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

[wenglund]

Furthermore, if the best examples of the supposedly lost doctrine show up in texts dating well after the Great Apostasy was supposedly under way, that would seem to be curious, to say the least.

I can't imagine why it would be so curious to you. What reason do you have to suppose that certain plain and precious truths couldn't have taken a millennium or more to erode and become lost?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Rob,

Setting aside for the moment your mistaken though persistent imposing onto Dr. Peterson your interpretation of the word "ancient" and your presupposition about when things were supposedly forgotten, I would like to address something a bit less trite that you stated on your blog:

The first part of the couplet asserts that God “once was” as we are but he is now what he is. Exaltation for God denotes the change from what he “once was” to what he “is.” Furthermore, exaltation for man is the change from what “man is” now to what “man may become”—and “what man may become” is “as God is.” In other words, God was once a man, like us, and he then became what he is now, namely, God; and we can do the same thing and go through the same change from what we are now to becoming the same kind of being as God.

The basic conception that this doctrine expresses is that deity is an open category. The being that we call God was not always “God” but became God by the process that Mormons call exaltation.

I am afraid you are here reading "God was not always 'God'" into the couplet. This is not exactly correct for at least two reasons:

1. We believe that Christ was always "God" even though he became as man, and then became even as is God the Father.

2. We believe that we are the spirit children of God, and thus always "Gods," even though we became as man, and may yet become even as God the Father.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 29, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

1. We believe that Christ was always "God" even though he became as man, and then became even as is God the Father.

2. We believe that we are the spirit children of God, and thus always "Gods," even though we became as man, and may yet become even as God the Father.

What? How can those who have always been "God" later become deified (or become 'Gods")?

Well, in the same way that when I was a boy, I could become a "man," even though I was already of the species of "man," or in other words even though I was already a "man."

The reconciliation rests in understanding that words, like "God" and "man" have multiple connotations, and mean different things in different contexts. For example, the word "God" can mean:

1. The three divine persons or personages, collectively.

2. The three divine persons or personages, individually.

3. The attributes of the divine persons or personages (omnipresent spirit emanation, love, truth, light, righteousness, wisdom, omnipotence, omniscience, etc.)

4. The divine name, title, and position.

5. The species or race consisting of the family of God, collectively and individually.

6. The object of worship and devotion.

7. The condition of ultimate perfection/exaltation.

8. Various combinations of the above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 29, 2011 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I can't imagine why it would be so curious to you. What reason do you have to suppose that certain plain and precious truths couldn't have taken a millennium or more to erode and become lost?

You seem to have missed my point. Granted that some truths might take a millennium or longer to erode and fade away, one would not expect the clearest expressions of those truths to appear during the time they were fading away!

[volgadon]

Volgadon,

I think we've both made our respective positions reasonably clear. I will make a few comments on your recent posts, though.

As I think I've already said, I am not particular about the description of the Alphabet as "proto-Kabbalistic."

Which must be why you've used it several times as well as the quote from the "Hebrew Goddess."

My point was and remains that the text itself is not an ancient text but a medieval one and therefore not, in an evidential sense, a witness to an ancient belief, even though it may preserve some ancient beliefs. Saying this does not assume, as you claimed, that there is some decisive transitional break between ancient Judaism and medieval Judaism. Your argument, on the other hand, seems to assume that there is no difference at all, that any statement from any Jewish text from any period of history can be used as evidence for what ancient Jews believed. The date of the text is crucial because the claim that is supposedly being evidenced is a claim about the period of time in which the doctrine is found.

Then one wonders why you state that the theology of the text is medieval in origin. The date isn't particularly relevant considering the kind of text that it is and the prefered method of transmission.

You seem to be interpreting the LDS doctrine of deification as purely functional, i.e., that when a person is deified this will simply mean that he will be able to act as God's functionary agent without restriction. Sin, you argue, is the only thing preventing man from doing this now. By that reasoning, Adam and Eve need never have become mortal; as long as they remained sinless, they could have been "gods" in this functional sense. I am not going to try to tell you how to interpret your religion's doctrine of deification, but I do see problems with such a purely functional explanation. It seems to me that the usual LDS understanding is that human beings will be transformed into beings that are inherently omnipotent and omniscient. I also wonder if you think that Heavenly Father's divine power is also purely functional and delegated from some other deity.

In a text where humans share the same condition as God, are given his power, repeat his acts, are given worlds, thrones, dominion and worship, and are described in similar terms to God, I'm not sure that there is a sharp distinction between "function" and "nature."

I feel reasonably confident you won't find that idea in any ancient or medieval Jewish text.

I've never particularly looked. Might take you up on that challenge at some point.

I understand that in LDS thinking the Great Apostasy did not result in an immediate loss of all of the truths that needed to be restored. However, if these ideas were never lost, then the idea of a restoration falls.

Not if the restoration was primarily that of authority and keys.

Furthermore, if the best examples of the supposedly lost doctrine show up in texts dating well after the Great Apostasy was supposedly under way, that would seem to be curious, to say the least.

Not when this was first and foremost an oral tradition.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

I am afraid you are here reading "God was not always 'God'" into the couplet. This is not exactly correct for at least two reasons:

1. We believe that Christ was always "God" even though he became as man, and then became even as is God the Father.

2. We believe that we are the spirit children of God, and thus always "Gods," even though we became as man, and may yet become even as God the Father.

Your second statement commits a flagrant equivocation by using the word Gods in a sense other than what is the meaning of the word God in the statement that "God has not always been God." That is, even if there is a sense in LDS doctrine in which preexistent spirit children of God might be called "Gods," this sense is not the same as when it is said, also in LDS doctrine, that God has not always been God. The equivocation in your second statement raises the obvious question as to what you mean when you say that Mormons believe that Christ was always "God." Do you mean that he was always a spirit child of God, or do you mean something else?

As for me reading into Snow's couplet, let me ask you this: Am I reading something into Joseph Smith's statement that is not there when I say that Joseph Smith taught that God has not always been God? I have in mind the following statement, which I quoted in the article:

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."

The argument is simple to understand: If he "came to be God," then he was not always God; if Joseph "refutes" the idea "that God was God from all eternity," then Joseph is denying that God was always God.

[wenglund]

You seem to have missed my point. Granted that some truths might take a millennium or longer to erode and fade away, one would not expect the clearest expressions of those truths to appear during the time they were fading away!

You evidently didn't grasp the jist of my questions. So, let me ask it another way. What reason do you have to suppose that certain plain and precious truths couldn't have begun to eroded and become lost after a millennium or so?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Rob Bowman makes the following remark.

A Jewish text dating from about the eighth century cannot provide evidence that Joseph Smith was restoring a doctrine supposedly lost or suppressed in a second-century apostasy. If Mormon apologists wish to defend that claim, they will need to use earlier, different texts.

Such an earlier text was staring Rob right in the face. He needn't have looked further than Wertheimer. At the very end of the Mishnah (Uktzin 3:12) we find the following statement.

R. Yehoshua b. Levi said: "In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will give each and every righteous for an inheritance three hundred and ten worlds, as it is said (Prov. 8:21): 'That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries.'"

The difference in the numbers of worlds between the Mishnah and the ORA is due to the gematria derived from different prooftexts, but the idea of the righteous being given worlds is identical.

[wenglund]

Your second statement commits a flagrant equivocation by using the word Gods in a sense other than what is the meaning of the word God in the statement that "God has not always been God."

Since there was no apparent indication from you as to your intended meaning of "God," which you were imposing on the couplet, let alone indication that you are aware of the multiple LDS meanings of the word, then one cannot reasonably charge me with equivocating, flagrant or otherwise. Sorry.

Actually, the underlining point that I intended to make was that one needs to be clear about what meaning of the word "God" one is suggesting. Hopefully, we are moving in that direction.

That is, even if there is a sense in LDS doctrine in which preexistent spirit children of God might be called "Gods," this sense is not the same as when it is said, also in LDS doctrine, that God has not always been God.

I am not sure what alleged "doctrine" you are referring to. Perhaps you could clarify (hint: what you read into the couplet doesn't count--since that is the point in question). Once you have done so, then we can determine if the sense is the same or not.

And, If you have in mind Joseph's non-doctrinal statement that you quote in your article, then that still needs to be further clarified, since it isn't clarified in the quote--not that it matters in regards to the meaning of the couplet since you are reading this into the couplet.

The equivocation in your second statement raises the obvious question as to what you mean when you say that Mormons believe that Christ was always "God." Do you mean that he was always a spirit child of God, or do you mean something else?

Both, and then some. Prior to his resurrection, Christ fit all but perhaps the 7th connotation, and after his resurrection, he fully qualified under them all, even as the Father may have done during the eternities and eternities of eternities prior to the foundation of the earth. Prior to our resurrection, we qualify under connotation #5, and depending upon our righteousness and priesthood ordination, possibly 3 and 4 as well.

As for me reading into Snow's couplet, let me ask you this: Am I reading something into Joseph Smith's statement that is not there when I say that Joseph Smith taught that God has not always been God? I have in mind the following statement, which I quoted in the article:

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."

Yes, you read what Joseph said into the couplet.

The argument is simple to understand: If he "came to be God," then he was not always God; if Joseph "refutes" the idea "that God was God from all eternity," then Joseph is denying that God was always God.

I understand Joseph's point. It is different than the point made by the couplet. As is your want, you are problematically reading the one into the other--I say problematically because you fail to provide proper clarification of the meaning of the term "God" and leave the reader with the mistaken impression that there aren't multiple ways in which we LDS view God as always having been God, and but a single sense in which we may view him as not always having been "God."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 30, 2011 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

You evidently didn't grasp the jist of my questions. So, let me ask it another way. What reason do you have to suppose that certain plain and precious truths couldn't have begun to eroded and become lost after a millennium or so?

I don't recall saying that could not have happened. I don't think it did, but that isn't something I argued in the article or in this thread.

[wenglund]

I don't recall saying that could not have happened. I don't think it did, but that isn't something I argued in the article or in this thread.

Okay...that didn't exactly answer my question, but do you recall saying: "Furthermore, if the best examples of the supposedly lost doctrine show up in texts dating well after the Great Apostasy was supposedly under way, that would seem to be curious."?

If you do, then it may dawn on you that this it is why I asked the question in several different ways.

And, if this does dawn on you, then it may ring a bell on how your article presupposed when things were supposedly "forgotten," and how you imposed that presupposition onto Dr. Peterson. In short, maybe it will ring a bell about the straw man you constructed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 30, 2011 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Apparently, despite my efforts to explain the point of the statement you keep quoting, you don't understand it.

True or false: The Great Apostasy was not a reality in history until after the NT apostles died.

Your answer to that question will help me move forward on this issue.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

I asked you:

Am I reading something into Joseph Smith's statement that is not there when I say that Joseph Smith taught that God has not always been God? I have in mind the following statement, which I quoted in the article:

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."

You replied:

Yes, you read what Joseph said into the couplet.

My question was not about Snow's couplet. It was about Joseph Smith's statement in the King Follett Discourse ("Am I reading something into Joseph Smith's statement...?").

You wrote:

I understand Joseph's point. It is different than the point made by the couplet.

I disagree, but if that's your position, I'll happily set aside the couplet for the time being, for the sake of getting down to the issue here. Isn't it true that Joseph Smith in the KFD denied that God has always been God--that Joseph taught that God the Father has not always been God, but that he became God?

[Rob Bowman]

volgadon,

You wrote:

Rob Bowman makes the following remark.

A Jewish text dating from about the eighth century cannot provide evidence that Joseph Smith was restoring a doctrine supposedly lost or suppressed in a second-century apostasy. If Mormon apologists wish to defend that claim, they will need to use earlier, different texts.

Such an earlier text was staring Rob right in the face. He needn't have looked further than Wertheimer. At the very end of the Mishnah (Uktzin 3:12) we find the following statement.

R. Yehoshua b. Levi said: "In the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will give each and every righteous for an inheritance three hundred and ten worlds, as it is said (Prov. 8:21): 'That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance, and that I may fill their treasuries.'"

The difference in the numbers of worlds between the Mishnah and the ORA is due to the gematria derived from different prooftexts, but the idea of the righteous being given worlds is identical.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the statement you cite teaches the same doctrine of deification as Joseph Smith taught, my point remains that the statement Dan Peterson and other LDS apologists have been quoting from the Alphabet of Rabbi Akiva does not establish the doctrine as ancient.

But seriously now, is it really your claim that a doctrine based on gematria is good evidence of the doctrine that Joseph Smith claimed to restore? Furthermore, how is a statement about God giving the righteous 310 worlds support for the LDS claim that the exalted will make their own worlds?

[wenglund]

True or false: The Great Apostasy was not a reality in history until after the NT apostles died.

False. It was a reality in history after the NT (after, and perhaps to a point, during the later half of the the 1st century Ce.E.)

Here is a question for you: True or False: Dr. Peterson didn't mention the Great Apostasy in the newspaper article you critiqued?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

False. It was a reality in history after the NT (after, and perhaps to a point, during the later half of the the 1st century Ce.E.)

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the Great Apostasy was a reality even while the apostles were alive and leading the church?

Here is a question for you: True or False: Dr. Peterson didn't mention the Great Apostasy in the newspaper article you critiqued?

He didn't use those words, but his comment about Joseph returning to an ancient doctrine that had been forgotten presupposed the idea.

[Vance]

I am not sure what it is, exactly that Bowman is arguing for.

Is he saying that the doctrine of "theosis" (I am using that word for convenience, not necessarily for accuracy) was not lost at all? (To argue that would require that his branch of Christianity, both currently and always did, hold to this doctrine.) And thus didn't need to be restored.

Or, is he saying that it wasn't taught anciently? And thus didn't need to be "restored". (To argue that would require that Christianity, both currently denies and always did, this doctrine. But then he would have to explain away the numerous ECF references to it.)

Or, is he saying that it wasn't taught anciently, but was introduced during the Great Apostasy and thus is heretical? (To argue that would require that his branch of Christianity, recognize and accept that the Great Apostasy did occur.)

Or, is he saying something else?

Edited September 30, 2011 by Vance

[wenglund]

My question was not about Snow's couplet. It was about Joseph Smith's statement in the King Follett Discourse ("Am I reading something into Joseph Smith's statement...?").

You seem to be having trouble following the line of discussion. Please recall that I quoted from your blog article where you characterized the couplet as basically saying: "The being that we call God was not always .God...'” Remember? Your question was a follow-up within the context of my challenge to you.

I disagree, but if that's your position, I'll happily set aside the couplet for the time being, for the sake of getting down to the issue here.

The couplet, and your interpretation thereof, was the issue. But, for the sake of discussion, I am happy to move on to this next issue.

Isn't it true that Joseph Smith in the KFD denied that God has always been God--that Joseph taught that God the Father has not always been God, but that he became God?

Yes.

However, more important, what did he mean by this. Did he mean that God the Father wasn't God in any sense prior to his resurrection? No. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that he was "God" in all the senses of the word the same as Christ was prior to his resurrection. Although, before his own presumed resurrection, God the Father was not "God" in the sense of the 7th connotation of the word given above.

This is important to clarify because of the high risk and plausibility that the term "God" in the quoted statement will be and has been understood differently than intended and thus ironically employed equivocally by people like you.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[LeSellers]

Are you saying that the Great Apostasy was a reality even while the apostles were alive and leading the church?

What on earth do you imagine the epistles were all about?

John, James, Jude, Paul and Peter were all worried about the loss of true doctrine and rejection of their callings as Apostles of Christ.

The (im)famous Gal 1:6 you all keep ramming down our throats (without understanding what motivated Paul to write it) is not at all about the XIX~XXI, but about the I, and the Saints in Galatia who, even while the Apostles were still alive, had started following another "Gospel".

By the time John recorded his Revelation of Jesus Christ c. ad ~96, All but one of the seven churches he wrote to (by divine commandment) had a serious apostasy within it, and were being called, yet again, to repentance.

The Apostasy was not an event, it was a suite of little things growing into a total rejection of the authority of God vested in Apostles, prophets, Priests, Stake Presidents (Bishops), Pastors (Bishops), etc. With that rejection, those charged with correcting false doctrine and teaching the true were ignored and, as they died (many by murder), none were left to fill those roles (as Matthias did vis-à-vis Judas), and the apostasy was complete. That was c. ad 120~160 (who knows when the last legitimate Bishop (Stake President) died?).

We can't put a stake in the ground and say, "This was the apostasy." But we can look back and identify that, certainly before ad 200, there were no legitimate Priesthood keys on the earth (Old World; there were such keys in the "New World for another 200 years)—even John was constrained as to continuing the Priesthood among men.

That said, we can go back to the issue of false doctrine.

The fact is that most of the teachings of the Apostles and of Christ Himself were not lost, and most still exist today. He is the Savior of the World, He did die to overcome both sin and death. So after 2,000 years, truth still does exist. But it is not pure outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Only living Apostles and prophets have the right and authority to to declare doctrine. You all have none of these. That caveat aside, we recognize that much truth still does exist in your churches, and did in the II or XII as well. There were righteous people and always have been outside His Church. Some doctrine survived, some failed. The Restoration was required far more for the Priesthood keys than for "correct doctrine", although this, too, was important.

It was the loss of Priesthood and Priesthood keys that constituted the Apostasy.

Because of that, because there was still good doctrine "out there", we have every justification in looking for that truth in the I, the V, the VIII, the XVIII as anywhere else. We just have to look carefully because, along with good doctrine, there was much of the ideologies and philosophies of men that crept in. We use these apostate teachings to help identify the degree of apostasy. We reject them, but we can accept true doctrine as taught in any age, by any man who preached it.

Lehi

[wenglund]

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the Great Apostasy was a reality even while the apostles were alive and leading the church?

It might help to consider my comments in non-binary terms, as a lengthy process rather than as a brief event. I am saying that some of the seeds of the Great Apostasy were being sown towards the end of the apostolic period (1st century C.E.). The Great Apostasy, itself, came into full bloom and the harvest reaped thereafter. (I see now that Lehi has explained this in greater detail above--nicely done!)

He didn't use those words, but his comment about Joseph returning to an ancient doctrine that had been forgotten presupposed the idea.

No. As I have been trying mightily to help you understand, this is YOUR own presupposition that YOU mistakenly foisted onto what Peterson said. He obviously didn't presuppose that idea as evinced by his citing the ECF and the ORA. He obviously wasn't talking about the Great Apostacy, which essentially consisted of the loss of priesthood authority, given that he didn't speak to the loss of authority, but rather to the eventual forgetting of a notion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 30, 2011 by wenglund

[altersteve]

However, more important, what did he mean by this. Did he mean that God the Father wasn't God in any sense prior to his resurrection? No. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that he was "God" in all the senses of the word the same as Christ was prior to his resurrection. Although, before his own presumed resurrection, God the Father was not "God" in the sense of the 7th connotation of the word given above.

This seemed to be what Joseph Smith said when he compared the Father's mortality to Christ's.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

You seem to be having trouble following the line of discussion. Please recall that I quoted from your blog article where you characterized the couplet as basically saying: "The being that we call God was not always .God...'” Remember? Your question was a follow-up within the context of my challenge to you.

I understood that all along. But I asked you about Joseph Smith's statement, which I also quoted in my article, and you ignored it. Finally, in response to my question about that statement teaching that God has not always been God, you replied:

Yes.

However, more important, what did he mean by this. Did he mean that God the Father wasn't God in any sense prior to his resurrection? No. It is possible, and perhaps even likely, that he was "God" in all the senses of the word the same as Christ was prior to his resurrection. Although, before his own presumed resurrection, God the Father was not "God" in the sense of the 7th connotation of the word given above.

This is important to clarify because of the high risk and plausibility that the term "God" in the quoted statement will be and has been understood differently than intended and thus ironically employed equivocally by people like you.

So, when Joseph said, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea...," what he meant was, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God in every possible connotation from all eternity"?

People wonder why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. The main reason is nicely illustrated here: people come up with very creative interpretations of texts in order to avoid what they really say.

[Vance]

This seemed to be what Joseph Smith said when he compared the Father's mortality to Christ's.

Yup!

"God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible."

"What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it."

[Vance]

People wonder why there are so many different interpretations of the Bible. The main reason is nicely illustrated here: people come up with very creative interpretations of texts in order to avoid what they really say.

You, being a perfect example.

[KevinG]

It helps to understand "God was once a man", when you comprehend that men can become like God (joint heirs with Christ).

We are the same species - God the Father's literal spirit children. That doesn't take away from the fact that God the Father and Jesus Christ were sinless, perfect and eternally God.

We are celestial beings having a mortal experience. We have always been God's children from before the foundation of this world and we will be after it's resurrection.

When someone tries to portray the LDS position as beleiving God the Father was a carnal being or lacked His divine attributes it is bearing false witness in the most pernicious way.

Edited September 30, 2011 by DaddyG