Psalm 82 In Contemporary Latter-Day Saint Tradition

[maklelan]

I recently published a paper entitled "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition" in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. In it I discuss the use of Psalm 82 in the Latter-day Saint community in general, and in LDS scholarship in particular. Among other things, I argue for two points that conflict with the broader LDS interpretation: (1) that the psalm does not distinguish YHWH from El/Elohim/Elyon, and (2) that Jesus' use of the psalm in John 10 is best read as a reinterpretation of the psalm's original meaning. Let me know what you think.

[JLHPROF]

I recently published a paper entitled "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition" in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. In it I discuss the use of Psalm 82 in the Latter-day Saint community in general, and in LDS scholarship in particular. Among other things, I argue for two points that conflict with the broader LDS interpretation: (1) that the psalm does not distinguish YHWH from El/Elohim/Elyon, and (2) that Jesus' use of the psalm in John 10 is best read as a reinterpretation of the psalm's original meaning. Let me know what you think.

 

Well, YWHH is a member of the Elohim so any distinguishing isn't necessary.

[maklelan]

Well, YWHH is a member of the Elohim so any distinguishing isn't necessary.

 

I was not using the term Elohim in the generic sense of "deity," but in the traditional LDS sense of the personal name of God the Father.

[boblloyd91]

I read it and quite enjoyed it. I appreciate people who can give some good academic weight behind the faith.

[strappinglad]

I realize that I am extremely out of my depth in even commenting on the subject. I take everything written in Psalms as literature painted with a fair amount of artistic license .Reading hard doctrine into them is not useful to me. Then again , it is possible that the dead, deified or not, are still debating the truths therein .

[maklelan]

I read it and quite enjoyed it. I appreciate people who can give some good academic weight behind the faith.

 

Thank for the feedback!

[maklelan]

I realize that I am extremely out of my depth in even commenting on the subject. I take everything written in Psalms as literature painted with a fair amount of artistic license .Reading hard doctrine into them is not useful to me. Then again , it is possible that the dead, deified or not, are still debating the truths therein .

 

I agree with you, and I don't think my paper was suggesting any hard doctrine be read into anything. It was mainly addressing what kinds of beliefs might be in the background of the way the traditions reflected in these texts were used. 

[rodheadlee]

I enjoyed it, thanks for posting the link here. It's good to see you here Maklelan.

[Bob Crockett]

I think the LDS view of Psalm 82 is driven more by what Joseph Smith originally said on the topic in what appears to be an inspired discussion, and less upon modern LDS exegeses.  His view obviously conflicts with modern scholarship, but modern scholars have an a priori bias against notions of a plurality of gods, a divine council of gods, or a God for that matter.

 

link to temple content removed

[maklelan]

I think the LDS view of Psalm 82 is driven more by what Joseph Smith originally said on the topic in what appears to be an inspired discussion, and less upon modern LDS exegeses.  His view obviously conflicts with modern scholarship, but modern scholars have an a prior bias against notice of a plurality of gods, a divine council of gods, or a God for that matter.

 

 

 

Good thoughts, but one of the critical facts about communities that rely on authoritative texts and interpreters is that interpretations are always in a tension between the sacred past (of which Joseph Smith is a part) and the exigencies of the present (i.e., contemporary reasons for producing or sharing an interpretation).

[stemelbow]

Maklelan,

That was awesome. Don't take that for more than it is, I'm just an uneducated fool who is unable to comprehend all that is here, no doubt.

I have to say, I was confused by Heiser's position for a long time. The way you explained it helped me immensely, if accurate.

That it is eisegetic hardly means that John did not understand it that way. It is a theologically motivated presupposition to insist that the author of John could not possibly have appealed to [Page 94]eisegesis. His second reason — that the Jews’ response is inordinate — is also problematic. The Jews are not necessarily just responding to his exegesis of Psalm 82:6. Jesus did, after all, reassert in vv. 36–38 he was claiming to be the Son of God and to be united with him (the claim that irked them in the first place). Heiser’s first reason — that such a reading of Psalm 82 is a weak or evasive defense of Jesus’s divinity — merits a few comments. One of the primary exegetical problems of John 10:34–36 is precisely how Jesus’s response functions as a defense of his claims to divinity.

and

Heiser understands Jesus to be asserting his very ontological identification as God, but this is a Trinitarian reading that I do not find in the text. Throughout John Jesus never identifies himself as God. He identifies himself as the Son of God, and the Jews understand that father/son relationship to imply equality with God. This is not to indicate ontological identification with him, but equality.

Excellent points.

[Bob Crockett]

Good thoughts, but one of the critical facts about communities that rely on authoritative texts and interpreters is that interpretations are always in a tension between the sacred past (of which Joseph Smith is a part) and the exigencies of the present (i.e., contemporary reasons for producing or sharing an interpretation).

 

Well, that is an interesting take on it, I think.   I'm not sure I understand your comment, but it does seem to me that when Joseph Smith undertook his own exegeses of a controversial scriptural passage, and his view supported a uniquely LDS doctrine (here, the plurality of Gods), the "thinking has been done," so to speak, about what is LDS teaching and what is not.  I think the particular sermon I've cited does not have the same deficiencies as the King Follett Sermon, which had not stenography.   I've studied Psalm 82 a little, and lean towards Bokovoy's FARMs' view, but even then my secular understanding of Psalm 82 would have to bow before what I can read in Joseph Smith's plurality of gods sermon.

 

Joseph Smith used Psalm 82 to support his view of a plurality of Gods, and that Jesus was one of Them.  

 

Whether Joseph Smith's sermon using Psalm 82 ought to be read differently today in light of modern LDS scholarship, secular scholarship or "sectarian" scholarship (to use Elder McConkie) is something to consider, perhaps, but it seems that under LDS orthodoxy the bar would be set extremely high to make that argument successfully.

Edited May 11, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

That was awesome. Don't take that for more than it is, I'm just an uneducated fool who is unable to comprehend all that is here, no doubt.

I have to say, I was confused by Heiser's position for a long time. The way you explained it helped me immensely, if accurate.

and

Excellent points.

 

Thanks for the kind words, and I'm glad I could help you understand him better!

[maklelan]

Well, that is an interesting take on it, I think.   I'm not sure I understand your comment, but it does seem to me that when Joseph Smith undertook his own exegeses of a controversial scriptural passage, and his view supported a uniquely LDS doctrine (here, the plurality of Gods), the "thinking has been done," so to speak, about what is LDS teaching and what is not. 

 

Not necessarily. The LDS teaching is whatever is taught, and that can refer to almost any level of teaching. A religious community is never monolithic. Rather, there are usually a shortlist of non-negotiables and then an enormous list of concepts and teachings of varying degrees of clarity and firmness that are emphasized, not emphasized, or de-emphasized depending on the social, religious, political, ethnic, etc., climates in which the membership is living. What one member may understand about any one of these concepts does not necessarily have to match what another member has to say. 

[Bob Crockett]

Not necessarily. The LDS teaching is whatever is taught, and that can refer to almost any level of teaching. A religious community is never monolithic. Rather, there are usually a shortlist of non-negotiables and then an enormous list of concepts and teachings of varying degrees of clarity and firmness that are emphasized, not emphasized, or de-emphasized depending on the social, religious, political, ethnic, etc., climates in which the membership is living. What one member may understand about any one of these concepts does not necessarily have to match what another member has to say. 

 

When it comes to utterances of Joseph Smith passing as revealed doctrine, the Church and its manuals tend to treat them as non-negotiable.   Case in point is King Follett Discourse.  Although I think it is somewhat contradictory, and I've read the criticisms of it in that it was not stenographically reported, it appears in the Journal of Discourses.  I last saw it as a Relief Society lesson, in its entirety.   

 

So, in my humble opinion, the start and end of a discussion of Psalm 82 in an LDS publication such as the Interpreter should be Joseph Smith's statement on Psalm 82.  One doesn't necessarily have to agree with him, and many LDS scholars do question Joseph Smith from time to time, but there should be at least lip service paid to this particular sermon.  It is like writing a biography of Abraham Lincoln and not mentioning the Emancipation Proclamation.  I tend to disagree with the policy behind the Emancipation Proclamation (excluding the northern states from its application) but it should be an important thing to discuss.  Certainly, the doctrine of plurality of gods is one of the most notorious and controversial of LDS doctrines, 

Edited May 11, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[maklelan]

When it comes to utterances of Joseph Smith passing as revealed doctrine, the Church and its manuals tend to treat them as non-negotiable.   Case in point is King Follett Discourse.  Although I think it is somewhat contradictory, and I've read the criticisms of it in that it was not stenographically reported, it appears in the Journal of Discourses.  I last saw it as a Relief Society lesson, in its entirety.   

 

So, in my humble opinion, the start and end of a discussion of Psalm 82 in an LDS publication such as the Interpreter should be Joseph Smith's statement on Psalm 82.  One doesn't necessarily have to agree with him, and many LDS scholars do question Joseph Smith from time to time, but there should be at least lip service paid to this particular sermon.  It is like writing a biography of Abraham Lincoln and not mentioning the Emancipation Proclamation.  I tend to disagree with the policy behind the Emancipation Proclamation (excluding the northern states from its application) but it should be an important thing to discuss.  Certainly, the doctrine of plurality of gods is one of the most notorious and controversial of LDS doctrines, 

 

But that is simply is not the way ideology and theology work. It is an attempt to render static something that can never possibly be static. Beliefs will always change in response to contexts and environments. Additionally, my paper is entitled "Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition." I'm addressing the psalm as it is interpreted in today's LDS communities, and particularly those communities that interact with the broader world of biblical scholarship.

[Bob Crockett]

I simply point out that you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts, and you are somewhat dismissive of how the Church handles the Psalm in its manuals ("a sort of proof-text for the Latter-day Saint notion that humanity shares a genetic link with divinity and primarily the concept that each human being is a child of God)but don't mention Joseph Smith's interpretation, at least with respect to his sermon I cite. His interpretation, it seems obvious to me, is the reason why church manuals say what they do, and I dispute the "proof-text" label.

But, it comes down to whether Joseph Smith "proof-texted" Psalm 82 for his interpretation, or whether his famous sermon is inspired revelation.

I certainly admit to seeing things differently that LDS scholars who want to apply secular means to explain LDS "theology." (I think the term "theology" has its limits, as we might view Aquinas as a theologian but not Joseph Smith or Brigham Young for obvious reasons.)

Edited May 15, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[maklelan]

I simply point out that you refer to the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient texts, and you are somewhat dismissive of how the Church handles the Psalm in its manuals ("a sort of proof-text for the Latter-day Saint notion that humanity shares a genetic link with divinity and primarily the concept that each human being is a child of God)but don't mention Joseph Smith's interpretation, at least with respect to his sermon I cite. His interpretation, it seems obvious to me, is the reason why church manuals say what they do, and I dispute the "proof-text" label.

 

I think the proof-text label is accurate, given the verse absolutely does not serve the point it is employed to make when read in conjunction with the rest of the psalm. It only supports the interpretation I cited from the manual when it is pulled from its context and read all by itself, and then it's not even a complete sentence.

[Bobbieaware]

I think the proof-text label is accurate, given the verse absolutely does not serve the point it is employed to make when read in conjunction with the rest of the psalm. It only supports the interpretation I cited from the manual when it is pulled from its context and read all by itself, and then it's not even a complete sentence.

So the Savior's guilty of proof-texting... Whodda thunk? One would think a perfect being wouldn't have to resort to such dubious tactics.

[maklelan]

So the Savior's guilty of proof-texting... Whodda thunk? One would think a perfect being wouldn't have to resort to such dubious tactics.

 

No one said it was proof-texting in John 10. 

[Bobbieaware]

No one said it was proof-texting in John 10.

So when the Lord uses scriptural references of dubious applicability and relevance in order to score points in a debate, it's OK? Perhaps this is one of the perks that come along with being "the boss?" Or, more likely, by revelation the Lotd and the Prophet Joseph Smith knew the real meaning of Psalms 82, while the modern scholars -- who gladly acknowledge they do not do their work by the spirit of revelation -- are left groping in darkness and error. The mysteries of God are known by revelation or they are not known at all.

[maklelan]

So when the Lord uses scriptural references of dubious applicability and relevance in order to score points in a debate, it's OK? Perhaps this is one of the perks that come along with being "the boss?" Or, more likely, by revelation the Lotd and the Prophet Joseph Smith knew the real meaning of Psalms 82, while the modern scholars -- who gladly acknowledge they do not do their work by the spirit of revelation -- are left groping in darkness and error. The mysteries of God are known by revelation or they are not known at all.

 

As I think I fairly clearly spelled out in the article, Jesus was just appealing to the accepted interpretation of his day. The rhetorical point of his appeal to the psalm actually relies on that accepted interpretation of the psalm as a whole, so it's not proof-texting or cherry-picking. He's directly pointing out that the standard interpretation of Psalm 82 acknowledges that human beings could be called and considered gods. 

[Bobbieaware]

As I think I fairly clearly spelled out in the article, Jesus was just appealing to the accepted interpretation of his day. The rhetorical point of his appeal to the psalm actually relies on that accepted interpretation of the psalm as a whole, so it's not proof-texting or cherry-picking. He's directly pointing out that the standard interpretation

of Psalm 82 acknowledges that human beings could be called and considered gods.

I guess the controversy distiils down to the following two possibilities: Either Jesus realized the then contemporary interpretation of Psalms 82 was in error, but went ahead and unfairly utilized that incorrect interpretation in order to gain a debating advantage over his adversarys; or even though he is God -- the living embodiment of truth -- Jesus didn't realize the contemporary interpretation of Psalms 82 was in error. So regardless of which one of these two possibilities turns out to be the correct one, for faithful Latter-day Saints the Lord God omnipotent is place in a strange and unfamiliar light: He is either willing to misrepresent the truth in order to gain an advantage, or the God of all truth failed to properly understand the very scriptures he inspired his servants to write. Edited May 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[maklelan]

I guess the controversy distiils down to the following two possibilities: Either Jesus realized the then contemporary interpretation of Psalms 82 was in error, but went ahead and unfairly utilized that incorrect interpretation in order to gain a debating advantage over his adversarys; or even though he is God -- the living embodiment of truth -- Jesus didn't realize the contemporary interpretation of Psalms 82 was in error. So regardless of which one of these two possibilities turns out to be correct one, for faithful Latter-day Saints the Lord God omnipotent is place in a strange and unfamiliar light: He is either willing to misrepresent the truth in order to gain an advantage, or the God of all truth failed to properly understand the very scriptures he inspired his servants to write.

 

Actually there are many more possibilities, ranging from understanding the pericope to have been the invention of the author to realizing that authorial intent is never fully accessible to concluding that none of this is a question of absolute truths. 

[Bobbieaware]

Actually there are many more possibilities, ranging from understanding the pericope to have been the invention of the author to realizing that authorial intent is never fully accessible to concluding that none of this is a question of absolute truths.

Another possibility is that by the mouths of two very special witnesses, one being the Son of God and the other being the great Prophet of the Restoration, the fact that the ancient followers of Jehovah knew man could become like God has been firmly established as true doctrine for the saints of latter-days. If nothing else, the ministry of Joseph Smith powerfully testifies to the overriding fact that the ancients knew most every doctrine of Christ the Latter-day Saints now know. And that's the reason why the LDS Church is called the Restored Church -- it's the divinely empowered and authorized institution by which God is bringing forth the restitution of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware