The King Folette Discourse

[mfbukowski]

Part 2 response to Rob

Then you cannot know that the Book of Mormon IS the word of God. You can only know that the experience of living as if the Book of Mormon were the word of God seems to be working for you in your experience.

Ah, but that is precisely why I DO KNOW the Book of Mormon is the word of God! ALL WE KNOW IS WHAT WE SEE AND TALK ABOUT. I have experienced that the Book of Mormon is "true" through direct personal revelation from God- and I KNOW it was God. When your wife talks to you from the other room do you ever doubt that she in fact did so? When you hear it, you KNOW it. I am sorry you have not had that experience, apparently.

This is why I say that your epistemology is fatal to Mormonism.

LOL- no, this is where my epistemology IS Mormonism!

My argument is not "Jesus really existed, he claimed to be something, he managed to get some disciples to accept his claim, therefore it's all true." The mere historical existence of a religious figure is not sufficient to establish that he was what he claimed to be. I accept the historical existence of such persons as Gautama and Muhammad. I don't accept their religious teachings, because I have examined their claims and the claims of their followers, and the arguments (if any) their followers give for accepting those claims, and I have concluded that the claims do not withstand fair-minded scrutiny. The evidence that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the grave, however, I find compelling.

What "evidence" might that be which is so compelling? You speak about it but never tell us what it is? Because the Bible contains that "evidence"? And we know the Bible isn't lying ---- why?

I have found it compelling even during dark periods of my life when I had no earthly reason to continue in the faith and certainly no warm feelings on which to base such perseverance. It was the truth of Jesus' resurrection that kept me following him (albeit it very imperfectly) because I knew that I could not escape that truth and that ultimately it meant hope and eternal joy.

Yes, and I agree totally with that. THAT IS YOUR ONLY EVIDENCE! Good for you! On that one we can agree!

The historical argument for Jesus is not a circular one. I have written extensively on this subject (in Faith Has Its Reasons and more popularly in 20 Compelling Evidences that God Exists). The argument approaches the documentary evidence without presupposing their truth, weighs that evidence, finds that certain facts are too well established historically to deny (e.g., the death of Jesus on the cross, the empty tomb, the experiences of family members and friends of Jesus who reported seeing him risen from the dead, the conversion of Saul the persecutor to Paul the apostle), and reasons to the conclusion that the Resurrection best accounts for all this evidence.

In other words, you could have just said "The Bible". Yes, it IS circular. I think I have made my point.

If the criterion is that a particular statement is not clear to everyone, the shadow of skepticism begins to loom large indeed. No, I said no such thing. People convert from evangelical to Mormon and from Mormon to evangelical. The fact that they can do this proves that paradigms can be changed, that interpretations can be abandoned and replaced, and that worldviews and metanarratives are not fishbowls from which we cannot escape. The point is that your experience by itself is not proof, not even for you, apart from your interpretation of that experience. Therefore it is misleading, or at least incomplete, to say, "I know that the Book of Mormon is true because I had a particular experience." What you mean is "I had a particular experience that I interpret as confirmation that the Book of Mormon is true." The irony is that the epistemology you defend here does not allow you consistently to make such a statement. You cannot consistently and coherently assert, within the context of a postmodern, constructivist, pragmatic epistemology, that the Book of Mormon IS true but only that it works for you to live as if it were true.

Yes, but what you don't understand is that that model as as "true" as science is true. No, it is not objective, as science is, because it is not experimentally repeatable. You are using a theory of truth here which has no relevance to religion, as I have shown in previous posts.

I have an explanation for why we disagree. We disagree, in my view, because your personal revelations are false revelations, either self-deception (my preferred view) or demonic deception.

And THAT, dear Rob, is why I don't care about your whining about how you are mistreated here.

The fact is, I could easily say the same about you, but I don't. Why is that? Because I have made a promise to God that I will not run down others religions. You make at least a portion of your living doing precisely that.

You may respond to any or all of these posts, as you please. However, unless you apologize and persuade me to believe that you will never again accuse me of ignoring or avoiding the issue and that you will treat me with courtesy and gentlemanly civility, I will not reply, even if you offer interesting responses that I would like to address. I am done with both you and Vance unless I see such apologies and demonstrations of genuine respect.

Whatever.

Edited November 21, 2011 by mfbukowski

[inquiringmind]

Did Joseph say this, is it part of the King Follet sermon, and is it doctrine?

I know the Scriptures; I understand them. I said that no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body. Why? Because they must commit the unpardonable sin in this world after they receive the Holy Ghost.

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=9603

[mfbukowski]

Inquiring

I do not know if it is part of the KFD or not, or the history of your quote, but it appears to be consistent with doctrine.

You might want to start another thread with that question.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

Sorry it took me a while to reply. You wrote:

I don't think they're contradictory at all. If we have the opportunity to do so, then we must secure our relationship with God in this life. If we don't have that chance, then God will give us one. He's not going to throw us into hell and let us burn and suffer for the rest of eternity just because we never have a chance to secure our relationship with Him, especially if not having that chance is of no fault of our own. God loves us enough to not let that happen.

If we don't have to secure our relationship with God in this life if we don't have the opportunity to do so, then we don't have to secure our relationship with God in this life. In other words, it is not the case that all people must have their relationship with God secured during this mortal life. For those who must do so in this mortal life, they must do so. For example, it would be contradictory to maintain that I must do so in this life and that I may do so in the next life.

The position you have proposed is not contradictory, but that wasn't the position I said was incoherent. The position I said was contradictory was that all people must secure their relationship with God in this life but that people may also do so after this life.

Getting specific and practical here, the suggestion was made that I might still "make it" to the celestial kingdom despite my rejection in this life of the LDS religion. Your qualification won't make this suggestion workable, because obviously I have had an opportunity to accept the LDS religion in this life. If I die without accepting it, then it would seem, if your position is accepted, that I won't have an opportunity in the next life.

[mnn727]

Well, I believe Joseph Smith to be a Prophet. So I consider it doctrine. And to ignore the influence in the general theology is intentionally closing one's eyes.

Or perhaps its closing ones eyes to the bigger picture.

Its not been made doctrinal for a reason.

[mfbukowski]

Getting specific and practical here, the suggestion was made that I might still "make it" to the celestial kingdom despite my rejection in this life of the LDS religion. Your qualification won't make this suggestion workable, because obviously I have had an opportunity to accept the LDS religion in this life. If I die without accepting it, then it would seem, if your position is accepted, that I won't have an opportunity in the next life.

Unless of course you have been blinded by the sectarian philosophies of men and have not truly considered the possibility that God can actually tell you which church is true by revelation.

That is the first requirement. I wouldn't believe it myself unless I had had numerous spiritual experiences confirming its truth. For me, the one and only question is personal revelation.

[reubendunn]

Who do you think you are, Al Sharpton? (Although you'd have done better to have worded it thus: "Chuckle the gods much ...".)

Lehi

I think you've got Sharpton confused with Yoda.

[LeSellers]

I think you've got Sharpton confused with Yoda.

No, it was Sharpton, not I, who was confused. 'Course, Sharpton has been confused since Tawana Brawley covered herself in dog poop and the "Reverend" Sharpton thought a couple of white guys did it.

Lehi

Edited November 28, 2011 by LeSellers

[inquiringmind]

This is part of the King Follet Sermon that I like (but is there anyway to know if Joseph said it, if it was recorded correctly, and if Joseph was speaking as a prophet?)

A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man; and in the world of spirits no man can be exalted but by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. If a man has knowledge, he can be saved; although, if he has been guilty of great sins, he will be punished for them. But when he consents to obey the gospel, whether here or in the world of spirits, he is saved.

A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. I say, so is the torment of man.

I know the scriptures and understand them. I said, no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost; but they must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men, in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another; for he stood up as a Savior. All will suffer until they obey Christ himself.

http://www.utlm.org/...olletsermon.htm

Edited January 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

is there anyway to know if Joseph said it, if it was recorded correctly, and if Joseph was speaking as a prophet

Probably not unless it is repeated in other of his work. Otherwise if it is unique to that sermon, one has to look at the consistency of how it was reported among the collection of notes being taken (IIRC it was four people) and take an educated guess based on how well one thinks it lines up with other of his comments over the years, is it a natural development? Does it conflict? etc.

[Calm]

The site you chose to use is an antimormon site which has temple content on it, IIRC, and even if it wasn't against board rules, consistent use of it might affect your credibility (that you choose to go to antimormon sites for info about us). There should be other sites available, I believe BYU has a database available now for older documents. Better to shop around a bit to find a better site rather than picking the first one that appears.....a sad commentary on the internet that the antisites are so often the highest rated when the material is also available on lds associated sites.

---------

A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner.

I love this quote and thoroughly believe it to be the case, often even in mortality....though some seem oblivious to the harm they do themselves and others, even those suffer because of envy, jealousy, hatred, etc.

[mfbukowski]

This is part of the King Follet Sermon that I like (but is there anyway to know if Joseph said it, if it was recorded correctly, and if Joseph was speaking as a prophet?)

http://www.utlm.org/...olletsermon.htm

No.

[Calm]

Here is a link to the Mormon Literature Sampler database: http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm'>http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm and its index: http://mldb.byu.edu/

Here is a link to the Mormon Literature database: http://mormonlit.lib.byu.edu/ This can show you where you can find the material desired.

[Xioneye]

Why do so many discussion here come down to determining what is or isn’t doctrine?

This is really not as difficult as it is made out to be. Take an inspired idea and run it through every word spoken by God and notice what snags. Resolve these snags and viola, you got doctrine. Doctrine that tastes good. You must work out the snags in your mind. This is how everyman is taught of God. Oh, sorry. Was i not supposed to preach that. oops.

[inquiringmind]

The site you chose to use is an antimormon site which has temple content on it, IIRC, and even if it wasn't against board rules, consistent use of it might affect your credibility (that you choose to go to antimormon sites for info about us). There should be other sites available, I believe BYU has a database available now for older documents. Better to shop around a bit to find a better site rather than picking the first one that appears.....a sad commentary on the internet that the antisites are so often the highest rated when the material is also available on lds associated sites...

It was not my intention to quote an antimormon site.

I googled keywords to find the quote I was looking for, and used the site that listed the King Follet sermon as the source of the quote (others listed JS, but gave no info on when or where he made the remarks.)

[inquiringmind]

Here is a link to the Mormon Literature Sampler database: http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm and its index: http://mldb.byu.edu/

Here is a link to the Mormon Literature database: http://mormonlit.lib.byu.edu/ This can show you where you can find the material desired.

This is from the Mormon Literature Sampler database you gave me a link to.

A man cannot commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, and there is a way possible for escape. Knowledge saves a man, and in the world of spirits a man cannot be exalted except by knowledge. So long as a man will not give heed to the commandments, he must abide without salvation. A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, "They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone." The torment of the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone. So is the torment of man.

I know the scriptures; I understand them. I said that no man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, but he must do it in this world. Hence the salvation of Jesus Christ was wrought out for all men in order to triumph over the devil; for if it did not catch him in one place, it would in another, for he stood up as a Savior.

http://mldb.byu.edu/follett.htm

The quote seems to read the same?

Is it genuine?

Is Joseph speaking as a prophet here?

Is it safe to assume that someone who died knowing little or nothing of the restored Gospel will at least inherit a telestial kingdom?

Edited January 2, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

Is it safe to assume that someone who died knowing little or nothing of the restored Gospel will at least inherit a telestial kingdom?

Absolutely. As the passage states, some degree of salvation is the only choice- they cannot become sons of perdition because they never even knew enough to qualify. One must KNOW that Jesus is the Christ with absolute certainty and then deny it. Obviously, if you never even heard of the Restored gospel you could not possibly know it with absolute certainty. It is a contradiction.

[inquiringmind]

Absolutely. As the passage states, some degree of salvation is the only choice- they cannot become sons of perdition because they never even knew enough to qualify. One must KNOW that Jesus is the Christ with absolute certainty and then deny it. Obviously, if you never even heard of the Restored gospel you could not possibly know it with absolute certainty. It is a contradiction.

My concern has to do with what Joseph said about having to have heaven opened to you, and something Brigham said about our dead being close to us here on earth.

I fear that if everyone has heaven opened to them when they die, they may be in danger (especially if they don't believe that someone they left here will ever accept the restored Gospel, and they only get one chance to accept it in the hereafter.)

Would they be able to procrastinate in the hereafter (the way we do here), or would they only get one chance because they had heaven opened to them when they died?

Joseph seems to say that they're not in any danger at all (and that could be of great comfort to me), but I think you said (earlier on this thread) that we can't really know if he was quoted correctly (or if he was speaking as a prophet at the time.)

That troubles me.

Can we know if this quote means anything?

Can we even know if the dead get more then a "here it is, take it or leave it, one time" visit from the missionaries in the hereafter?

Edited January 3, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

My concern has to do with what Joseph said about having to have heaven opened to you, and something Brigham said about our dead being close to us here on earth.

I fear that if everyone has heaven opened to them when they die, they may be in danger (especially if they don't believe that someone they left here will ever accept the restored Gospel, and they only get one chance to accept it in the hereafter.)

Would they be able to procrastinate in the hereafter (the way we do here), or would they only get one chance because they had heaven opened to them when they died?

Joseph seems to say that they're not in any danger at all (and that could be of great comfort to me), but I think you said (earlier on this thread) that we can't really know if he was quoted correctly (or if he was speaking as a prophet at the time.)

That troubles me.

Can we know we know if this quote means anything?

Can we even know if the dead get more then a "here it is, take it or leave it, one time" visit from the missionaries in the hereafter?

God is our merciful father- I misunderstood you earlier in the thread. I have no evidence if Joseph was or was not speaking as a prophet, that is all I was saying, I am a very skeptical person and I was not there. But one thing I have learned is to rely on my own testimony- I would not be here posting if I did not have a certainty of my own testimony.

One thing I would suggest you need to learn is to trust God and seek your own spiritual revelations on these ideas which are not clear. You have as much right to revelation as Joseph did. You may never be designated as the "prophet" but the scriptures tell us that a testimony of the savior is the "spirit of prophecy".

We are encouraged again and again to seek our own testimonies and go to the Lord with questions which bother us. Maybe it's a good time to try that.

[darrenskywalker]

Here's my take. Eloheim is the head of the council of Gods. Jesus Christ will become the Eternal Father of our generation. Will will always defer to him as the Head of the Gods and our Savior....this holds all the references of "The head of the Gods(or council). His firstborn (perhaps) son, a Christ will be the Savior of our children. In addition, whether Eloheim is our father or grandfather he is still our Eternal Father or head of the Gods. If you read the literature and scriptures, grandfathers are and can be referred to as fathers of the grandchildren. Consider the expansion of the eternal family.

(I can't remember all the places I've read that, but Lehi in speaking to his granchildren in 2nd Nephi 4:

3 Wherefore, after my father had made an end of speaking concerning the prophecies of Joseph, he called the children of Laman, his sons, and his daughters, and said unto them: Behold, my sons, and my daughters, who are the sons and the daughters of my ^afirst-born, I would that ye should give ear unto my words. 5 But behold, my sons and my daughters, I cannot go down to my grave save I should leave a ^ablessing upon you; for behold, I know that if ye are ^bbrought up in the ^cway ye should go ye will not depart from it. 6 Wherefore, if ye are ^acursed, behold, I leave my blessing upon you, that the ^bcursing may be taken from you and be answered upon the ^cheads of your parents.)

And in the canon or scriptures:

Corinthians 8:5 : 5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

6 But to us there is but one ^aGod, the ^bFather, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one ^cLord Jesus Christ, by whom are^dall things, and we by him.

D&C 128:(In our dispensation, the dispensation of the fullness of times:28 A time to come in the which ^anothing shall be withheld, whether there be ^bone God or many ^cgods, they shall be manifest.

29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be^arevealed and set forth upon all who have endured ^bvaliantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ."

We only are concerned with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ as they are the Head of OUR family(immediate).

In regards to the Apostles and Prophets of our day(s) and revelation:

D&C..."Whether there be one god or many gods"...all will be revealed in this dispensation, the dispensation of the fullness of times.. In my personal opinion, and it appears to be obvious there has been no NEW NEW NEW DOCTRINAL revelation from God...at least from what they have give us since the days of the original apostles and the prophet Joseph Smith from THEIR generation. Either they haven't told us or God has not revealed it to them. This can obviously been seen, look at our canon since. The Living Christ and the Proclamation of the World are not new doctrines. Anything since is either affirming previous doctrine or has only been opinions or extrapolations. It can be said that Blacks and the Priesthood(since Joseph gave the priesthood to blacks) is not a NEW doctrine but the Church as a whole started accepting it for which we are not perfect but still God's true church. Perhaps because we ourselves weren't prepared and maybe many for other reasons as well. I believe God told President Kimball it was time, but again not a NEW DOCTRINAL revelation, revelation to be sure but not doctrinal. The Manifesto was a revelation of guidance from God ....but not a NEW DOCTRINAL revelation. Not an expounding truth of the new and everlasting covenant...but a change in policy or guidance in regards to it. I believe they receive and have received revelation and inspiration in our day for guiding the church ...but I haven't seen(looking at the canon etc..) any new doctrinal revelation. This seems apparent.

I personal agree with the teachings of Brigham Young in regards to the Adam-God theory as it's all over in the scriptures and from his strong declarations that it was doctrine as the Prophet of the Church. Though I wouldn't teach it or fully declare it myself as we do not fully understand it. Adam would be akin to us being exhalted ...becoming a God and having children and Christ the son of Eloheim save his(Adam's) children. Who else is it taught to have co-created this world and others worlds with Christ(under his stewardship) Who else has been declared to hold the "keys of the Universe"(Adam) by Joseph Smith and who will transfer this said keys to Christ at his second coming.

Discern the following from Daniel 7:

9 ¶I beheld till the ^athrones were ^bcast down, and the ^cAncient of days did sit, whose ^dgarment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame,and his ^ewheels as burning fire.

10 A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him:^athousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the ^bjudgment was set, and the^cbooks were opened.

11 I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the ^abeast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning ^bflame.

12 As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.

13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the ^aSon of man came with the ^bclouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.

14 And there was given him ^adominion, and glory, and a^bkingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an ^ceverlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

15 ¶I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.

(apparently Daniel had difficultly understanding this significance of Adam)

Either Christ is giving Adam the kingdom(s) or vice versa.

It's possible that for everyone of us that's exhalted...that will glorify Christ(and the Father more and more). And that for each of our kingdoms and posterity Christ will have ONE son for each of us born into our posterity to save our family. Or regardless I believe in some form that only Christ becomes the head of the gods and His son(or sons) become Saviors. This is much easier for me to comprehend and accept or at least discern. It makes it easier seeing Adam as our example.

I haven't fully fleshed all this out, but there is much to consider and this is much more that I think about it.

In short I believe our exhaltation is more akin to Adam's form than Christ's and that we birth physical and spiritual bodies to our posterity both. Initially the body is eternal or one whole spiritual body....it is taught in the ancient Egyptian teachings that Satan wasn't cast out for a disagreement in the War in Heaven, but because he (quoting Nibley) "resorted to violence".

Darren

[darrenskywalker]

Joseph Smith also said this "system" is a few billions of years old. That our planet was in obit around God's planet before it was cast down to it's current location. And it is doctrinal taught that Adam was given this earth as his world from God or that God made Adam Lord of all the Earth.

[darrenskywalker]

If you take everything into consideration that has been stated by the Prophets....not just selectively or discounting it wholly....a whole picture starts to unfold. One hard to comprehend statement of (yes at the time) doctrine or teaching combined with another hard to understand doctrine statement........they start to make them both easier to understand or appreciate or at the very least consider

[Hogmeister]

Anyone what to know the voice from the dust on some of this?

After having studied the english translations of many ancient religous texts I can but give my support to Elden Watsons interpretation of Brigham Youngs Adam-God theory/doctrine. In his interpretation BY is referring to two different Adam, Father Adam and Adam son of Adam.

Here follows a few excerpts that I've found and collected by "googling" the internet. It only cost me a couple of hours. But then I know what to look for and where to look. There is probably a lot more where this came from.

________

There will be days when she will behold the Pleroma, and she will not be in deficiency, for she has the four holy helpers who intercede on her behalf with the Father of the All, Adamas. He it is who is within all of the Adams, possessing the thought of Norea, who speaks concerning the two names which create a single name.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nore.html

Now Adam and Eve before the fall had spiritual bodies, like the "angels" born of this Eve [“this Eve” = Eve Sr.?]; but after their fall, down from the Paradise of Ialdabaōth, their bodies grew more and more dense, and more and more languid, and became "coats of skin," till finally Sophia in compassion restored to them the sweet odour of the Light, and they knew that they carried death about with them. And so a recollection of their former state came back to them, and they were patient, knowing that the body was put on only for a time.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-mead/fragments_faith_forgotten/fff25.htm#page_189

…

Then Bartholomew said to him: "How (is it that) <he> was designated in the Gospel 'Man' and 'Son of Man'? To which of them, then, is this Son related?"

The Holy One said to him: "I want you to know that First Man is called 'Begetter, Self-perfected Mind'. He reflected with Great Sophia, his consort, and revealed his first-begotten, androgynous son. His male name is designated 'First Begetter, Son of God', his female name, 'First Begettress Sophia, Mother of the Universe'. Some call her 'Love'. Now First-begotten is called 'Christ'. Since he has authority from his father, he created a multitude of angels without number for retinue from Spirit and Light."

His disciples said to him: "Lord, reveal to us about the one called 'Man', that we also may know his glory exactly."

The perfect Savior said: "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear. First Begetter Father is called 'Adam, Eye of Light,' because he came from shining Light, and his holy angels, who are ineffable (and) shadowless, ever rejoice with joy in their reflecting, which they received from their Father. The whole Kingdom of Son of Man, who is called 'Son of God,' is full of ineffable and shadowless joy, and unchanging jubilation, (they) rejoicing over his imperishable glory, which has never been heard until now, nor has it been revealed in the aeons that came afterward, and their worlds. I came from Self-begotten and First Infinite Light, that I might reveal everything to you."

Again, his disciples said: "Tell us clearly how they came down from the invisibilities, from the immortal to the world that dies?"

The perfect Savior said: "Son of Man consented with Sophia, his consort, and revealed a great androgynous light. His male name is designated 'Savior, Begetter of All Things'. His female name is designated 'All-Begettress Sophia'. Some call her 'Pistis'.

…

And <he> said to him: "How many are the aeons of the immortals, starting from the infinities?"

The perfect Savior said: "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear. The first aeon is that of Son of Man, who is called 'First Begetter' [First Begetter Father is called Adam, Eye of Light according to the above], who is called 'Savior', who has appeared. The second aeon (is) that of Man, who is called 'Adam, Eye of Light' [Or the First begetter Father according to the above]. That which embraces these is the aeon over which there is no kingdom, (the aeon) of the Eternal Infinite God, the Self-begotten aeon of the aeons that are in it, (the aeon) of the immortals, whom I described earlier [The order of the aeons should be counted backwards such that the first order is the lesser order and the 2nd is higher and the 3rd, which is not expressed explicably but "embraces these", is higher still], (the aeon) above the Seventh, that appeared from Sophia, which is the first aeon.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/sjc.html

As you would expect, Creation does not stop there. So from Autogenes and Mirothoe there emanate four other Aeons or Lights. These are referred to as four great Angels. Together with each of these there are three secondary Aeons, making twelve secondaries in all. Each of the four Angels represents a particular sphere of existence, and at each of these levels there exist particular Personalities.

On the level of the first Light or Angel, called "Armozel", stands the Celestial Adam, "Pigeraadamas", referred to in in other texts as the Geradamas, the "Old Adam" [Ancient of days?] or original Archetypal Man ("Man" in this sense referring to human, as opposed to Anthropos, the Godhead) together with Autogenes itself. This Celestial pre-creation Adam is described as the Light or the Eye of Autogenes:

"...Adamas is a light which radiated from the light, he is the eye of light....This is the first man, he through whom and to whom everything became, and without whom nothing became" [sounds like Pigeradamas/Geradamas/Old Adam is different from Adamas?]

[ The Gospel of the Egyptians, in the Nag Hammadi Library, p.198].

"Adamas...is the eye of the Autogenes, an ascending knowledge of his"

[Nag Hammadi, Zostrianos, p.377; c.f. also p.372]

On the level of the second Light or Angel, Oroiel, is the Celestial Seth, the son of Geradamas. In The Gospel of the Egyptians, Seth is "the father and savior of the incorruptible race" (i.e., the Divine Souls, who possess Gnosis) who "comes from heaven, puts on Jesus as a garment, and accomplishes (the) work of salvation on behalf of his children" [p.195]. In other words, Seth is to the non-Christian Gnostics what Christ is to the Christian religion. [Christ is the son of Geradamas sounds familiar?]

…

Later, "Seth" came to mean not to the earthly Seth, but to a heavenly prototype on a transmundane, pre-cosmic plane. The heavenly Seth is then regarded as the "Son" of a heavenly Adam [p.483]

The idea of a heavenly Seth represents a specifically Gnostic interpretation of the Biblical Genesis accounts whereby the earthly characters of Adam and Seth are projected onto a transmundane, pre-cosmic plane. [p.503]

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/archetypal_man.html

But when he does so Sophia's voice comes from heaven a rebuke him: "Man exists and the Son of Man" [Apocryphon of John], together with a vision of this celestial being. "Man" here is not the Celestial Adam but the highest manifest Godhead, the Anthropos, "Son of Man" is actually the Celestial Adam. His son the heavenly Seth would be "the Son of the Son of Man". [birger A. Pearson, "The Figure of Seth in Gnostic Literature", p.485 (in B. Layton, ed., The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, vol. 2. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981, 472-504)]

Startled by this Celestial apparition, Yaltabaoth decides the best thing to do would be to make an image of it for himself. Exactly why he decides to do this is never explained; the myth is poetic and very irrational, more like a dream than a metaphysical conception or work of theology. So he creates angels to rule over the world and aid in the creation of man. Man comes to life when Yaltabaoth is tricked into breathing his light-power into him; again, another parody on the Genesis account; this time on God breathing life into Adam. Thus begins a long struggle between the powers of Light (Sophia and the other Aeons) and of Darkness (Yaltabaoth and his minions) for the possession of the divine particles of light in man. The negative powers imprison man in a material body, and also create woman and sexual desire to spread and diffuse the particles of light through procreation, thus making their salvation more difficult.

Finally, from the higher Spiritual regions a Savior, usually (depending on the particular sect) Christ or Seth, is sent down to save humanity by reminding them of their heavenly origin. Only those who possess the saving Gnosis and have lived pure and ascetic lives can return to the realm of Light; others have to reincarnate until they able to acquire Gnosis.

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/battle.html

"The incorruptible man Adamas asked for them a son..., in order that he (the son) may become the father of the immovable, incorruptible race, so that through it...the dead aeon (Matter) may raise itself, so it that it may dissolve[sounds like a Gnostic version of the great assembly in heaven where God the Father asks: Whom shall I send?]. And thus there came forth, from above, the power of the great light, the Manifestation. She gave birth to the four great lights..., and the great incorruptible Seth, the son of the incorruptible man Adamas."

[The Gospel of the Egyptians, in Nag Hammadi, p.199]

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Gnosticism/savior.html

_____

[sethpayne]

Jack- it is usually believed that even babies have "full grown spirits".

I would like to see some sources on your comment- this is not a CFR per se- it would just be interesting.

Compare the BYU Studies "amalgamated text" by Stan Larson to the version printed in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith."

If memory serves, I think the original statement is in the History of the Church. My edition is from 1949 so I don't know if new editions are the same.

Edited February 23, 2012 by sethpayne