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

[wenglund]

Whether one argues that the statement should be understood in a qualified sense, or argues that the statement should be understood in an unqualified, universal sense, both arguments are defending a particular interpretation of the statement. This is just as true of the "unqualified" interpretation as the "qualified" interpretation.

That was, in part, my point.

Context should be the key here, not the "authority" of the interpreter.

Since context is also a function of interpretation, a matter of personal opinion, as is also the perception that it is "key" here, then the perceived "authority" of the interpreter is also a key factor.

However, let's not lose my point in the flack of picked nits. What you are offering on your blog is a difference of opinion/interpretation, not a critique of Dr. Peterson's article. One can quite reasonably view 3Ne. 38:10 and other BoM passages as indicative of theosis, just as one may reasonably conclude otherwise. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

I've had many of my strongly held opinions changed partially by considering and mulling over the arguments of those I did not initially agree with. I like to think if someone as stubborn as I can have massive paradigm shifts, then it's worth giving other's the same opportunity for the same material I also directly interacted with. I feel greatly blessed by the challenges, and stronger for them. I'm fine with individuals having differences of opinion based on, well, something. It is simple dismissive assertions without interacting with the actual arguments and using nothing more than smug surety as their argument that tends to bother me - because nobody benefits from that.

I am more than willing to be shown I'm wrong. (I have been many times, and I've acknowledged it, altered my thinking, and moved on!) Being smugly told I'm wrong without addressing or interacting in any way with my expressed concerns is highly annoying.

Unfortunately, too many of our missionaries use this as a tool in their proselyting kit, and then wonder why they aren't baptizing. They often mistake this as being the same as Teach and Testify.

As Mormons, the burden of proof is on us for our assertions. "Prove this didn't happen" is a terrible rejoinder when a historical claim is questioned.

I don't blame people for not believing many of our truth claims. At all. The difference I have with several other of my fellow practicing Mormons that I've seen participate on this board is that I don't feel my acceptance of certain principles on faith grants me the right to be a self-righteous and condescending jerk dismissing others' real concerns, and simply designating them as faithless, scripturally illiterate, or apostate.

* NOTE: I am not calling you a self righteous and condescending jerk, Ahab. I want to make that clear. It's a statement of general observation answering your questions as to why and how I value and tend to take seriously the way others react to my comments.

/Derail

It is satisfying when I can help someone come to a greater knowledge of the truth, with God's help, but still, in the end, if I don't and the person goes on in the way they are thinking which I know is wrong while I know I am right it doesn't really make any difference that they didn't come around to agree with my perspective.

They were wrong before, and they're still wrong after I'm done with them, or after they're done with me... unless maybe, just maybe, they're still mulling over what I have told them for a little while and it somehow stays with them to continue to mull over.

And btw, even if you were calling me a self righteous jerk, it really wouldn't matter to me because I know I'm not even though you would think I really was.

Peer pressure is so overrated. It's so much better to just be free to think whatever you want to think, and even better to know when you are right.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Ahab

[Cobalt-70]

False! The foreordination described in Alma (and also in the Bible) is a necessary PART of ordination.

...

Not exactly correct. It was through "some line of succession" that in 1829 priesthood authority was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in (Mormonism's) foundational events.

The authority to baptize was not the "high priesthood," which was not actually implemented in Mormonism until 1831. In any event, Alma 13 was translated some time before the part of the Book of Mormon that prompted Smith and Cowdery to feel the need to get authority to baptize. Clearly by April 1830, they were ordaining through the laying on of hands. But Alma 13 is among the earlier passages translated, and it thus represents an early, more Protestant version of Mormon priesthood, not quite identical to the more "Catholic/Old Testament" version of Mormon priesthood that began to take hold just a few weeks later.

You'll note that a few chapters earlier, in Mosiah 18, Smith still understood priesthood in the more Protestant sense as almost a "priesthood of all believers," in which priesthood is simply a gift of the Spirit. This allowed Alma the Elder to baptize both himself and others because the "Spirit of the Lord was upon him." This was even before Joseph Smith realized that Alma had received his high priesthood through foreordination. Thus, this is an even earlier view of Mormon priesthood.

[Cobalt-70]

False! The foreordination described in Alma (and also in the Bible) is a necessary PART of ordination.

...

Not exactly correct. It was through "some line of succession" that in 1829 priesthood authority was given to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in (Mormonism's) foundational events.

The authority to baptize was not the "high priesthood," which was not actually implemented in Mormonism until 1831. In any event, Alma 13 was translated some time before the part of the Book of Mormon that prompted Smith and Cowdery to feel the need to get authority to baptize. Clearly by April 1830, they were ordaining through the laying on of hands. But Alma 13 is among the earlier passages translated, and it thus represents an early, more Protestant version of Mormon priesthood, not quite identical to the more "Catholic/Old Testament" version of Mormon priesthood that began to take hold just a few weeks later.

You'll note that a few chapters earlier, in Mosiah 18, Smith still understood priesthood in the more Protestant sense as almost a "priesthood of all believers," in which priesthood is simply a gift of the Spirit. This allowed Alma the Elder to baptize both himself and others because the "Spirit of the Lord was upon him." This was even before Joseph Smith realized that Alma had received his high priesthood through foreordination. Thus, this is an even earlier view of Mormon priesthood.

[Bernard Gui]

This is just an example of the Book of Mormon's Arminianism. It simply means that God, by his foreknowledge, called and ordained men to be high priests even before they were born.

In order for it to fit into your Arminianism box, you must add the words I have bolded to the Book of Mormon text.

Why do you think you have that privilege?

Bernard

[Vance]

The authority to baptize was not the "high priesthood," . . .

True, but irrelevant.

. . . which was not actually implemented in Mormonism until 1831.

Wrong. The "high priesthood" was given in 1829 through "some line of succession" as I said.

In any event, Alma 13 was translated some time before the part of the Book of Mormon that prompted Smith and Cowdery to feel the need to get authority to baptize.

The Cowdery arrived in April 1829 after which the real progress in translation occurred and in May 1829 the Aaronic Priesthood was restored. It doesn't sound like "some time" to me.

Clearly by April 1830, they were ordaining through the laying on of hands.

Clearly by May of 1830 they were ordained throught the laying on of hands.

But Alma 13 is among the earlier passages translated, . . .

An assertion based on nothing.

. . . and it thus represents an early, more Protestant version of Mormon priesthood, not quite identical to the more "Catholic/Old Testament" version of Mormon priesthood that began to take hold just a few weeks later.

Sorry, but what exactly is a "more Protestant version"? Certainly it was NOTHING like the "priesthood of all believers" fabricated by Luther.

You'll note that a few chapters earlier, in Mosiah 18, Smith still understood priesthood in the more Protestant sense as almost a "priesthood of all believers," in which priesthood is simply a gift of the Spirit.

Neglecting of course that Alma was ordained several "some time"s earlier. Of course to recognize this would not fit with your agenda/mime.

This allowed Alma the Elder to baptize both himself and others because the "Spirit of the Lord was upon him."

See above.

This was even before Joseph Smith realized that Alma had received his high priesthood through foreordination.

But after he realized that Alma had received his high priesthood through the laying on of hands.

Thus, this is an even earlier view of Mormon priesthood.

Thus, it is not an earlier view of the priesthood.

[Cobalt-70]

"This is just an example of the Book of Mormon's Arminianism. It simply means that God, by his foreknowledge, called and ordained men to be high priests even before they were born."

In order for it to fit into your Arminianism box, you must add the words I have bolded to the Book of Mormon text.

Why do you think you have that privilege?

That's what Alma 13:3 says: high priests received their ordination through being called and prepared "before the foundation of the world," which means they were ordained before they were born: in a word, they were preordained. Alma 13:3 does not present any doctrine that is uniquely Mormon. The "before the foundation of the world" language is taken from Ephesians 1:4, which Arminians (like Joseph Smith circa 1829) think they understand pretty well.

[Cobalt-70]

"This is just an example of the Book of Mormon's Arminianism. It simply means that God, by his foreknowledge, called and ordained men to be high priests even before they were born."

In order for it to fit into your Arminianism box, you must add the words I have bolded to the Book of Mormon text.

Why do you think you have that privilege?

That's what Alma 13:3 says: high priests received their ordination through being called and prepared "before the foundation of the world," which means they were ordained before they were born: in a word, they were preordained. Alma 13:3 does not present any doctrine that is uniquely Mormon. The "before the foundation of the world" language is taken from Ephesians 1:4, which Arminians (like Joseph Smith circa 1829) think they understand pretty well.

[LeSellers]

It is interesting that Origen of Alexandria stated a belief that differences evident among men on earth were attributable to differences in rank and glory attained by those men as premortal angels. And that God could not be viewed as "no respecter of persons" without such a premortal existence. In fact, if the differences of men on earth were not related in some way to our premortal condition, then God could be viewed as arbitrary, capricious, and unjust. He felt that a judgment of sorts had already taken place based on our premortal merit, with the result being the station into which we were placed in this life. As an example of this concept supported in the Bible, he referred to Jacob being preferred over Esau. Why was this so? Because "we believe that he was even then chosen by God because of merits acquired before this life."

Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council.

Enjoy,

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's what Alma 13:3 says: high priests received their ordination through being called and prepared "before the foundation of the world," which means they were ordained before they were born: in a word, they were preordained. Alma 13:3 does not present any doctrine that is uniquely Mormon. The "before the foundation of the world" language is taken from Ephesians 1:4, which Arminians (like Joseph Smith circa 1829) think they understand pretty well.

Are you saying that being born = existing?

[Cobalt-70]

"The authority to baptize was not the "high priesthood," . . .

True, but irrelevant.

". . . which was not actually implemented in Mormonism until 1831."

Wrong. The "high priesthood" was given in 1829 through "some line of succession" as I said.

No, I think this is quite relevant. According to Alma 13, the high (Melchizedek) priesthood is something quite different from other priesthoods. Unlike other priests, high priests have their priesthood by virtue of the foreknowledge of God. This priesthood is without beginning and without end. Those who have it have always had it, and will always have it, because they were foreordained. At least, that's the doctrine of Alma 13. I agree, this is not current Mormon doctrine. The doctrine of Alma 13 was slightly modified in 1831 when Joseph Smith (at the urging of Sidney Rigdon) first started ordaining Melchizedek priests by the laying on of hands.

The non-"high" (later called Aaronic) priesthood was thought to require the laying on of hands long before the Melchizedek priesthood was. But even Joseph Smith's 1829 Melchizedek priesthood theology was fairly unusual in that he believed that men (not just Jesus) could be foreordained to that priesthood just as Jesus was.

[Vance]

That's what Alma 13:3 says: high priests received their ordination through being called and prepared "before the foundation of the world," . . .

True.

. . . which means they were ordained before they were born: . . .

NOT true.

. . . in a word, they were preordained.

No. They were "called" and "prepared". You are inserting things that aren't there.

Alma 13:3 does not present any doctrine that is uniquely Mormon.

Even if that rather bald assertion is true, so what?

The "before the foundation of the world" language is taken from Ephesians 1:4,

Another bald assertion. I am going to have to issue a Call For Reference CFR that statement.

. . . which Arminians (like Joseph Smith circa 1829) think they understand pretty well.

Another bald assertion. I am going to have to issue a Call For Reference CFR that Joseph Smith thought that he understood it pretty well.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, I think this is quite relevant. According to Alma 13, the high (Melchizedek) priesthood is something quite different from other priesthoods. Unlike other priests, high priests have their priesthood by virtue of the foreknowledge of God. This priesthood is without beginning and without end. Those who have it have always had it, and will always have it, because they were foreordained. At least, that's the doctrine of Alma 13. I agree, this is not current Mormon doctrine. The doctrine of Alma 13 was slightly modified in 1831 when Joseph Smith (at the urging of Sidney Rigdon) first started ordaining Melchizedek priests by the laying on of hands.

I disagree with your interpretation of "beginning and with out end" means they always had it and will always have it. That is no were to be found in scripture. And if that is the case why were certain people in teh BoM ordained to the high priesthood? They would not need to be ordained if they always had it.

The non-"high" (later called Aaronic) priesthood was thought to require the laying on of hands long before the Melchizedek priesthood was. But even Joseph Smith's 1829 Melchizedek priesthood theology was fairly unusual in that he believed that men (not just Jesus) could be foreordained to that priesthood just as Jesus was.

Um there is no scripture any were that just says "Only Jesus was foreordained to the priesthood". So I wonder were he got that idea. Since the bible never once taught such a notion. I am not really sure what you are arguing here.

[Vance]

No, I think this is quite relevant.

When discussing the High Pristhood it is irrelevant. And you haven't shown that it is.

According to Alma 13, the high (Melchizedek) priesthood is something quite different from other priesthoods. Unlike other priests, high priests have their priesthood by virtue of the foreknowledge of God. This priesthood is without beginning and without end.

Ok.

Those who have it have always had it,

CFR!!!

and will always have it, because they were foreordained.

Sorry, but even if they were "foreordained" that doesn't equate to "always". Also CFR that they were "foreordained".

At least, that's the doctrine of Alma 13.

Nah, that is just you reading something into it that isn't there.

I agree, this is not current Mormon doctrine.

That could explain why it isn't in Alma 13.

The doctrine of Alma 13 was slightly modified in 1831 when Joseph Smith (at the urging of Sidney Rigdon) first started ordaining Melchizedek priests by the laying on of hands.

CFR.

The non-"high" (later called Aaronic) priesthood was thought to require the laying on of hands long before the Melchizedek priesthood was.

CFR.

But even Joseph Smith's 1829 Melchizedek priesthood theology was fairly unusual in that he believed that men (not just Jesus) could be foreordained to that priesthood just as Jesus was.

CFR.

[Vance]

When discussing the High Pristhood it is irrelevant. And you haven't shown that it is.

Ok.

CFR!!!

Sorry, but even if they were "foreordained" that doesn't equate to "always". Also CFR that they were "foreordained".

Nah, that is just you reading something into it that isn't there.

That could explain why it isn't in Alma 13.

CFR.

CFR.

CFR.

Bumping so Cobalt can address the outstanding CFRs.

[mfbukowski]

No, I think this is quite relevant. According to Alma 13, the high (Melchizedek) priesthood is something quite different from other priesthoods. Unlike other priests, high priests have their priesthood by virtue of the foreknowledge of God. This priesthood is without beginning and without end. Those who have it have always had it, and will always have it, because they were foreordained. At least, that's the doctrine of Alma 13. I agree, this is not current Mormon doctrine. The doctrine of Alma 13 was slightly modified in 1831 when Joseph Smith (at the urging of Sidney Rigdon) first started ordaining Melchizedek priests by the laying on of hands.

The non-"high" (later called Aaronic) priesthood was thought to require the laying on of hands long before the Melchizedek priesthood was. But even Joseph Smith's 1829 Melchizedek priesthood theology was fairly unusual in that he believed that men (not just Jesus) could be foreordained to that priesthood just as Jesus was.

Cobalt

Still trying to figure out where you are coming from- the way you speak about the Book of Mormon is inconsistent. You often use the word "translated" to describe the text, yet at other times, like your description of how the idea of ordination has supposedly evolved over time, you speak as if Joseph "wrote" the Book of Mormon.

What is your position on the BOM in regard to whether it was "translated" or "written"?

This is not meant to be a derail, at this point no one has posted on this thread in two days- and your answer need not be lengthy unless you feel it necessary.

[Anakin7]

Thanks for the link.

Bernard

You are welcome my LDS JEDI Master In Christ Jesus.