that his work on the JST did both.

That is neither "restoring" what was "lost" nor what was "taken away;"

I disagree.

nor indeed can it be described as a "translation," which is what the Lord calls it throughout the D&C.

Again, we disagree.

[zerinus]

Then you are inconsistent, or not paying attention.

My position is that his work on the JST did both.

I disagree.

Again, we disagree.

Then perhaps you can explain to us what you understand by "lost before compiled" and by "taken away"; and in particular, what do you understand by, "Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God" (1 Nephi 13:28). After you have explained that, perhaps you can tell us how God intended to "restore" those plain and precious parts by a process that God Himself calls a "translation" if it is not in fact a translation? And how do you account for material (sometimes lengthy material) that is not just a gloss on the KJV, but gives detailed narrative of events taking place? And what is the basis of your belief that what God has called a "translation" is not in fact a translation by something else? And why do you think that God didn't have the sense to chose a better vocabulary to describe what he was doing instead of confusing us by calling it a translation when in fact it was something else?

[David T]

Then perhaps you can explain to us what you understand by "lost before compiled" and by "taken away"; and in particular, what do you understand by, "Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God" (1 Nephi 13:28). After you have explained that, perhaps you can tell us how God intended to "restore" those plain and precious parts by a process that God Himself calls a "translation" if it is not in fact a translation?

It's the same principle as to why when we teach people the Missionary discussions, we teach them the doctrines point by point, very plainly, instead of just handing them all of the scriptures, and saying, "It's all there. Just read it all. You'll understand the important parts."

I believe the Lord felt he could teach us modern saints clearly and more efficiently by restoring knowledge to a modern prophet, and having him express those missing points clearly in a new context that the saints could relate to instead of just dropping hundreds of ancient manuscripts on him, filled with allusions to ancient things the common Joe is not familiar with, asking him to work at providing a literal translation of them all (irrelevant material and all), even when many of the documents only contained one or two lines of lost or muddied Truth.

I think the JST doctrine as expounded and framed in the context of the Genesis narrative is far more spiritually beneficial than it would be if 10 more letters by Paul were found and literally translated. It's not a new practice to include modern understanding and application of scripture within (and part of) the original text. Check out, for example, the Aramaic Targum Jonathan of the first chapters of Genesis. This is the genre of literature I liken to the JST - with the very important exception that the Targum was interpolated with the understandings of Rabbi and Tradition. The JST was interpolated with the understandings and revelations of a Prophet of God.

And how do you account for material (sometimes lengthy material) that is not just a gloss on the KJV, but gives detailed narrative of events taking place? And what is the basis of your belief that what God has called a "translation" is not in fact a translation by something else? And why do you think that God didn't have the sense to chose a better vocabulary to describe what he was doing instead of confusing us by calling it a translation when in fact it was something else?

I believe much of the Enoch material was a narrative framework to teach the Saints the goal of Zion. Joseph wrote at least two Modern Revelations in 1832, directed to the Modern Church, which he changed to be "Revelations to Enoch" for the 1835 edition. Joseph was Enoch (and Gazelem), and other Church members recieved changed names as well (Newel Whitney became Ahashdah, Sidney Rigdon became Pelegoram, even Kirtland became "Shinehah", etc). See D&C 78 and 82.. In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants heading for D&C 82 (as section 86), said: "Revelation given April, 1832, showing the order given to Enoch and the church in his day.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Zerinus,

I see no logical basis for that conclusion. The JST is called a