Did Joseph Smith Restore Theosis? Part Three: Esoteric Jewish Theology

[volgadon]

Let’s address some things that are really not debatable. Here is a little pop quiz for the Mormon apologists and scholars here. Open book, open notes.

TRUE OR FALSE

1. Dan McClellan was incorrect when he claimed that the text of the quotation “is part of the Jerusalem Talmud, which was completed around 380 CE.”

2. Hannah Rebekah was incorrect when she claimed that “Rabbi Akiba...a second century Jewish Rabbi,” was the author of the quotation.

3. No Mormon apologist or scholar ever corrected those incorrect statements by McClellan or Rebekah.

They were wrong on several points, as were you. We've all been wrong on something. I confess that I didn't catch the reference to the y. talmud, but that was about the same time as I was moving overseas.

4. At least five scholarly Mormon apologists—Dan McClellan, Dan Peterson, Charles Pyle, Barry Bickmore, and John Tvedtnes—have used this quotation without stating that it dated from the seventh through the ninth centuries.

5. Not one Mormon scholar or apologist had given the correct date for the work as the seventh through the ninth centuries prior to my bringing up this fact.

No, but they have provided references to an English language source that is fairly easily available.

6. A scholar should check the date of his source before using it in an argument, and he should disclose that date if it has any bearing on the relevance of the source to his argument.

A scholar should check a lot of things, including the definition of the terms he is using, especially if he is not particularly familiar with the subject.

MULTIPLE CHOICE: EXTRA CREDIT

7. Suppose a Mormon apologist were to present this quotation as precedent for the claim that the Mormon doctrine of deification was a restoration of a doctrine taught prior to the onset of the Great Apostasy (i.e., before the second century AD). If in the course of making this argument the Mormon were to note that the quotation comes from a text dating to the seventh through the ninth centuries AD, what would be the effect of providing this date?

a. It would weaken his argument.

b. It would strengthen his argument.

c. It would not affect the strength of his argument.

Depends on what is and how it is used. For example, when Tvedtnes explicitly stated in the title of his paper that he was including medieval traditions, I don't see how not mentioning the date of ORA would significantly weaken his argument. If I were writing that paper then I would probably have spent more time on the sources themselves, but that is neither here nor there.

Now that someone has answered the pop quiz you can get to answering the substantive arguments raised earlier in this thread against your position.

[LeSellers]

Suppose you had introduced the quotation as coming from a pseudonymous work called The Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva written somewhere in the seventh through the ninth centuries AD. Would this specific and utterly factual identification of the source of the quotation (a) strengthened your argument, (b) left your argument unaffected, or (c ) weakened your argument?

I really don't know the answer to your vacuous question, but, as most such articles are word-limited, I can imagine that such an unneeded (given the audience) "disclosure" would have pushed the limit.

In a doctoral thesis one might be able to explain every nuance and soupçon of a term, but if he has only 500 (or 200) words to explain the idea, there is no space to address unimportant details, however much they may offend specialists on the matter. Quite the contrary: a true maven is more than capable of addressing the masses without resort to technical language. It's only the insecure who insist on jargon and argot; it's the neophyte who must display his ejicayshun by means of 87¢ words (ostensibly to save the two seconds needed to use common English), and then spend six minutes explaining why he's so smart and his listeners so incredibly stoopid.

— adj , -lier , -liest

1. before the expected or usual time

2. occurring in or characteristic of the first part [notice the vagueness] of a period or sequence

3. occurring in or characteristic of a period far back in time

4. occurring in the near future

5. at the earliest not before the time or date mentioned

6. early days too soon to tell how things will turn out

— adv , -lier , -liest , -lier

7. before the expected or usual time

8. near the first part of a period or sequence: I was talking to him earlier

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. HarperCollins Publishers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/early (accessed: August 19, 2011).

The sense Dr. Peterson used was the third, and possibly the second, of six alternatives. It hardly seems odd to assume that most non-theologians or -historians, laymen in these areas, would not be confused, your erudite nit-picking notwithstanding.

Further, the whole point here, at least it seems to me, is that "early" was misleading. However, there is not the least bit of evidence that Dr. Peterson intended to mislead anyone.

Lehi

[Vance]

"The fact that Peterson and several other Mormon apologists resort to utilizing such a quotation while (either implicitly or explicitly) misrepresenting its source is especially troubling. Each of the Mormon apologists cited here had the wherewithal to track down the source of the quotation and to determine the period of history and religious perspective from which it originated. Whether they fail to give this information from ignorance, neglect, or design may be difficult to determine or prove, but in the end it does not matter much."

So, basically you are saying that he is either lying, ignorant or sloppy, but you can't determine which.

Got it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob,

I honestly believe the point of your article is that Mormons are misrepresenting their source on the Alphabet of Akiba. (Your article is really not about deification in Jewish esoteric--you barely engage the actual issue.) I honestly think that you believe that Dan intentionally misrepresented the source to bolster his weak case. You (and only you) can resolve this issue very quickly by answering the following question. Do you believe that Dan intentionally misrepresented the ARA source to bolster his weak case? (Remember, lying is a sin!) I think you believe that. Let me know if I'm wrong and I'll drop it.

I'm not going to waste my time quibbling about this nonsense any more. If you want to engage the real issue of deification in Jewish Esoterica--and the evidence presented by me and others here--I'd be happy to discuss it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Rob,

PS Why was my comment I sent to your web page not posted?

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Rob,

I honestly believe the point of your article is that Mormons are misrepresenting their source on the Alphabet of Akiba. (Your article is really not about deification in Jewish esoteric--you barely engage the actual issue.) I honestly think that you believe that Dan intentionally misrepresented the source to bolster his weak case. You (and only you) can resolve this issue very quickly by answering the following question. Do you believe that Dan intentionally misrepresented the ARA source to bolster his weak case? (Remember, lying is a sin!) I think you believe that. Let me know if I'm wrong and I'll drop it.

I'm not going to waste my time quibbling about this nonsense any more. If you want to engage the real issue of deification in Jewish Esoterica--and the evidence presented by me and others here--I'd be happy to discuss it.

When I wrote the article, I honestly didn't know if Dan intentionally misrepresented the source. When I wrote the article, I thought he may have done so but I really didn't have enough information to know one way or the other. Dan's one brief comment in this thread seems to indicate that he did not intend to represent the source as pre-Talmudic, so taking him at his word I would conclude that he was not intentionally misleading his readers by his description of the text.

You wrote:

PS Why was my comment I sent to your web page not posted?

I have no idea. Was it a comment on my article on the Parchment and Pen blog? Please re-submit it and I will try to make sure it gets approved. I certainly did not censor it; I haven't even seen it.

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

They were wrong on several points, as were you. We've all been wrong on something. I confess that I didn't catch the reference to the y. talmud, but that was about the same time as I was moving overseas.

You did post a couple of times in the same thread. Perhaps you missed the opening post.

I think the only thing one could say I have been "wrong" about was in overstating the usage of the term midrash as being predominantly in reference to pre-Talmudic material. And when this was pointed out, I acknowledged the need for a correction and made it.

You wrote:

No, but they have provided references to an English language source that is fairly easily available.

Some of them did, yes. But this doesn't negate the point I was making, which was that none of them correctly dated the text.

Take another look at Dan's article. He gives specific citations from the NT (which everyone knows was first-century) and from the Book of Mormon (which everyone knows purports to have been completed around AD 400). He gives several quotations from specific church fathers, naming and dating each one. But for the Jewish source he quotes, he gives no name, title, or date. Why? It's a legitimate question. Asking it is not making an accusation; it is making a responsible, legitimate criticism.

You wrote:

A scholar should check a lot of things, including the definition of the terms he is using, especially if he is not particularly familiar with the subject.

I misdefined no term. I assume you are referring to midrash, but I didn't misdefine it. I simply overstated the extent to which it is used in a particular context as compared to other contexts.

You wrote:

Depends on what is and how it is used. For example, when Tvedtnes explicitly stated in the title of his paper that he was including medieval traditions, I don't see how not mentioning the date of ORA would significantly weaken his argument.

I agree. It was already weakened by the acknowledged reliance on medieval traditions. Specifying the date of the ORA would not have made any appreciable difference in that case. Things are different with Dan Peterson's article, however, and very much so with Dan McClellan's post.

You wrote:

Now that someone has answered the pop quiz you can get to answering the substantive arguments raised earlier in this thread against your position.

I'll try as time permits, but only in response to those who have not made false accusations against me and refused to retract them.

[Bill Hamblin]

When I wrote the article, I honestly didn't know if Dan intentionally misrepresented the source. When I wrote the article, I thought he may have done so but I really didn't have enough information to know one way or the other. Dan's one brief comment in this thread seems to indicate that he did not intend to represent the source as pre-Talmudic, so taking him at his word I would conclude that he was not intentionally misleading his readers by his description of the text.

Alright. In my opinion if you don't know that Dan is intentionally misrepresenting the source, you should not imply that he might be. That type of allegation should be made with certainty, or not at all.

Might I also suggest that you modify some of the language of your web page. The average reader of your article and your posts here cannot but get the impression you are describing intentional and systematic misrepresentation of this source by LDS scholars. This type of accusation about "lying Mormons" is frequent among anti-Mormons, and is nothing but poisoning the well. It makes rational discourse all but impossible--as we can see from this discussion.

Feel free to engage the substantive evidence and arguments presented here whenever you'd like.

I have no idea. Was it a comment on my article on the Parchment and Pen blog? Please re-submit it and I will try to make sure it gets approved. I certainly did not censor it; I haven't even seen it.

I simply noted that if someone was interested they could follow this discussion and provided a link to this web page.

[Daniel Peterson]

I agree that it was extremely bad form for Mr. Bowman to suggest that I might have been lying.

I expect such things from certain quarters. They're incapable of civil discourse, and, consequently, I'm not surprised when they're uncivil. But I expected better from Mr. Bowman.

[Daniel Peterson]

Weird. Duplicate post.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Daniel Peterson

[Uncertain]

Hi Rob,

For what it is worth I thought this point (in bold) was potentially your strongest argument.

"It is no doubt possible to cull a large assortment of conceptual and verbal parallels to virtually any and every element of Mormon theology by ransacking Jewish and Christian literature throughout history, but such a methodology is hopelessly fallacious as a method for establishing that Mormon theology is a restoration of ancient doctrines lost, neglected, or suppressed. There is nothing “miraculous” about Joseph Smith’s teaching having such parallels when the pool of texts from which the parallels are drawn include such texts as a fairly obscure medieval proto-Kabbalistic writing. One could do the same thing for the teachings of any nineteenth-century religious figure who claimed to “restore” true Christianity, such as Ellen G. White, Mary Baker Eddy, or Charles Taze Russell."

If you can indeed show parallels in Jewish and Christian literature exist for teachings mostly unique to other nineteenth-century religious thinkers. This would significantly weaken the strength of all apologetic arguments built on such parallels not just the particular claim of Dr. Peterson's you are responding to. As it is you claim similar parallels exist for other nineteenth-century thinkers but you don't show it is so. Frankly if you can do so, you don't need a seven part rebuttal to significantly weaken Dr. Peterson's case. Because you can show the presence of such parallels in and off themselves are weak evidence at best that God must have used someone to restore ancient but true teachings. This is especially the case if you focus on nineteenth century doctrines that LDS would regard as false or contradictory to correct LDS teachings.

Best,

Uncertain

[LeSellers]

I expected better from Mr. Bowman.

Rob's rudeness aside, I was wondering if my imagination may have overtaken me when I conjectured that you article had a word limit (500 and 200 are common)?

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

I agree that it was extremely bad form for Mr. Bowman to suggest that I might have been lying.

Good grief. I did no such thing. I never suggested in my article that you may have been lying. I said, with regard to a group of Mormon apologists that included you, that it was probably impossible to determine or prove whether any particular individual failed to give adequate information about the date and context of the text "from ignorance, neglect, or design." At worst this is a suggestion that you or others may have deliberately omitted information damaging to your case, not that you were lying (stating a falsehood you knew to be false). With regard to you characterizing the text as "an early Jewish midrash," I disagreed with that statement and explained why, but I didn't claim that you intended the statement to be deceptive.

Bill Hamblin falsely accused me of claiming that you and the others were "liars," and when he couldn't make that accusation stick, he demanded, repeatedly, that I state whether I thought you were deliberately misrepresenting the text. Only when he would not stop insisting that I answer this question, which has nothing to do with what I actually wrote, did I say that I thought originally that you might have done so deliberately but did not know whether you did or not. I also told Bill that I accepted your statement earlier in this thread and on that basis concluded that you did not intend to misrepresent the text.

You wrote:

I expect such things from certain quarters. They're incapable of civil discourse, and, consequently, I'm not surprised when they're uncivil. But I expected better from Mr. Bowman.

I hope I have adequately corrected this misperception of my article. I think a fair reading of all four parts of the series to date will satisfy any reasonable person that my discourse has at least been generally civil. And I would again reiterate that it was Bill who insisted on discussing whether I think or thought that you had lied.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Alright. In my opinion if you don't know that Dan is intentionally misrepresenting the source, you should not imply that he might be. That type of allegation should be made with certainty, or not at all.

Might I also suggest that you modify some of the language of your web page. The average reader of your article and your posts here cannot but get the impression you are describing intentional and systematic misrepresentation of this source by LDS scholars. This type of accusation about "lying Mormons" is frequent among anti-Mormons, and is nothing but poisoning the well. It makes rational discourse all but impossible--as we can see from this discussion.

I thought you were going to "drop it" after I answered your question.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have posted the fourth installment of my series responding to Dan Peterson's article claiming that Joseph Smith miraculously restored an ancient Judeo-Christian theology of theosis. This installment addresses Peterson's evidence for the "Judeo" part of that claim, an unnamed text that he describes as "an early Jewish midrash." I document that it is no such thing.

Edited to add: Sorry, in the title of this thread I said Part Three when I should have said Part Four.

We are taught that he restored all things as it relates to the Gospel, also the Gospel today is often referred too as the "New and Everlasting Covenant"; note word "New", I am not sure all the implications this infers. I do know that the entire statement means all things as in all "lost" things as well.

[Daniel Peterson]

My column has a 700-word limit, which I always violate. But it never goes to 750 words. Usually in the vicinity of 715-725 words.

So I get a kick out of the complaints that routinely show up in the Comments section of the Deseret News, about how I didn't address this topic and failed to mention that objection and didn't give full references and so on and so forth.

Rob Bowman's response to my little column is many times longer than the column was.

[Vance]

And there it is again.

I said, with regard to a group of Mormon apologists that included you, that it was probably impossible to determine or prove whether any particular individual failed to give adequate information about the date and context of the text "from ignorance, neglect, or design."

So, you are saying that they are either ignorant, lazy, or liars. I get it.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill Hamblin falsely accused me of claiming that you and the others were "liars," and when he couldn't make that accusation stick, he demanded, repeatedly, that I state whether I thought you were deliberately misrepresenting the text. Only when he would not stop insisting that I answer this question, which has nothing to do with what I actually wrote, did I say that I thought originally that you might have done so deliberately but did not know whether you did or not. I also told Bill that I accepted your statement earlier in this thread and on that basis concluded that you did not intend to misrepresent the text.

I hope I have adequately corrected this misperception of my article. I think a fair reading of all four parts of the series to date will satisfy any reasonable person that my discourse has at least been generally civil. And I would again reiterate that it was Bill who insisted on discussing whether I think or thought that you had lied.

This is obviously utterly pointless. YOU imply that Mormon scholars are intentionally misrepresenting the source. This is the obvious point of your blog. It is what any ordinary reader would get from it. You furthermore admit that this was in your mind when you wrote it. But now I am a liar for pointing out this obvious fact. Really?

We're done.

[Daniel Peterson]

So, you are saying that they are either ignorant, lazy, or liars. I get it.

Boy. That's much better.

How could I possibly be unhappy with those generous options?

I might not be a liar, after all! I could, instead, be merely ignorant or lazy!

[wenglund]

I agree that it was extremely bad form for Mr. Bowman to suggest that I might have been lying.

I am wondering if Bowman would be less likely to object to what you just said were you to include the phrase "from ignorance, neglect, or design" right after the word "suggest" in your statement?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ares]

There seems to be an increase in posters questioning the intelligence, education or honesty of others lately as opposed to addressing the content of their arguments with with evidence. When it starts happening with long time posters it becomes a problem for the whole board.

It doesn't matter how subtle the language used to poison the well, smear other posters or call their integrity into question; this will not be allowed.

[Ares]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Personal insults

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff