Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Divine Council In Mormonism

diglot

By diglot
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

diglot Community Regular

diglot

Posted
Posted

I am somewhat aware of the divine council motif in the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern thought. I have read some academic literature on it and am currently reading through Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (A very good book IMO).

However, I am quite ignorant concerning how the divine council theme plays out in LDS theology. Apart from the Book of Abraham and D&C 76, is the divine council mentioned elsewhere in LDS Scripture? Is there any LDS literature that someone can point me towards that discusses the importance of the divine council theme in LDS theology?

Tangent: I liked how the recent remake of the Clash of the Titans shows a meeting of the “divine council” (Zeus, Apollo, etc).

1
diglot Community Regular

diglot

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Thanks, though the articles on that page all seem to be addressing the concept of the divine council in the biblical text or some other issue, which isn't what I am after.

edited to add: This one by Bokovoy does have a section entitled "An LDS view on the Divine Council", which is what I am after. Thanks

Edited by diglot
diglot Community Regular

diglot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Here's a little article I wrote on the subject, with an LDS bibliography at the end.

http://hamblinofjeru...erica6-sod2.pdf

Thanks, the bibliography is helpful!

diglot Community Regular

diglot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Check out the 1st chapter of 1 Nephi, it details a prophetic calling through the divine council.

Interesting, I will have to reread that chapter later. I've read 1 Nephi a couple of times now and can't remember seeing something like that. Probably wasn't paying enough attention to the text.

There is this:

http://www.fairlds.o...vid-Bokovoy.pdf

And this, from Nibley:

http://maxwellinstit...103&chapid=1151

And this from Kevin Barney:

http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=6671

For starters.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Awesome, thanks!

The temple is a great place to learn about the divine council.

I don't think I would be let into the temple ;)

altersteve Grand Master

altersteve

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think Joseph Smith talked about the Divine Council (or at least made a brief reference to it) in his Sermon in the Grove.

Edited by altersteve
orion88 Collaborator

orion88

Posted
Posted

I think Joseph Smith talked about the Divine Council (or at least made a brief reference to it) in his Sermon in the Grove.

How do you determine if what Mr. Smith says in his sermons is true or false?

altersteve Grand Master

altersteve

Posted
Posted

How do you determine if what Mr. Smith says in his sermons is true or false?

Holy Ghost.

Not sure what relevance that has to the thread topic, though.

orion88 Collaborator

orion88

Posted
Posted

Is there anything in the Sermon in the Grove and/or the King Follett discourse that you find false?

And if it's a matter of textual issues as to whether Joseph said or didn't say such and such, I've always found this link helpful:

http://www.boap.org/...844/7Apr44.html

I have not seen the Sermon in the Grove but from the KFD, I would consider his teaching

that God was not always God as false. From all accounts of LDS published materials I have

seen, he did teach that God was not always a God but became a God. This teaching

continued through the 1978 and 1997 editions of Gospel Principles until it was removed in

2009.

Cobalt-70 Grand Master

Cobalt-70

Posted
Posted

The temple is a great place to learn about the divine council.

One who has been through the Endowment will understand that the divine council is composed of three gods: Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. The latter is also Adam. A temple-goer with no external reference does not necessarily know who Elohim and Jehovah are, but in 1916, the LDS Church began to officially identify Elohim as the Father and Jehovah as the Son. But in the days of Brigham Young, Michael was the Father, and Elohim and Jehovah were higher grandfather-gods. Thus, you could have been referring to two different divine councils or presidencies: (1) Elohim-Jehovah-Michael, or (2) Michael-Jesus-Holy Ghost. Michael was a member of both councils, but only council #1 was involved with creation. As I understand it, Mormon fundamentalists still believe this.

altersteve Grand Master

altersteve

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have not seen the Sermon in the Grove but from the KFD, I would consider his teaching

that God was not always God as false. From all accounts of LDS published materials I have

seen, he did teach that God was not always a God but became a God. This teaching

continued through the 1978 and 1997 editions of Gospel Principles until it was removed in

2009.

Once again, when the entire King Follett sermon is read in context, he never taught that God was once a sinful human being like us. What he said was that God was not always as He is now, and that He too had a mortal experience like Jesus Christ. God, therefore, is "like us" in the same sense that Jesus Christ is "like us." That is the "great secret" that Joseph was teaching:

I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. 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.

We've been over this a thousand times.

Edited by altersteve
altersteve Grand Master

altersteve

Posted
Posted

I was just wondering if he said anything in the sermon that you reference that you consider

false.

Joseph reasoned that God the Father might have a Father of His own, an idea which I neither agree nor disagree with. It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. So I wouldn't consider it false, but I don't embrace it either.

kolipoki09 Community Regular

kolipoki09

Posted
Posted

I have not seen the Sermon in the Grove but from the KFD, I would consider his teaching

that God was not always God as false. From all accounts of LDS published materials I have

seen, he did teach that God was not always a God but became a God. This teaching

continued through the 1978 and 1997 editions of Gospel Principles until it was removed in

2009.

I see. Since it was removed from the Gospel Principles manual in 2009, the Church must be embarrassed about it, or even better yet, simply engaging in a deliberate cover-up! Silly mopologists! They'll just never know the difference!

WalkerW Community Regular

WalkerW

Posted
Posted

This teaching continued through the 1978 and 1997 editions of Gospel Principles until it was removed in

2009.

I was unaware that what is printed in the Gospel Principles manual counts as the cutting edge of textual and historical analysis.

1
WalkerW Community Regular

WalkerW

Posted
Posted

I have not seen the Sermon in the Grove but from the KFD, I would consider his teaching

that God was not always God as false.

I think you really have no way of demonstrating how this is false. Then again, this depends on how God is defined.

volgadon Grand Master

volgadon

Posted
Posted

I was unaware that what is printed in the Gospel Principles manual counts as the cutting edge of textual and historical analysis.

They aren't????????

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...