Psalm 82 In Contemporary Latter-Day Saint Tradition

[Senator]

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.

 

Are you by any chance related to teddyaware?

[Bobbieaware]

Are you by any chance related to teddyaware?

Read my profile.

[Senator]

Read my profile.

Sorry, I usually don't look at profiles.

[Senator]

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. 

 

Ahh....but it is about questioning the status quo you see.

 

Some venues welcome that more than others.

[Bobbieaware]

Ahh....but it is about questioning the status quo you see.

Some venues welcome that more than others.

Here's the point: Some members of the church believe there's a shortcut of sorts for the discovery of spiritual truth, and this divinely-established shortcut that enables one to arrive at eternal truth without the need to rely on empirical investigation and scientific inquiry is known as revelation from God. So when the greatest of all revelators, Christ, and one of the greatestof all revelators, the prophet Joseph Smith, both arrive at the same interpretation for certain passages of scripture, those who believe in the principle of revelation are supremely confident their inspired interpretation is correct. All the non-relevatory scriptural scholarship that goes into parsing and dissecting the same passages of scripture might indeed be interesting, but in the end, for those who successfully put Moroni's challenge to the test, revelation will always trump scholarship.

For example, I'm quite sure the vast majority (perhaps all?) of non-LDS biblical scholars believe the entire account of the miraculous coming forth of the Book of Mormon, and it's translation from "characters" like those found on the Anthon Transcript, is nothing if not a massive and easily provable hoax. Yet many of those who have faithfully responded to Moroni's challenge know by revelation that the Book of Mormon is the word of God in spite of what the learned scholars say. The same holds true for the Book of Abraham. Though many scholars "know" and are confidently able to "prove" the Book of Abraham is a clumsy and laughable hoax, those who are guided by revelation know the Book of Abraham is the word of God no matter what the learned and supremely confident scholars might say about Egyptian funerary literature.

As I said, revelation from God trumps scholarship no matter how compelling and convincing that scholarship might appear. It may erk scholars to think some believe they can discover what the scriptures really mean without their help, but the principle of divine revelation is true nonetheless. For the believer in revelation, the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham stand as living monuments that refutate the belief that scholarship is the ultimate way to arrive at truth. The unlearned and functionally illiterate young Joseph Smith stands as a powerful antidote to the notion that one must genuflect before uninspired scholars before the great spiritual truths of eternity can be discovered and understood. LDS scholars must never forget that the great truths revealed in the dispensation of the fullness of times came forth from an unlearned farm boy.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Senator]

 It may erk scholars to think some believe they can discover what the scriptures really mean without their help,

 

It appears it's not the "supremely confident scholars" that are "erked".

[Bobbieaware]

It appears it's not the "supremely confident scholars" that are "erked".

Believers in the principle of divine revelation and those who don't believe in it have always been and will always necessarily be at odds with each other until one is won over to one side or the other. The conflict between these two diametrically opposed positions constitutes one of the essential components that exists within the unchanging matrix of reality known in the Book of Mormon as "opposition in all things." Therefore, an appearance of inherent hostility will always exist when champions of either side of this debate lock horns. To hope otherwise is like wondering why advocates of tyrannical total government and advocates of strictly limited government under the original intent of the U.S. Constitution can't find common ground and harmony.

Bruce R. McConkie (one or your favorites, I'm sure) said the whole of Mormonism either rises or falls on the principle of divine revelation as it stands in opposition to the learning of the worldlywise. So those on both sides of this debate, except in the rarest of circumstances, will unavoidably appear to be irked by those on the other side, whether they really are irked or not.

Only God can settle this particular debate, and he will when on the day of judgment he pronounces his will (revelation) to all, whether some want to hear what he has to say or not. We can run and we can hide but we'll never be able to escape the day of judgment, that great day that has also been called "the day of revelation." So the question is, "why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people on each side of this debate even bother to argue when there is no hope for a satisfactory resolution?" At best, we can only cordially agree to disagree.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Senator]

Believers in the principle of divine revelation and those who don't believe in it have always been and will always necessarily be at odds with each other until one is won over to one side or the other. The conflict between these two diametrically opposed positions constitutes one of the essential components that exists within the unchanging matrix of reality known in the Book of Mormon as "opposition in all things." Therefore, an appearance of inherent hostility will always exist when champions of either side of this debate lock horns. To hope otherwise is like wondering why advocates of tyrannical total government and advocates of strictly limited government under the original intent of the U.S. Constitution can't find common ground and harmony.

Bruce R. McConkie (one or your favorites, I'm sure) said the whole of Mormonism either rises or falls on the principle of divine revelation as it stands in opposition to the learning of the worldlywise. So those on both sides of this debate, except in the rarest of circumstances, will unavoidably appear to be irked by those on the other side, whether they really are irked or not.

Only God can settle this particular debate, and he will when on the day of judgment he pronounces his will (revelation) to all, whether some want to hear what he has to say or not. We can run and we can hide but we'll never be able to escape the day of judgment, that great day that has also been called "the day of revelation." So the question is, "why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people on each side of this debate even bother to argue when there is no hope for a satisfactory resolution?" At best, we can only cordially agree to disagree.

 

I think you've been a bit to hasty in your judgement of who the poster of the OP is, as well as myself.

 

Oh, and B.R. McConkie is one of my favorites.

 

I began writing how perplexed I was to your reaction and response to the OP's scholarly work. Then I remembered how many times I've bumped up against the "who's on the Lord's side, who" apologetic when in discussion of LDS things, and I wasn't so perplexed anymore.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Senator

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So when the Lord uses scriptural references of dubious applicability and relevance in order to score points in a debate, it's OK?

I am not sure were you are getting this from. That is not what is being talked about in the article.

[Bobbieaware]

I am not sure were you are getting this from. That is not what is being talked about in the article.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the author of the article says the Lord "reinterpreted" (the author's own word) Psalm 82, placing upon it a meaning it was not originally intended to convey. To me, this appears to suggest the Lord deliberately changed the original meaning of verses of scripture in order to score debating points he would otherwise not have been able to make if he had stayed true to the psalm's original meaning.

The account in John 10 is late in the Savior's ministry, and by that time he had openly declared himself to be the truth and the light -- most assuredly the greatest Prophet, Seer and Revelator who ever lived -- and for this reason I belive he well understood the original imeaning of the psalm, and that's why he chose to use it in the way he did. In John 10's account of the confrontation with the Lord and his enemies, the Lord quoted Psalms 82 saying "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, ye are gods?' If he called them god's, unto whom the word of God came (the scriptures declare the internalized word of God has the power to make men like God), and the scripture cannot be broken (I.e. It means precisely what it says); Say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God?" The key is that the god's in Psalm 82 were called gods because the exalting power of God was given unto them. So there was no need for the Savior to reinterpret the psalm because it's meaning was the same then as it is now: The power of God, conveyed to man through his word ("my word is Spirit"), is what always has and always will transform the sons of men into the sons of God. There was no need for the Lord to reinterpret the psalm because its original meaning is precisely what Lord and the prophet Joseph Smith said it was. God's internalized word transforms men into the sons of God.

Edited to add:

And my concern that the article inspiring this thread seems to bring one to the inevitable conclusion that, if the main premise of the article is correct, the Lord may have played fast and loose with the meaning of the scriptures in order to score debating points is echoed in the very same article by no less a personage than Daniel Peterson himself. He asks, “Is there any way of maintaining the interpretation of Psalm 82 that modern scholarship has largely and (I think) convincingly settled on, without accusing the Savior of misuse of the passage? It seems to me that there may well be such a possibility.” So lest some here think I've gone off half-cocked in my remarks, it's plain to see a prominent LDS scholar (heaven forbid! ) expressed the same concern.

My main gripe here is that all to often scholars, whether intentially or unwittingly, seem to end up subtly undermining the prophetic legitimacy of the the prophets of God and even the Savior himself by bringing up questions inspired by scholarship (not by revelation) that, as Paul said, minister questions and doubts. Please do excuse me if I have great faith and trust that the Lord and the prophet Joseph Smith understand the original meaning of the scriptures much better than do the modern scholars who do not pretend to work by the spirit of revelation.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Calm]

Given Sec 19, I don't think God has any problem with using multiple interpretations of scriptures depending on the need of those who are being taught, including what current understanding they hold.

[Bobbieaware]

Given Sec 19, I don't think God has any problem with using multiple interpretations of scriptures depending on the need of those who are being taught, including what current understanding they hold.

D&C 19 is not a reinterpretation. God''s punishment IS endless punishment until one comes unto God and is reconciled to him by coming unto Christ through living faith and repentance. As the sons of perdition amply prove, God's punishment does indeed last forever if one steadfastly refuses to bow the knee to God and Christ and humbly repent of his sins. D&C 19 is a harbinger of D&C 76 and 138 which stipulate all will be saved by through the atonement of Christ, with the exception of the sons of perdition who utterly reject the saving power of Christ.

There's a difference between an outright reinterpretation of scripture and an enlarged presentation of the same based on the original interpretation.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

An apology to brother Daniel O. McClellan:

I carefully reread your article and can now see we both have come to the same conclusion regarding the Lord's use of Psalms 82 as a justification for calling himself the Son of God. The key to understanding who the gods of Psalm 82 are is that they were receipients of the word of God, therefore they were mortal men who needed the transformative power of God's word in order to obtain immortality and eternal life. The fact that the psalm goes on to say some of these same ancient "gods" had fallen short of their divine potential should come as a surprise to no one, for, as we all know, many are called unto eternal life but few are chosen and given the right to be seated upon the throne of the Savior's eternal power (see Revelation 3).

In the end, on this subject anyway, the only real difference between us is one of methodology (Margaret Barker hates the word methodology and only uses the word method instead ). You arrived at your.conclusion after much scholarly study and consideration, while I arrived at the same conclusion by faith (although I must admit I too have studied the gospel a great deal).

My sincerest apologies for allowing my general distaste for what I perceive to be academic snobbery (I'm not accusing you of such) to cloud my thought processes when I first read your article. I agree with your conclusions and enjoyed the article.

P.S. Heislet is all wet.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Gray]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the author of the article says the Lord "reinterpreted" (the author's own word) Psalm 82, placing upon it a meaning it was not originally intended to convey. To me, this appears to suggest the Lord deliberately changed the original meaning of verses of scripture in order to score debating points he would otherwise not have been able to make if he had stayed true to the psalm's original meaning.

 

 

That is, of course, assuming that Jesus ever said it. John was composed quite late, and I think it's unlikely to contain much of the historical Jesus (if that's important to you).

[Bobbieaware]

That is, of course, assuming that Jesus ever said it. John was composed quite late, and I think it's unlikely to contain much of the historical Jesus (if that's important to you).

The Lord taught his apostles that if they remained faithful the Holy Ghost would bring all the things he taught them to their clear remembrance. So it wouldn't matter if the gospe.if John was written sooner or later.

Your post reminds me of a thought I've had that this discussion board ought to provide three separate forums -- one dedicated to believers, a second dedicated to unbelievers, and a third dedicated to those who are willing to "mix things up." How in the world can someone who believes the Bible is the word of God and another who believes it's just a cynical work of fiction ever hope to find common ground for meaningful dialogue?

[Gray]

The Lord taught his apostles that if they remained faithful the Holy Ghost would bring all the things he taught them to their clear remembrance. So it wouldn't matter if the gospe.if John was written sooner or later.

 

Are you sure Jesus said that? If He didn't, how would you know? In any case, there are quite stark differences between Mark, the oldest of the gospels, and John, the latest.

 

Your post reminds me of a thought I've had that this discussion board ought to provide three separate forums -- one dedicated to believers, a second dedicated to unbelievers, and a third dedicated to those who are willing to "mix things up." How in the world can someone who believes the Bible is the word of God and another who believes it's just a cynical work of fiction ever hope to find common ground for meaningful dialogue?

 

I believe that all scripture is useful, and inspiring, but is ultimately written by human authors attempting to reach out toward divinity, rather than the other way around. I am far from being the only religious person who views scripture in this way. 

 

Regarding your suggestion for segregated forums, how boring! I'd rather consider multiple points of view than just hear my own viewpoints echoed back at me. 

Edited May 19, 2015 by Gray

[Bobbieaware]

The Lord taught his apostles that if they remained faithful the Holy Ghost would bring all the things he taught them to their clear remembrance. So it wouldn't matter if the gospe.if John was written sooner or later.

 

Are you sure Jesus said that? If He didn't, how would you know? In any case, there are quite stark differences between Mark, the oldest of the gospels, and John, the latest.

 

Your post reminds me of a thought I've had that this discussion board ought to provide three separate forums -- one dedicated to believers, a second dedicated to unbelievers, and a third dedicated to those who are willing to "mix things up." How in the world can someone who believes the Bible is the word of God and another who believes it's just a cynical work of fiction ever hope to find common ground for meaningful dialogue?

 

I believe that all scripture is useful, and inspiring, but is ultimately written by human authors attempting to reach out toward divinity, rather than the other way around. I am far from being the only religious person who views scripture in this way. 

 

Regarding your suggestion for segregated forums, how boring! I'd rather consider multiple points of view than just hear my own viewpoints echoed back at me. 

I'm interested to know if you view the translation the Book of Mormon in the same way you do the gospel of John?

[Gray]

I'm interested to know if you view the translation the Book of Mormon in the same way you do the gospel of John?

 

Well, it's not quite the same issue, but I also believe the BOM to be a completely human production, most likely composed by Joseph Smith in an attempt to channel what he thought was authentic Native American history, through the lens of his own 19th century perspectives. I also view it as scripture.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but if you want to discuss it further I'd be open to doing so in a new thread. 

[Bob Crockett]

My sincerest apologies for allowing my general distaste for what I perceive to be academic snobbery (I'm not accusing you of such) to cloud my thought processes when I first read your article. I agree with your conclusions and enjoyed the article.

 

I don't see the problem as simply academic snobbery.   There's a lot of swirling issues at stake in the production of Mormon academic material.  I've produced my own output and can see the tussles and the polarization that goes on with an analytic approach to Mormon History.

 

For purposes of this thread, my only contribution has been to point out that the "proof-texting" seen in LDS Manuals of Psalm 82 is probably the result of a long LDS tradition based upon a Joseph Smith sermon, which Smac does not mention.  Further, we often accuse others of proof-texting if we disagree with or dislike the others' conclusions, but in reality scriptural exegesis (and sermonizing, for that matter) is basically a lot of proof texting.

[Bobbieaware]

Well, it's not quite the same issue, but I also believe the BOM to be a completely human production, most likely composed by Joseph Smith in an attempt to channel what he thought was authentic Native American history, through the lens of his own 19th century perspectives. I also view it as scripture.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, but if you want to discuss it further I'd be open to doing so in a new thread.

That's OK. It appears you've discovered a compromise position that hovers somewhere between beief and unbelief.

A question: do you believe the church would be better off if all the members, including the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, believed the as you do that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction with no basis at all in historical reality, or if all the members took the Book of Mormon at its own solemn word that it is an authentic spiritually-centered history of a real ancient American people who lived and died on p,ante earth?

[Gray]

That's OK. It appears you've discovered a compromise position that hovers somewhere between beief and unbelief.

A question: do you believe the church would be better off if all the members, including the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, believed the as you do that the Book of Mormon is a work of fiction with no basis at all in historical reality, or if all the members took the Book of Mormon at its own solemn word that it is an authentic spiritually-centered history of a real ancient American people who lived and died on p,ante earth?

 

Well, I don't really think historicity is all that important of an issue. History books are fairly good at passing on historical facts, but they have no spiritual value. Any meaning we get from scripture has to go beyond just the plot of the narrative anyway, in which case we've already left historicity behind and now we're dealing with scripture instead. 

 

I think there's some value in that perspective, but I can't say whether or not everyone would be better off with it. 

[Bobbieaware]

I don't see the problem as simply academic snobbery.   There's a lot of swirling issues at stake in the production of Mormon academic material.  I've produced my own output and can see the tussles and the polarization that goes on with an analytic approach to Mormon History.

 

For purposes of this thread, my only contribution has been to point out that the "proof-texting" seen in LDS Manuals of Psalm 82 is probably the result of a long LDS tradition based upon a Joseph Smith sermon, which Smac does not mention.  Further, we often accuse others of proof-texting if we disagree with or dislike the others' conclusions, but in reality scriptural exegesis (and sermonizing, for that matter) is basically a lot of proof texting.

Greetings, Bob: While I do agree with the conclusions reached in brother McClellen's article, I do see the many potential dangers lurking within a strongly-emphasized scholarly approach to Mormonism. The scholars of the church must always be careful to cultivate a deep humility in light of the incontrovertible fact that the great founding truths of this dispensation were received and presented to the world by an inigmatic, barely educated farm boy who is the very antithesis of the venerated scholar with a dedicated room filled with diplomas and a cascade of academic honors. As I tried to argue in my earlier posts on this thread, whether the LDS academics like it or not, the scriptures repeatedly teach us that personal revelation from God is the primary and most reliable way to uncover and learn the great saving truths of the gospel. Like Jacob said, it's great and advantageous to be learned so long as the learned has got his priorities straight and put first things first by enshrining the principle of revelation from heaven as the most important and indispensable element of his educational background and his continued search for truth.

[Bobbieaware]

Well, I don't really think historicity is all that important of an issue. History books are fairly good at passing on historical facts, but they have no spiritual value. Any meaning we get from scripture has to go beyond just the plot of the narrative anyway, in which case we've already left historicity behind and now we're dealing with scripture instead. 

 

I think there's some value in that perspective, but I can't say whether or not everyone would be better off with it.

Is it possible for the scriptural accounts of the atoning sacrifice of Christ in the garden and on the cross to also be fictional but still be of value? And do you believe it's possible for the general resurrection of all the dead into immortality and heavenly glory to also be a fiction and still be of some value?

[Bob Crockett]

Greetings, Bob: While I do agree with the conclusions reached in brother McClellen's article, I do see the many potential dangers lurking within a strongly-emphasized scholarly approach to Mormonism. The scholars of the church must always be careful to cultivate a deep humility in light of the incontrovertible fact that the great founding truths of this dispensation were received and presented to the world by an inigmatic, barely educated farm boy who is the very antithesis of the venerated scholar with a dedicated room filled with diplomas and a cascade of academic honors. As I tried to argue in my earlier posts on this thread, whether the LDS academics like it or not, the scriptures repeatedly teach us that personal revelation from God is the primary and most reliable way to uncover and learn the great saving truths of the gospel. Like Jacob said, it's great and advantageous to be learned so long as the learned has got his priorities straight and put first things first by enshrining the principle of revelation from heaven as the most important and indispensable element of his educational background and his continued search for truth.

I see the LDS scholarship issue completely differently.  

 

Scholars of Mormon studies need not be LDS, so they don't have to be humble.  They, in and out of the church, don't have to acknowledge the incontrovertible truth of the restoration.  The type of output we see in Mormon studies programs, including mormoninterpreter, to some extent, doesn't need to be based on faith or faithful study.  A Mormon studies scholar is entitled to rely on secular means to analyze the Church, its teachings and history.

 

But it is a big mistake not to acknowledge the effect upon LDS "theology" of modern revelation.  One cannot easily explain away Church manuals as "proof-texting" if Joseph Smith did the "proof-texting."  Sure, an LDS scholar can disagree with the "proof-texting," but one publishing a paper ought to at least acknowledge Joseph Smith's proof-texting.

[Bobbieaware]

I see the LDS scholarship issue completely differently.

Scholars of Mormon studies need not be LDS, so they don't have to be humble. They, in and out of the church, don't have to acknowledge the incontrovertible truth of the restoration. The type of output we see in Mormon studies programs, including mormoninterpreter, to some extent, doesn't need to be based on faith or faithful study. A Mormon studies scholar is entitled to rely on secular means to analyze the Church, its teachings and history.

But it is a big mistake not to acknowledge the effect upon LDS "theology" of modern revelation. One cannot easily explain away Church manuals as "proof-texting" if Joseph Smith did the "proof-texting." Sure, an LDS scholar can disagree with the "proof-texting," but one publishing a paper ought to at least acknowledge Joseph Smith's proof-texting.

It's true scholars of things LDS can do and be anything they want to do and be. But my point is that, at least according to the scriptures, if they also want to be exalted in the celestial kingdom they must live according to the disciplines of the gospel and not just the disciplines of their chosen fields of academic endeavor. If the gospel is true, then LDS scholarship without eventual eternal glory is indeed a most empty and pathetic proposition.

But if I understand your underlying point, you seem to be saying stay away from scholars and stay true to the duly authorized servants if the Lotd if you want to stay on the strait and narrow. For by default, whether the scholars of Mormonism be LDS or non-LDS, the very nature of their discipline and tools of methodology render them unreliable guides. But I'm sure you'll correct me Bob, for it's a,ways difficult for me to fathom what's going on in your unique mind of yours.

Edited May 19, 2015 by Bobbieaware