Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Three: The Book Of Mormon

[Rob Bowman]

I’ve posted part 3 of my response to Dan Peterson on Joseph Smith restoring theosis (deification), in which Peterson argues that the doctrine is “implicit” if “unnoticed” in a proof text he provides from the Book of Mormon. I discuss that proof text and then show that numerous statements in the Book of Mormon consistently express a theology at odds with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation.

[Kevin Christensen]

I’ve posted part 3 of my response to Dan Peterson on Joseph Smith restoring theosis (deification), in which Peterson argues that the doctrine is “implicit” if “unnoticed” in a proof text he provides from the Book of Mormon. I discuss that proof text and then show that numerous statements in the Book of Mormon consistently express a theology at odds with Joseph Smith’s doctrine of exaltation.

Read it. It's nice to see some engagement with the Book of Mormon text, though not enough with the context (see 2 Nephi 25:1-5 on the Hebrew context, with equal implications for the Mesoamerican Context.) It strikes me as the natural result of proof-text orientation and a presentist mindset. I read differently these days.

Things change when we read with an idea of what temples are for. For instance:

The most obvious aspect of the temple in Jerusalem involved the levels of sacredness, increasing from the inner court to the holy place and to the holy of holies. According to Mircea Eliade, the three parts of the temple at Jerusalem correspond to the three cosmic regions. The lower court represents the lower regions ("Sheol," the abode of the dead), the holy place represents the earth, and the holy of holies represents heaven. The temple is always the meeting point of heaven, earth, and the world of the dead.36 Lehi's cosmology saw the world in these three realms (heaven, 1 Nephi 1:8; the earth, 1 Nephi 1:14; and the realm of the dead, 2 Nephi 1:14). King Benjamin, speaking from his temple, also sees the cosmos in terms of heaven, the earth, and the realm of the dead (Mosiah 2:25, 26, 41), with entrance into God's presence as the ultimate joyous state (Mosiah 2:41). Considering 3 Nephi as a whole, we can also find these three distinct levels of sacredness: (1) darkness/separation (3 Nephi 8–10), (2) preparation/initiation (3 Nephi 11:1–17:23; 18:1–37; 19:13; 20:1–28:12), (3) apotheosis/at-one-ment (3 Nephi 17:24; 18:36–39; 19:14, 25–31; 28:10–18).

And this:

During his visit, Jesus is transfigured and angels appear, demonstrating fully that God indeed was present (e.g., 3 Nephi 17:23–4). Barker describes the relevant rituals and symbolic meanings centering on the robes of the high priest:

He took off this robe when he entered the holy of holies because the robe was the visible form of one who entered the holy of holies. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, which explores the theme of Jesus as the high priest, there is the otherwise enigmatic line: his flesh was the veil of the temple (Heb. 10.20). In other words, the veil was matter which made visible whatever passed through it from the world beyond the veil. Those who shed the earthly garments, on the other side of the veil, were robed in garments of glory. In other words, they became divine.83

More indications of what shows up when we read with an awareness of both the temple context of Mosiah 2-5, but also notice thematic ties to crucial texts.

Notice that Psalm 82, which is important evidence of the idea of the divine potential of humankind and contains ties to the fallen angel myth,117 also contains the royal themes that appear in Benjamin's discourse. But in this case, the psalm describes the inverse situation of a broken covenant. Even so, it shows the obligations of the covenant—both social and economic—for individuals and a relationship to cosmic order, as well as the consequences of falling, given the coming judgment:

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods [cf. Mosiah 2:28]. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked [cf. Mosiah 4:20–27]. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness [cf. Mosiah 2:32–33]: all the foundations of the earth are out of course [cf. Mosiah 2:32–33; 3:21]. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High [cf. Mosiah 5:7]. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes [cf. Mosiah 2:36–41]. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations [cf. Mosiah 3:10, 13, 20]. (Psalm 82:1–

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=2&chapid=35

Mark Wright (aka Hashbaz) did an enlightening post on Abinadi's discourse in a Mesoamerican context, which would be helpful if I could find it. But there is this, which is directly relevant.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008-Mark-Wright.pdf

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

Read it. It's nice to see some engagement with the Book of Mormon text, though not enough with the context (see 2 Nephi 25:1-5 on the Hebrew context, with equal implications for the Mesoamerican Context.) It strikes me as the natural result of proof-text orientation and a presentist mindset. I read differently these days.

I don't know you personally, Kevin, and I'd like to have some serious discussions with you. But these comments are not helpful. They don't engage anything I said, on any level. Instead, you make sound sophisticated-sounding negative assessments of my article without showing how the article is guilty of such things. It sounds like an impressive critique, but the critique never actually touches the ground.

It doesn't get better when you copy and paste some material from one of your articles without explaining how that material in any way undermines or refutes my analysis.

You know, it's rather ironic that you are taking me to task for a supposed proof-text orientation. Did you read Peterson's article?

Wright's presentation is interesting, but I found his handling of the Book of Mormon text seriously flawed. I'm sure you'll get a chuckle out of being told that by an evangelical. For example, he also mentions the same proof text that Peterson does, and he ignores the context in the same way, as discussed in my article.

[Bernard Gui]

Your treatment of Alma 13 is flawed:

I am aware of only one passage in the Book of Mormon that some Mormons cite as reflecting a belief in the preexistence of human spirits. That passage states that priests were “called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God…. this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts” (Alma 13:3, 5). Surely, though, we should understand this passage to mean not that the priests themselves existed “from the foundation of the world,” but rather their “calling” was “prepared” for them “according to the foreknowledge of God.” That is, God knew ahead of time that these men would be suitable for the priestly office and so “prepared” that calling for them. This one passage, then, cannot overturn the considerable evidence from the more than a dozen passages cited above that show that the Book of Mormon reflects the traditional Christian belief that our existence begins on earth as physical beings.

Contrary to your assertion, Alma 13:3 clearly teaches that both the callings and the priests were prepared and called from the foundation of the world. A plain reading of the entire verse, not your snipped version, demonstrates your error.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—

being called and prepared from the foundation of the world

according to the foreknowledge of God,

on account of their exceeding faith and good works;

in the first place being left to choose good or evil;

therefore they having chosen good,

and exercising exceedingly great faith,

are called with a holy calling,

yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with,

and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

In addition, the verses you quote concerning the creation of man and Adam and Eve as our first parents neither contradict nor preclude our belief in Heavely parents.

Becoming "sons and daughters" of Christ through the atonement is well-attested in LDS doctrine.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Alma 42:23

But God ceaseth not to be God,

and mercy claimeth the penitent,

and mercy cometh because of the atonement;

and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead;

and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God;

and thus they are restored into his presence,

to be judged according to their works,

according to the law and justice.

Helaman 14:17

But behold, the resurrection of Christ redeemeth mankind,

yea, even all mankind,

and bringeth them back into the presence of the Lord.

Mormon 9:13

And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ,

they are brought back into the presence of the Lord;

yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed,

because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection,

which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep,

from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God

when the trump shall sound;

and they shall come forth, both small and great,

and all shall stand before his bar,

being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death,

which death is a temporal death.

Ether 3:13

And when he had said these words, behold,

the Lord showed himself unto him, and said:

Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall;

therefore ye are brought back into my presence;

therefore I show myself unto you.

Man cannot be brought back to a place he has never been.

Man cannot be restored into God's presence if he has not already been there.

Bernard

Edited August 12, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

In LDS doctrine, what happened to the three Nephite

disciples has a name - having your calling and election

made sure. This means it was revealed to them in this life

that they would receive exaltation in the Celestisl Kingdom,

in other words, they were assured that they will become

like God.

Mosiah 5:15 Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent , may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen.

2 Peter 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

D&C 131:5 (May 17th, 1843.) The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood.

It is also called receiving the Second Comforter:

D&C 88:3 Wherefore, I now send upon you another Comforter, even upon you my friends, that it may abide in your hearts, even the Holy Spirit of promise; which other Comforter is the same that I promised unto my disciples, as is recorded in the testimony of John.

4 This Comforter is the promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom;

Bernard

Edited August 12, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

You wrote:

I don't know you personally, Kevin, and I'd like to have some serious discussions with you. But these comments are not helpful. They don't engage anything I said, on any level. Instead, you make sound sophisticated-sounding negative assessments of my article without showing how the article is guilty of such things. It sounds like an impressive critique, but the critique never actually touches the ground.

I just read your essay again. You have nothing about the temple context. You even talk about the importance of reading in context. But your ideological horizon determines the context you select.

Decades ago, I read an oft-reprinted essay by Thomas G. Alexander called "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," in Sunstone. Your essay follows a similar pattern of thought. When I first read it I was impressed. But I've read a lot more, so, now I'm not. For me, seeing the Temple context changed everything. And the more I read about the cultural contexts, even more changes. After reading the first hint of John W. Welch's recognition of the significance of the Temple context of 3 Nephi 8-28, I stopped being impressed with the developmental theory. I see the Nauvoo Joseph finally catching up with the Book of Mormon. 3 Nephi is a temple ceremony, and so everything that happens and is said has that context.

And a closer look at just the Book of Mormon text makes a difference, for instance, in the supposed conventional Monotheism of the Book of Mormon. See this long essay, of which I have read an even longer and more comprehensive version:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392

One of the key insights in this, buried in footnote 3, "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts."

I've often linked this essay by Brant Gardner, which also shows what happens to the supposed Monotheism when we read The Book of Mormon with more awareness of cultural context that it claims for itself:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html

In your essay you claim "All of these statements reflect quite traditional Christian beliefs that were common to Joseph Smith’s theological environment in early nineteenth-century America, and there is no reason to take them in any other way than just as they sound in that context."

Personally, I have innumerable reasons to read them in other contexts. That was the point of my citing 2 Nephi 25:1-5, on the importance of reading in cultural context. You seem not to have noticed the relevance. But that is the point too. If you don't know the other contexts, you won't see the difference it makes and consequently see only what your uncontested context highlights as significant, and you then interpret in that limited light.

That is the point of the parable of the sower. The same seeds, depending on the soil in they are planted, may yield a completely different harvest. Some, an hundred fold difference. The reason that many LDS scholars have been searching for the best contexts in which to read is because only there can we even begin to see what difference it makes. Nibley started that sort of thing with Lehi in the Desert. If you don't make the effort, you can look but not understand, have eyes, but not see. Isaiah said something about that. As did Jesus, via Mark:

"Know ye not this parable? How then will ye know all parables?"

It doesn't get better when you copy and paste some material from one of your articles without explaining how that material in any way undermines or refutes my analysis.

I work as a technical writer for a living, and I have a son and daughter visiting at home. Time is limited. Plus, since I have written on the contexts that your response neglects, and know that Mark Wright's essay demonstrates relevant knowledge of the ancient Mesoamerican, I thought that other readers might appreciate that light. I don't expect you to surrender your views. I'm providing younger readers with choices and that I think are important.

You know, it's rather ironic that you are taking me to task for a supposed proof-text orientation. Did you read Peterson's article?

I've read Peterson's little Deseret News article, and also much much more of his work. I don't mistake what he provides for the Deseret News as more than a snowflake on the tip of an iceberg. It's not an academic journal.

Wright's presentation is interesting, but I found his handling of the Book of Mormon text seriously flawed. I'm sure you'll get a chuckle out of being told that by an evangelical. For example, he also mentions the same proof text that Peterson does, and he ignores the context in the same way, as discussed in my article.

I've used the 3 Nephi "Ye shall be even as I AM" quote myself, dating back to my review in RBBM v2, with capitalization that I think belongs there. Jesus's discussion with the Nephite 12, and the promises to the 3 should be read in the full context of the Temple, in light of what it symbolizes and teaches and helps to make real.

And Bernard's relevant observations in Alma 13, and other passages that imply pre-existence are helpful and to the point as well.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Edited August 12, 2011 by Kevin Christensen

[Bernard Gui]

Here is the account of Alma, who had his calling and election made sure, and the promise

is extended to all who follow Christ.

Mosiah 26:13-24

And now the spirit of Alma was again troubled; and he went and inquired of the Lord what he should do concerning this matter,

for he feared that he should do wrong in the sight of God. And it came to pass that after he had poured out his whole soul to God,

the voice of the Lord came to him, saying:

'Blessed art thou, Alma, and blessed are they who were baptized in the waters of Mormon. Thou art blessed because of thy exceeding

faith in the words alone of my servant Abinadi.

And blessed are they because of their exceeding faith in the words alone which thou hast spoken unto them.

And blessed art thou because thou hast established a church among this people;

and they shall be established, and they shall be my people.

Yea, blessed is this people who are willing to bear my name; for in my name shall they be called; and they are mine.

And because thou hast inquired of me concerning the transgressor, thou art blessed.

Thou art my servant; and I covenant with thee that thou shalt have eternal life;

and thou shalt serve me and go forth in my name, and shalt gather together my sheep.

And he that will hear my voice shall be my sheep; and him shall ye receive into the church, and him will I also receive.

For behold, this is my church; whosoever is baptized shall be baptized unto repentance.

And whomsoever ye receive shall believe in my name; and him will I freely forgive.

For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them; and it is I that granteth unto him

that believeth unto the end a place at my right hand.

For behold, in my name are they called; and if they know me they shall come forth,

and shall have a place eternally at my right hand.

Edited August 12, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Rob Bowman]

Kevin,

You wrote:

I just read your essay again. You have nothing about the temple context. You even talk about the importance of reading in context. But your ideological horizon determines the context you select.

Decades ago, I read an oft-reprinted essay by Thomas G. Alexander called "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," in Sunstone. Your essay follows a similar pattern of thought. When I first read it I was impressed. But I've read a lot more, so, now I'm not. For me, seeing the Temple context changed everything. And the more I read about the cultural contexts, even more changes. After reading the first hint of John W. Welch's recognition of the significance of the Temple context of 3 Nephi 8-28, I stopped being impressed with the developmental theory. I see the Nauvoo Joseph finally catching up with the Book of Mormon. 3 Nephi is a temple ceremony, and so everything that happens and is said has that context.

I am very familiar with Welch's publications to which you refer. Welch argues for a temple context primarily for 3 Nephi 11-18 and more broadly for chapters 19-26. I don't wish to debate Welch's temple-text interpretation here, but in any case chapters 27-28 are a distinct unit in the narrative with a different setting. 3 Nephi 27:1 establishes that setting as a gathering of the twelve Nephite disciples while they "were journeying and were preaching the things which they had both heard and seen." This would seem to be a rather clear statement showing that the physical setting has changed from the earlier chapters.

Even if I agreed with the claim that 3 Nephi 27-28 was set in the Nephite temple, which I do not, this simply doesn't prove that the proof text in 3 Nephi 28:10 is an affirmation of the same doctrine of exaltation that Joseph Smith taught later toward the end of his life. It certainly won't help to establish from this proof text the most controversial aspects of Joseph's later doctrine, which concern God the Father having been a mortal man who then became a God.

Finally on this point, my article discusses a large number of passages in the Book of Mormon (found in nine other books of the Book of Mormon in addition to 3 Nephi). The supposed "temple context" in 3 Nephi is irrelevant to the interpretation of these other passages elsewhere in the Book of Mormon.

You wrote:

And a closer look at just the Book of Mormon text makes a difference, for instance, in the supposed conventional Monotheism of the Book of Mormon. See this long essay, of which I have read an even longer and more comprehensive version:

http://maxwellinstit...13&num=2&id=392

One of the key insights in this, buried in footnote 3, "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts."

I've often linked this essay by Brant Gardner, which also shows what happens to the supposed Monotheism when we read The Book of Mormon with more awareness of cultural context that it claims for itself:

http://www.fairlds.o...rmons_Book.html

Obviously, I cannot mount a specific or detailed response to these essays in this post. I don't agree with their arguments and as I have time I certainly intend to engage those arguments very specifically. The article by Bruening and Paulsen critiques a specific version of the developmental view of Mormon theology that views Joseph Smith as a consistent modalist in 1828-30. I don't hold to this view so their critique is largely irrelevant to my own view of the Book of Mormon's theology. Brant Gardner's paper doesn't discuss most of the Book of Mormon texts cited in my article and is focused on a different question, so his paper is also of minimal relevance to the issue here.

You wrote:

In your essay you claim "All of these statements reflect quite traditional Christian beliefs that were common to Joseph Smith’s theological environment in early nineteenth-century America, and there is no reason to take them in any other way than just as they sound in that context."

Personally, I have innumerable reasons to read them in other contexts. That was the point of my citing 2 Nephi 25:1-5, on the importance of reading in cultural context. You seem not to have noticed the relevance. But that is the point too. If you don't know the other contexts, you won't see the difference it makes and consequently see only what your uncontested context highlights as significant, and you then interpret in that limited light.

Nothing you have said, and nothing that is in any of the articles you have cited, shows that reading the Book of Mormon statements about the eternity of God in a supposed ancient Mesoamerican context is more plausible or appropriate than reading them in a nineteenth-century American context. I am fully aware of the importance of reading statements in their cultural context. I am simply not convinced by attempts to remove the Book of Mormon statements in question from the nineteenth-century American context in which they became extant.

[Bernard Gui]

I I am aware of only one passage in the

Book of Mormon that some Mormons cite as reflecting

a belief in the preexistence of human spirits.

Rob [edit], please correct this statement in your essay.

Bernard

Edited August 18, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Ron, please correct this statement in your essay.

My name is Rob, not Ron. What other Book of Mormon passage do Mormons cite in support of preexistence of human spirits?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Bernard,

You wrote:

My name is Rob, not Ron. What other Book of Mormon passage do Mormons cite in support of preexistence of human spirits?

Post 5 in this thread outlines some of those verses.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

Post 5 in this thread outlines some of those verses.

Okay. I was not aware Mormons used these verses to support the doctrine.

[Vance]

Mola,

You wrote:

Okay. I was not aware Mormons used these verses to support the doctrine.

There is no need to use these verses to support the doctrine as the doctrine is clearly described else where in the LDS canon.

These verses are simply consistent with the doctrine.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Vance

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

Okay. I was not aware Mormons used these verses to support the doctrine.

I confess I have never used them personally but I see the doctrine there.

If anything the one I use the most is Ecc 12:7.

[Bernard Gui]

Okay. I was not aware Mormons used these verses to support the doctrine.

This Mormon uses them for that purpose, and he hopes

others will after they read this thread.

Technically yor statement is correct: you report that many Mormons use only this one, implying that there is only one BoM scripture that supports the doctrine of pre-mortal existence, when in fact there are at least 3 others that are much stronger.

Will you rewrite that portion of you essay?

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

This Mormon uses them for that purpose, and he hopes

others will after they read this thread.

Technically yor statement is correct: you report that many Mormons use only this one, implying that there is only one BoM scripture that supports the doctrine of pre-mortal existence, when in fact there are at least 3 others that are much stronger.

Will you rewrite that portion of you essay?

Bernard

I have edited that portion of my essay to remove the claim that the passage I discuss there is the only text any Mormons cite from the Book of Mormon in support of preexistence.

[Bernard Gui]

Thank you. Would you agree the doctrine of pre-mortal

existence of man is found in the Book of Mormon?

Given the experiences of several BoM writers such as

Alma regarding their "calling and election" being made sure-another term for exaltation-would you also agree that

the doctrine of theosis as understood by LDS, coupled

with the Lord's promise to the three Nephite disciples,

is also found in the Book of Mormon?

Bernard

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Thank you. Would you agree the doctrine of pre-mortal existence of man is found in the Book of Mormon?

No. Perhaps later when I have some time I can address your arguments for finding it there. Right now I have to rush off to physical therapy (post-surgery on my shoulder).

[David T]

Thank you. Would you agree the doctrine of pre-mortal

existence of man is found in the Book of Mormon?

Given the experiences of several BoM writers such as

Alma regarding their "calling and election" being made sure-another term for exaltation-would you also agree that

the doctrine of theosis as understood by LDS, coupled

with the Lord's promise to the three Nephite disciples,

is also found in the Book of Mormon?

Bernard

Bernard

I'm Mormon, and I don't agree with these things.

[mfbukowski]

I keep forgetting why we are helping this guy refine his arguments against us.

Could anyone explain it?

[Bernard Gui]

As you wish. I look forward to your explanation.

Bernard,

You wrote:

No. Perhaps later when I have some time I can address your arguments for finding it there. Right now I have to rush off to physical therapy (post-surgery on my shoulder).

[Bernard Gui]

Repeated post

Edited August 20, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

I'm Mormon, and I don't agree with these things.

Yes..........?

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

I do plan to respond to your additional proof texts from the Book of Mormon for preexistence of human spirits, but in this post I will respond first to your comments on Alma 13:3. You wrote:

Your treatment of Alma 13 is flawed.... Contrary to your assertion, Alma 13:3 clearly teaches that both the callings and the priests were prepared and called from the foundation of the world. A plain reading of the entire verse, not your snipped version, demonstrates your error.

I did not omit this part of the quotation. Here is what I wrote: "That passage states that priests were 'called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God…. this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts' (Alma 13:3, 5)."

I'm all for giving the full quotation, however, and giving it in even more context:

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people. 2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

In the one reference to the priests "being called and prepared from the foundation of the world" (v. 3), the text specifically explains that this was done "according to the foreknowledge of God." That means that God knew ahead of time who would have faith and good works, and according to that advance knowledge they were called and prepared to become priests. While it is possible to take this statement to imply that the priests actually existed at the foundation of the world, this is not the most natural reading in the context. It is all about what God did for and toward them from the foundation of the world, not about anything they did then. This is very typical foreknowledge language, found in the Bible (where the author of Alma 13 no doubt got it). If one continues reading through verse 9, one finds repeatedly that it is the calling, the order, the ordinance, and the priesthood that is without beginning or end, because God's Son is himself "without beginning of days or end of years." The Book of Mormon never makes this sort of statement about ordinary human beings.

On balance, I don't think this text offers clear or strong support for preexistence of human spirits. If there were evidence showing that this was clearly a Book of Mormon doctrine, one might be more inclined to see it in Alma 13 as well. But the thrust of the passage is on the preexistence of the Son, his priestly order, and the divine intention for men to be ordained to it, and the statement in verse 3 should be read in that light.