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

[Bernard Gui]

There is no getting around the statement in verse 3: the priests were called and ordained from the foundation of the world. This is in harmony with the most explicit LDS scriptures on the pre-mortal existence.

Abraham 3 ...

21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

And D&C 138 ....

53 The Prophet Joseph Smith, and my father, Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, and other choice spirits who were reserved to come forth in the fulness of times to take part in laying the foundations of the great latter-day work,

54 Including the building of the temples and the performance of ordinances therein for the redemption of the dead, were also in the spirit world.

55 I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.

56 Even before they were born, they, with many others, received their first lessons in the world of spirits and were prepared to come forth in the due time of the Lord to labor in his vineyard for the salvation of the souls of men.

Bernard

Edited August 22, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[wenglund]

Hi Rob,

In your online article you leveled the following criticism: "Here it is necessary to reiterate that all orthodox Christians agree that people can and should become “like” God the Father in some respects. For example, Peter tells us that we should be holy like God (1 Peter 1:15-16). The question is whether human beings can become like God in every respect. Frankly, 3 Nephi 28:10 says nothing of the sort.

Here is 2 Ne. 28:10

“And ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one” (3 Nephi 28:10).

Setting aside for the moment your presumption that "theosis" means "like God the Father in every respect" (including age and hair color and eye-sight) could you please point out any explicit and pertinent qualifiers in the scripture above?

I am asking so as to find out how much of your own world view you are interpretively imposing upon this scripture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

“And ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one” (3 Nephi 28:10).

Setting aside for the moment your presumption that "theosis" means "like God the Father in every respect" (including age and hair color and eye-sight) could you please point out any explicit and pertinent qualifiers in the scripture above?

I am asking so as to find out how much of your own world view you are interpretively imposing upon this scripture.

First, your parenthetical "including age and hair color and eye-sight" is a rhetorically clever but baseless attempt to poison the well against my critique by falsely characterizing me as alleging that Mormon deification entails that the deified saints will be like God in non-essential respects as well as essential respects. Obviously, Mormonism teaches that the deified saints will be of different genders and implies that they will have distinct features and personalities. So we may indeed set aside permanently your caricature of my description of the LDS doctrine.

Second, you are putting the burden of proof on me when it belongs on you. I am not citing the Book of Mormon as support for my theology; rather, Mormons are citing it as support for theirs. Specifically, Dan Peterson cited the passage in support of Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation or deification. All I needed to show was that it doesn't clearly teach that doctrine. I do not need to show that this passage contradicts that doctrine or that it teaches my theology or "world view."

[altersteve]

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.

It's not the natural reading for the (non-LDS) Christian, you mean. But it is the most natural reading for a Mormon.

[David T]

It's not the natural reading for the (non-LDS) Christian, you mean. But it is the most natural reading for a Mormon.

I'd say it's the natural reading for 21st Century Mormons. Just in the same way that the most natural reading of Isaiah's 'virgin shall concieve' prophetic statement for most Christians (LDS and non LDS) is a direct and detailed prophecy of Jesus Christ. Even though that does not have anything to do with the full context and text and question, and starts having flaws when you actually break down the text and context.

'Natural' readings for a people are not always equal with 'original intent/reading'. It has a lot to do with what is somewhat programmed to 'look for' in a text.

There are many scriptures which we are so familiar with what they're supposed to mean that when we read them, we don't actually engage the text, we read them as an idiom - we don't think of what the words are literally saying, we see the familiar phrase, and our brain substitutes what we've been accustomed, by repetition, to think that it means. (sometimes by the Chapter headings, usage in hymns, in popular discourse, etc. Ex: "I know that my Redeemer lives"). It's our brain's way of doing short hand and 'easy' reading.

I see no internal evidence that the Nephites had a doctrine of pre-existence (the 'return to God' phrases are easily understood as having reference to the concept of all creation beginning as and with the mind of God, the Lifegiver. We came forth from him, and now we are returning back to him - very Old Testament.)

It has no relevance for the Truth Claims of the doctrine of personal pre-mortal life. It just means these specific ancient prophets didn't know about it, and illustrated the (true and inspired) concept of fore-ordination in according with their current understanding of the principle, which has been explained and clarified in a difference way in our day. We believe in continuing revelation, and that we know new things now that were not understood previously. Our fascination with finding every current Mormon doctrine hidden somewhere in ancient scriptures, to me, is an unnecessary excercise.

While Rob certainly presents many, many arguments against the truth claims of the Church that I very strongly disagree with, I see no value in fighting against a point which is in fact correct just for the sake of not willing to admit Rob may be right about something, even if we do disagree with his assessment of the implications. Accepting a point of data does not equal an implicit agreement with his final conclusion/argument from that data point.

For example, I highly value the data presented by Vogel, Quinn, and Royal Skousen - even if I feel that some of their expressed interpretations and inferences from that data are waaaaay off.

Edited August 22, 2011 by nackhadlow

[Bernard Gui]

I see no internal evidence that the Nephites had a doctrine of pre-existence (the 'return to God' phrases are easily understood as having reference to the concept of all creation beginning as and with the mind of God, the Lifegiver. We came forth from him, and now we are returning back to him - very Old Testament.)

I would agree if that is what were written. However, the scriptures I cited have nothing to do with all

creation, but with the redemption of all mankind. The actual words are mankind will be "brought back"

or "restored into the presence of God." This is fortifed with the personally explicit promise to the brother

of Jared, "ye are brought back into my presence" when he is permitted to see the pre-mortal body of

Jesus. He says, "this how I look now, this is how I will look when I come to earth,

and this is how you looked before you came to earth."

And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

"All men were created in the beginning after mine own image" is the essence of our doctrine of the pre-mortal existence of man.

Bernard

Edited August 22, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

It's not the natural reading for the (non-LDS) Christian, you mean. But it is the most natural reading for a Mormon.

No, what I mean is that it's not the most natural reading for someone who has "no dog in the hunt." A non-Christian viewing the totality of the evidence from the Book of Mormon would most likely reach the same conclusion. I don't have any ax to grind on the issue because I recognize that some Mormon doctrines are in the Book of Mormon; my claim is that some aren't. I seek to determine which those are by studying the Book of Mormon on its own terms. Mormons "naturally" read later Mormon doctrine into the Book of Mormon; I fully understand that.

[Bernard Gui]

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

Could anyone explain it?

Since he is going to explain our doctrine for us anyway, we can

at least make sure he has a chance to see the correct doctrine first.

Who knows? One day he may be on a road to an anti-Mormon

seminar.

Bernard

[David T]

I would agree if that is what were written. However, the scriptures I cited have nothing to do with all

creation, but with the redemption of all mankind. The actual words are mankind will be "brought back"

or "restored into the presence of God." This is fortifed with the personally explicit promise to the brother

of Jared, "ye are brought back into my presence" when he is permitted to see the pre-mortal body of

Jesus. He says, "this how I look now, this is how I will look when I come to earth,

and this is how you looked before you came to earth."

"All men were created in the beginning after mine own image" is the essence of our doctrine of the pre-mortal existence of man.

Bernard

And while I could concede that the BoM writers had a concept of the 'essence' (we came from God, and were formed in God's own image), I think the full significance, understanding, and expression of the concept was left to a further time, and further prophets to expound. I am strongly of the belief that many prophets were exposed to profound truths that they interpreted in the light of (or attempted to fill in the blanks with) present understanding. We see Joseph having done this often - having an inspired theological insight, and then drawing lines from Revealed Concept A to Revealed Concept B that, at times, needed to be significantly redrawn. It's not the the essence of the revealed material was wrong, it was that there was a process of comprehending and making sense of the information and how it fit into the Big Picture.

I see no problem with 'likening' those verses to our modern understanding - in fact, I think scripture should be adapted and updated to take into consideration new understanding (that's what Joseph did with the JST!) - but we should still understand the difference between the artifact of scripture, and the living meaning we expound from and over scripture.

In other words, I find it perfectly fine and valid and useful to use those scriptures to teach the modern understanding of the principle, but not useful to insist that the Nephites were using or writing those scriptures with the same nuanced understanding or meaning we are bringing to them. While our present understanding may be closer to the initial revelation that was given, we interpret it differently and have more information for interpreting that 'source' revelation now than did the original BoM prophets.

This is a powerful part of spirit-led scripture study, in my opinion - discerning the essence of the initial revelation, and being able to distinguish it from the words used to attempt to express it.

[Anakin7]

From mt LDS JEDI Temple Archive - http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/bomandlds.htm In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Edited August 22, 2011 by Anakin7

[Vance]

No, what I mean is that it's not the most natural reading for someone who has "no dog in the hunt."

I don't buy that for a second.

Someone with "no dog in the hunt" would automatically assume that if God "foreknew" someone, then that someone would have to have "fore" existed as well.

I think there is clear evidence that, prior to the anti-Mormon movement, many Christians believed in the pre-mortal existence of the spirit of man. (a poem of Wadsworth comes to mind).

A non-Christian viewing the totality of the evidence from the Book of Mormon would most likely reach the same conclusion.

See above.

I don't have any ax to grind on the issue . . .

Oh please! How stupid do you think we are?

[Bernard Gui]

In other words, I find it perfectly fine and valid and useful to use those scriptures to teach the modern understanding of the principle, but not useful to insist that the Nephites were using or writing those scriptures with the same nuanced understanding or meaning we are bringing to them. While our present understanding may be closer to the initial revelation that was given, we interpret it differently and have more information for interpreting that 'source' revelation now than did the original BoM prophets.

This is a powerful part of spirit-led scripture study, in my opinion - discerning the essence of the initial revelation, and being able to distinguish it from the words used to attempt to express it.

I sense a hint of condescension.

We will have to agree to view the import of these passages

differently. From my point of view, the Lehites had a much more

sophisticated and complete understanding of the atonement than

many of us suppose. I am not convinced I am reading this back into

their writings from my present situation.

Bernard

Bernard

[David T]

I sense a hint of condescension.

Then your senses are off. Honestly, none was intended.

From my point of view, the Lehites had a much more

sophisticated and complete understanding of the atonement than

many of us suppose.

Maybe. From my point of view, I still don't see why it's so important for this to be so, especially given our (professed) belief in the nature of continuing revelation.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Someone with "no dog in the hunt" would automatically assume that if God "foreknew" someone, then that someone would have to have "fore" existed as well.

I'll have to disagree with you on that. The fact is that the vast majority of people who have believed that God knew the future when the world was made do not think this implies we existed at that time. Nor is there any logical connection that would establish the second idea from the first.

You wrote:

I think there is clear evidence that, prior to the anti-Mormon movement, many Christians believed in the pre-mortal existence of the spirit of man. (a poem of Wadsworth comes to mind).

Do you mean Henry Wadsworth Longfellow? He was a contemporary of nineteenth-century Mormonism.

No one claims that the belief in preexistence of human spirits originated with Joseph Smith. That isn't the issue here.

You wrote:

Oh please! How stupid do you think we are?

Actually, I find lack of intelligence is generally not a problem among Mormons.

[LeSellers]

Do you mean Henry Wadsworth Longfellow? He was a contemporary of nineteenth-century Mormonism.

No, he meant "Wordsworth", as in William Wordsworth. The poem he alluded to follows:

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:

The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And cometh from afar:

Not in entire forgetfulness,

And not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

From God, who is our home:

Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

Shades of the prison-house begin to close

Upon the growing Boy,

But He beholds the light, and whence it flows,

He sees it in his joy;

The Youth, who daily farther from the east

Must travel, still is Nature's Priest,

And by the vision splendid

Is on his way attended;

At length the Man perceives it die away,

And fade into the light of common day.

Wordsworth was also contemporary with the Restoration, but he was English, and probably never heard more than the merest whisper of Joseph Smith in his life. However, the stanza above was written in 1804, at the latest, so anything he ever did hear had absolutely nothing to do with his poem. A portion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as God revealed it to him, became the "intimations on immortality".

Lehi

Edited August 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[wenglund]

Wade,

First, your parenthetical "including age and hair color and eye-sight" is a rhetorically clever but baseless attempt to poison the well against my critique by falsely characterizing me as alleging that Mormon deification entails that the deified saints will be like God in non-essential respects as well as essential respects. Obviously, Mormonism teaches that the deified saints will be of different genders and implies that they will have distinct features and personalities. So we may indeed set aside permanently your caricature of my description of the LDS doctrine.

I am glad you immediately recognized the well poisoning. However, what surprises me is that you failed to recognize it as your own, and that I was simply commenting on what you had said in your article, as follows:

The question is whether human beings can become like God in every respect. Frankly, 3 Nephi 28:10 says nothing of the sort. It is easy to see how one might think so if one takes the line “and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one” out of context. Consider, for example, Paul’s statement, “I wish that all people were even as I am myself” (1 Cor. 7:7). Does this mean that Paul wishes that all people were middle-aged men with poor vision? Does it mean that Paul wishes that all people were Jewish, or that they all spoke Greek, or that they all traveled around without a permanent home? Of course not. (emphasis mine)

So we can't permanently set aside your not so clever rhetorical well poisoning until you do in your article.

Second, you are putting the burden of proof on me when it belongs on you.

Wrong. I don't shoulder the burden for YOUR interpretation of the passage, which you are using as the basis for your critique. You do. But, I can understand your reticence to answer my question.

I am not citing the Book of Mormon as support for my theology; rather, Mormons are citing it as support for theirs. Specifically, Dan Peterson cited the passage in support of Joseph Smith's doctrine of exaltation or deification. All I needed to show was that it doesn't clearly teach that doctrine. I do not need to show that this passage contradicts that doctrine or that it teaches my theology or "world view."

You are the one citing the passage as a part of your critique. You bear the burden for justifying your differing interpretation and critique. Not me or Dr. Peterson. If you can't or am unwilling to answer for your criticism, that's fine. Just say so. But, these kinds of lame dodges are ineffectual and simply muddy the argumentation waters.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 22, 2011 by wenglund

[Bernard Gui]

Then your senses are off. Honestly, none was intended.

No worries. I was out of place.

Maybe. From my point of view, I still don't see why it's so important for this to be so, especially given our (professed) belief in the nature of continuing revelation.

Not important enough to demand pistols at ten paces.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

From mt LDS JEDI Temple Archive - http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/bomandlds.htm In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

Thanks for the link.

Bernard

[Vance]

The fact is that the vast majority of people who have believed that God knew the future when the world was made do not think this implies we existed at that time.

Sorry, but those people are NOT part of the "no dog in the hunt" group, now are they. Apples and oranges!

Nor is there any logical connection that would establish the second idea from the first.

As viewed by one who DOES have a "dog in the hunt", and therefore doesn't count as evidence against my point.

Do you mean Henry Wadsworth Longfellow? He was a contemporary of nineteenth-century Mormonism.

1) No.

2) So?

No one claims that the belief in preexistence of human spirits originated with Joseph Smith. That isn't the issue here.

True AND IRRELEVANT!!!!

[Vance]

I am glad you immediately recognized the well poisoning. However, what surprises me is that you failed to recognize it as your own, and that I was simply commenting on what you had said in your article, as follows:

The question is whether human beings can become like God in every respect. Frankly, 3 Nephi 28:10 says nothing of the sort. It is easy to see how one might think so if one takes the line “and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one” out of context. Consider, for example, Paul’s statement, “I wish that all people were even as I am myself” (1 Cor. 7:7). Does this mean that Paul wishes that all people were middle-aged men with poor vision? Does it mean that Paul wishes that all people were Jewish, or that they all spoke Greek, or that they all traveled around without a permanent home? Of course not. (emphasis mine)

So we can't permanently set aside your not so clever rhetorical well poisoning until you do in your article.

I am shocked, SHOCKED!!!!

[Vance]

oh, and by the way,

No one claims that the belief in preexistence of human spirits originated with Joseph Smith.

Is evidence in SUPPORT of my argument and AGAINST yours.

[LeSellers]

Actually, I find lack of intelligence is generally not a problem among Mormons.

Uh, how's that?

If you want, e.g., to stack the per capita number of college degrees among the Saints against those from Evangelicals, I'd be happy to let B.H. O'bama keep score. "If it's not close, they can't steal it."

Lehi

Edited August 22, 2011 by LeSellers

[wenglund]

I am shocked, SHOCKED!!!!

Mind you, I am not saying that Rob's misrepresentation was intentional or because of ignorance or neglect. I just don't know. Granted, at the outset I figured the misrepresentation might have been intentional, but I am not prepared to rule out the possibility that it was done in ignorance or neglect. So, I won't say one way or the other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Yes, of course. Good clarification.

As I said, no one claims that Joseph Smith was the first person to propose the idea of preexistence of human spirits. However, Wordsworth did not derive this idea from the gospel of Jesus Christ or from divine revelation.

No, he meant "Wordsworth", as in William Wordsworth. The poem he alluded to follows:

Wordsworth was also contemporary with the Restoration, but he was English, and probably never heard more than the merest whisper of Joseph Smith in his life. However, the stanza above was written in 1804, at the latest, so anything he ever did hear had absolutely nothing to do with his poem. A portion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as God revealed it to him, became the "intimations on immortality".

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I am glad you immediately recognized the well poisoning. However, what surprises me is that you failed to recognize it as your own, and that I was simply commenting on what you had said in your article, as follows.... So we can't permanently set aside your not so clever rhetorical well poisoning until you do in your article.

You failed to understand the point I was making, which was that unqualified language (such as found both in the Book of Mormon text and in Paul's text) needs to be understood in context. My analogy to 1 Corinthians 7 was not "poisoning the well" because I was not using that analogy to characterize the Mormon theological position but to make a hermeneutical point.

You wrote:

Wrong. I don't shoulder the burden for YOUR interpretation of the passage, which you are using as the basis for your critique. You do. But, I can understand your reticence to answer my question.

What question do you claim I didn't answer? You wrote:

You are the one citing the passage as a part of your critique. You bear the burden for justifying your differing interpretation and critique. Not me or Dr. Peterson. If you can't or am unwilling to answer for your criticism, that's fine. Just say so. But, these kinds of lame dodges are ineffectual and simply muddy the argumentation waters.

The reason I gave for assigning Mormons the burden of proof for their proof-texting seems to have sailed right by you. Again, I don't think I failed to answer a question you asked. You had asked what qualifying wording in the verse itself proves my interpretation correct. My answer is that none is needed; if the context does not prove that your proof-texting interpretation is correct then the text fails to demonstrate that the Book of Mormon teaches the doctrine in question. That was the answer to your question.