Monolatry - Existence of other gods

[David Bokovoy]

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.

Very well said! It is wrong to assume with Zerinus that the Restoration simply restores knowledge that was once previously had by ancient prophets. Modern revelation specifically states that in the latter days, "God will give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now" (D&C 121:26).

[Sargon]

I appreciate the spirited defense of sound logic given here by those who aren't putting up with Zerinus' fundamentalism.

Now, I have a comment. Perhaps it has already been addressed and I missed it. David B. quoted the prophet as saying:

It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words

[Joseph Antley]

I appreciate the spirited defense of sound logic given here by those who aren't putting up with Zerinus' fundamentalism.

Now, I have a comment. Perhaps it has already been addressed and I missed it. David B. quoted the prophet as saying:

This statement by Joseph seems to me to be clearly contradicting the idea of an infinite regress of gods. Am I missing something? I'm still on the fence regarding Ostler's arguments on this topic, but this quote by Joseph seems to be in Ostler's favor.

The only way I can see around it is to assume the unspoken and all too convenient cop-out, not spoken by Joseph Smith, that it is only in regard to this universe (out of the infinite universes in the multiverse).

Here is how I view this, and it is basically supportive of your conclusion, although I disagree that it's a "cop-out". In lieu of 1 Corinthians 8:6, there is only one God in which we have anything to do with, our Heavenly Father. That he is "the head one of the gods" must be understood in the context that he is our only God. In the same sermon that we are quoting from, which incidentally was Joseph's final public sermon before the martyrdom (it was given June 16), Joseph said, "I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God

[zerinus]

I can provide an authoritative instance in which the JST is called something other than a

[David Bokovoy]

Hey Brother,

I appreciate the spirited defense of sound logic given here by those who aren't putting up with Zerinus' fundamentalism.

I don't know that "fundamentalism" is the best word to describe Zerinus' approach to LDS theology. I can't see one dedicated to a fundamentalist approach to LDS theology questioning the authenticity of one of Joseph Smith's sermons featured in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, while simultaneously dismissing related concepts by President Brigham Young, President Joseph Fielding Smith, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, Elder Parley P. Pratt, and an Official Declaration of the First Presidency in 1909 as wrongful "speculation." Zerinus adheres to his own personal and unique brand of Mormon theology and scripture.

This statement by Joseph seems to me to be clearly contradicting the idea of an infinite regress of gods. Am I missing something? I'm still on the fence regarding Ostler's arguments on this topic, but this quote by Joseph seems to be in Ostler's favor.

The only way I can see around it is to assume the unspoken and all too convenient cop-out, not spoken by Joseph Smith, that it is only in regard to this universe (out of the infinite universes in the multiverse).

I agree with Joseph A. I don't see the assumption that Joseph was referring specifically to God the Father as the head God who brought forth the Gods in his council as a cop-out. Not at all! Note the following statement by the Prophet Joseph Smith concerning the identity of "the Gods":

"An everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth, and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth; these personages, according to Abraham's record, are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the witness or Testator" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.190).

Combining this comment with the Prophet's statement that "the head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods" suggests that Joseph was referring specifically to God the Father bringing forth the Gods meaning "the Redeemer," and "the Testator" to organize the word and assign their specific responsibilities pertaining to God's children. I believe that is what Joseph meant. I also, believe, however, that further prophetic commentary expands the Gods brought forth to organize the earth to include such beings as Michael, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph Smith, and a series of equally divine women.

Best

[David T]

First of all the Lord never called it anything other than a

[volgadon]

First of all the Lord never called it anything other than a

[volgadon]

Whilst I'm sure that Genesis 1:1 was not the source of Joseph's knowledge or revelation on the council of the gods, it is quite clear that he was not making a mere gloss. Aside from the bit about the old Jew without authority and the inspired man, the prophet devoted several paragraphs to the idea that the Bible has been altered. This was in direct support of what he was saying about Genesis 1:1. Glosses don't require the same effort.

[maklelan]

I don

[David Bokovoy]

First of all the Lord never called it anything other than a

[volgadon]

I

[David Bokovoy]

Lucky!

It's pretty interesting, I'll tell you. It has the fully authorized copy right date, etc. And it's fun to read the versification of the Wentworth letter and see the additional JST insertions. I'll show it to you when I get to Provo.

[Ron Beron]

Towards the end of his ministry, the Prophet Joseph declared that prior to the days of uninspired tampering, the earliest version of Genesis 1:1 read:

[Ron Beron]

double posted

[Ron Beron]

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.

You have more conflations there than a Japanese sword.

[volgadon]

Wow, David, this is short of awesome! I have been looking for a link like this. I am reading some articles on the role of a supreme deity who manifests himself within the creation of other, lesser deities through emanation (Ashur and the lesser deities of Mesopotamia), or hyphenation, e.g., Amun-Re. I knew that JS spoke of this, but was unable to find it. Thanks. BTW, how do you approach this thought of a supreme being who is seen in lesser beings?

google a thread here called Joseph Smith and the Beginning. I looked at that quote within a Jewish perspective.

[zerinus]

I've been studying the JST regularly. A good source are the recently published Complete Joseph Smith Translation of the Old Testament and New Testament. It is far more complete than the RLDS edition, and relies on all of the original manuscripts, and even notes differences between them (and there are doctrinal differences).

Thank you. Those look like good books. I will get hold of them one of these days when I can.

I'm very familiar with the types of changes. And yes, I can explain the syntactical and lexical changes: The project was to update the Bible and make it more readable, understandable, and doctrinally relevant to the modern Saints.

You have no basis for saying that. That is not the reason the Lord gave for commanding Joseph Smith to translate them. The reason the Lord gave was to restore missing scripture:

D&C 45

:

60 And now, behold, I say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to

know any further concerning this chapter,

until the New Testament be translated, and in it

all these things shall be made known;

61 Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now translate it, that ye may be

prepared for the things to come

.

No, i don't think every grammatical change in the JST was given by inspiration, any more than I think the grammatical changes made in later editions of the Book of Mormon were given by inspiration.

I couldn

[consiglieri]

Yes, if God has a father. It is debatable. This speculation is based off of Joseph Smith's statements in the King Follett Discourse and the line "as man is God once was". I see it hard to reconcile with the scriptures that God was once not divine and that he has his own Father in Heaven. I think that Blake Ostler has got it pretty much right.

My understanding is that Joseph Smith was quite a bit more specific on the issue in his Sermon in the Grove given subsequent to the King Follett Discourse.

I despise being scared to death of such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

Your position makes no sense. Joseph was revising the King James version of the Bible by revelation. Hence, the clarification provided in the official Institute manual. The Prophet was not working with foreign languages, producing a new translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. You're assuming that somehow Joseph saw a copy of Moses 1 written in a language other than English and that he subsequently produced an English translation of that foreign language document.

1. Neither Joseph Smith, nor the Church itself has ever claimed that Joseph saw foreign language texts that the Prophet rendered from their original language into English. In fact, this perspective runs contrary to the historical assessments from the actual time period concerning the Prophet

[Mudcat]

That really says it all! You don

[Ron Beron]

Mudcat goes for the popcorn as he watches LDS "midget wrestling".

Best line today...I am so confused here...Z [a TBM(?)]is attacking David and you, a "TBE" (True Blue Evangelical), a supporter?? What gives?!

[Ron Beron]

google a thread here called Joseph Smith and the Beginning. I looked at that quote within a Jewish perspective.

Thanks...can you provide a more detailed link?

[volgadon]

Thanks...can you provide a more detailed link?

[zerinus]

Mudcat goes for the popcorn as he watches LDS "midget wrestling".

with the addendum of.....

Underline mine. Join us Zerinus We have much in common young padawan and the force is strong with you.

Join the EV side and henceforth you shall be known as Darth Z.

You don't know the power of the EV side

Respectfully,

Darth Nacho Libre

aka me

I have no problem with EVs, I just like to give them a hard time! I posted on CARM for many years before I got banned by their psychopathic mods. I got along with Matt Slick fine. The poor guy has abdicated the control of his boards to his unisexed mods! I find Rob the EV a more intelligent debater of religion than most of the Mormons round here. I am glad these folks all congregate round here. They would make rotten defenders or advocates of Mormonism if they went to non-LDS boards.

[maklelan]

I have no problem with EVs, I just like to give them a hard time! I posted on CARM for many years before I got banned by their psychopathic mods. I got along with Matt Slick fine. The poor guy has abdicated the control of his boards to his unisexed mods! I find Rob the EV a more intelligent debater of religion than most of the Mormons round here. I am glad these folks all congregate round here. They would make rotten defenders or advocates of Mormonism if they went to non-LDS boards.

zerinus, I would appreciate a response to my post, and I would appreciate it if you actually engaged my argument this time.