Psalm 82 In Contemporary Latter-Day Saint Tradition

[mfbukowski]

And then there is the "Placebo Effect".

 

After all what is that really?  Science hasn't a clue- they write it off as "unexplained psychosomatic healing"

 

For me that is just another way of understanding a miracle. 

[mfbukowski]

What changes your life?   Data or what you think the data means?

 

Do people have "unalienable rights" "really"?   What does that mean?  Where is the history proving that?  Where is the data?

 

Yet the BELIEF that they do, makes all the difference in the world

Edited May 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

 repeat....see below if interested.

Edited May 26, 2015 by 3DOP

[3DOP]

Nevo

Job, Jonah, Daniel (Danel), Esther. All legendary figures. But the books that carry their names still do pretty well as scripture.

 

3DOP

Why stop with the Old Testament? After all, one of the persons who quoted "Jesus" has "Him" claiming that as Jonah (legend) was in the whale three days, so Jesus  would be in the earth. If Jonah didn't spend any time in a fish, it doesn't seem to point to any bodily resurrection of Jesus after three days and nights either. If Jonah's "resurrection" is legendary fiction, then it would seem to follow for Jesus, that if He wasn't another legend, any "resurrection" was deliberately linked with what turns out to be legendary fiction.

 

"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was in the whale' s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here." (Mt. 12:39-41)

 

It would seem that those who tell us about Jesus would even have us believe that Jesus believed that Nineveh repented after Jonah came out of the whale. If the Old Testament isn't history, why would we accept the historicity of the New Testament when it appears to be written by people who thought that the Old was historical? A step further...it seems to me like Joseph Smith might have believed that both Testaments were historical. Maybe he even wanted Mormons to believe that the book of Mormon was historical? It sure doesn't inspire confidence if the "signs" all point to fictional stories that never happened.

Edited May 26, 2015 by 3DOP

[Nevo]

Why stop with the Old Testament? After all, one of the persons who quoted "Jesus" has "Him" claiming that as Jonah (legend) was in the whale three days, so Jesus  would be in the earth. If Jonah didn't spend any time in a fish, it doesn't seem to point to any bodily resurrection of Jesus after three days and nights either. If Jonah's "resurrection" is legendary fiction, then it would seem to follow for Jesus, that if He wasn't another legend, any "resurrection" was deliberately linked with what turns out to be legendary fiction.

 

I readily concede that Jesus was a biblical literalist (as was Joseph Smith). But I also think it's possible that Jesus was mistaken about the prophet Jonah spending three days and three nights in the belly of a sea monster and the entire city of Nineveh repenting as a result of Jonah's preaching. I certainly don't think the reality of Jesus' resurrection from the dead is compromised if a historical Jonah wasn't vomited out onto dry land somewhere in the Levant in the eighth century B.C.

[mfbukowski]

I readily concede that Jesus was a biblical literalist (as was Joseph Smith). But I also think it's possible that Jesus was mistaken about the prophet Jonah spending three days and three nights in the belly of a sea monster and the entire city of Nineveh repenting as a result of Jonah's preaching. I certainly don't think the reality of Jesus' resurrection from the dead is compromised if a historical Jonah wasn't vomited out onto dry land somewhere in the Levant in the eighth century B.C.

This is subject to interpretation.

Notice that Jesus also tells the parables as if they are true stories. In my opinion he knows that what matters are the principles taught.

[Stargazer]

Job, Jonah, Daniel (Danel), Esther. All legendary figures. But the books that carry their names still do pretty well as scripture.

 

So, I gather that you're perfectly happy (and Gray, too) with the Book of Mormon being divine fiction?

[Nevo]

So, I gather that you're perfectly happy (and Gray, too) with the Book of Mormon being divine fiction?

 

No, I wouldn't say I'm "perfectly happy" with that possibility. For one thing, it makes God party to a deception—a pretty big one. If there was no Lehi, or Nephi, no Mormon or Moroni, then, "pious" or not, the Book of Mormon is still a fraud at some level. But whatever its provenance, I don't think there is any question that the Book of Mormon is a force for good. It invites people to come unto Christ and be perfected in him by making and keeping covenants. It changes lives. It has influenced my life and the lives of my family for the better. If the fruit is good, then the tree must be good, right? Whatever else it may be, the book speaks to me as scripture. I find in its pages words of life, truth to live by. And I don't just mean that I find it inspiring in the way I might find some other work of literature inspiring. I mean that I find God in it. It's a holy book to me. That said, I don't consider the case for historicity to be very strong, although I try to keep an open mind on the question.

[Gray]

This is subject to interpretation.

Notice that Jesus also tells the parables as if they are true stories. In my opinion he knows that what matters are the principles taught.

 

Exactly

[Gray]

So, I gather that you're perfectly happy (and Gray, too) with the Book of Mormon being divine fiction?

 

I don't have the a priori assumption that any book or chapter of scripture has a real historical basis. For me that's not really the point of scripture. 

[Gray]

I don't want to derail, either, but I simply cannot keep myself from this comment: Wow, that's a doozy! 

 

If you start a new thread on that I will definitely have a look.

 

Well, I don't have any interest in convincing anyone who believes the BOM to be historical to give up that belief. I'm more interested in the topic of the nature of scripture than the historicity of any particular book.  

[maklelan]

Well, I don't have any interest in convincing anyone who believes the BOM to be historical to give up that belief. I'm more interested in the topic of the nature of scripture than the historicity of any particular book.  

 

Me too. For some, though, this appears to make me a bad Mormon. 

[mfbukowski]

I don't have the a priori assumption that any book or chapter of scripture has a real historical basis. For me that's not really the point of scripture.

Rationally, I hold this position for "Mormon Studies" purposes. But on the other hand I hold as a religious belief, based on testimony, that it is historic.

No one will ever prove it is not, that cannot be done. This new interpretation that BOM peoples lived among known cultures as a subculture makes their existence non falsifiable.

[mfbukowski]

Me too. For some, though, this appears to make me a bad Mormon.

I think the answer is that the truth is unknowable leaving room for both ways of seeing it. No need for the blog feuds on historicity we are seeing

[mfbukowski]

Duplicate

Edited May 26, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Epithets and titles are often used as names, even when they merely indicate the role being played by an entity in the static sense.  When considered diachronically, however, LDS theology might seem to require that different entities carry the same title at different times -- that is what Hugh Nibley thought about YHWH, and I share that view.  I'm not sure that naive LDS folklore on this matter is  helpful.

 

The late W. F. Albright thought it noteworthy that the E and J Psalms could sometimes differ merely on the preference for either El/Elohim or Yahu/Yahweh, and thought it one of the best indicators that the documentary hypothesis has legs.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

How odd, Bob.  The mainstream scholarship I have been reading over the years (since the 1960s) has been very accepting of a plurality of gods, divine council, etc., in ancient Israelite thought.  In fact, I am very surprised that Dan didn't immediately set you aright on that, since he has been reading that same literature more recently.

[Robert F. Smith]

............................................................... .......................

..........revelation will always trump scholarship.

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.............revelation will always trump scholarship.

This is nonsense, Bobbie.  Most non-LDS biblical scholars know next to nothing about the Book of Mormon and have not expressed an opinion on it.

Where have scholars argued that the BoM is "a massive and easily provable hoax"?

 

..............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.

You are setting up a false dilemma here.  Very few scholars know anything about ancient Egypt, and most of the few who do have not studied the BofA and have no scholarly opinion on it.

 

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, ..................................

In Mormon theology, revelation and secular knowledge do not have to be at odds.  Scholarship is not the enemy.

 

..................................... functionally illiterate young Joseph Smith .........................................

Was Joseph "functionally illiterate"?

 

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........................................................

The Law of Opposites is as much a secular as a religious law, and does not indicate that scholarship and religion must be at loggerheads.  The hostility is not inherent, and LDS theology has both dovetailing rather well.

 

It may very well be that you are considering this entire matter from the point of view of normative Christianity, which does indeed have inherent philosophical problems with secular scholarship.  Necessarily so.

[Robert F. Smith]

......................................................  

Historical criticism shouldn't be the enemy of the Latter-day Saints. To paraphrase Joseph Smith, anything that is true is our doctrine. Doesn't matter if its source is science, history, mathematics or revelation. And when it comes to truths that are available through scientific or historical inquiry, revelation is not a substitute for doing our homework. 

Now that is true Mormon theology !!

[mfbukowski]

... naive LDS folklore ....

OOOOO

 

Me likey that phrase.