ex nihilo creation and other aspects of Josephs theology

[kryoung1983]

For those who have read the King Folett Discourse which is probably Joseph Smith's most controversial sermons, he addresses the nature of God, the nature of man, and his views of the correct biblical interpretation. It is obvious that many of his statements are heavily supported by biblical scholarship, even if said scholars wouldn't accept him as a prophet.

1. He rejected creation ex nihilo and taught creation from pre existent matter and said the Bible taught this.

2. Taught that there was a divine council of the gods and this is taught in the bible.

3. We need to learn to be Gods ourselves by becoming part of said council.

4. And heavily conceptualizes this in the framework of the creation, and our part in it. Or at least alludes to this in my opinion, based off the structure of the speech. Becoming part of the council in the ancient near east seems to be about participating in the creation, and becoming a member of the divine assembly.

It appears Josephs speech mirrors the ideas and thinking of the ancient near east in a very detailed way.

Obviously we can't go into temple content, but it seems pretty obvious that most of biblical scholarship supports the importance of the creation in the ancient near east, the importance of the divine council, supports his views on creation, and also the importance of how this is conceptualized as an ascent. I think that is pretty obvious by anyone who has read the ritualistic ceremonies of say Egypt or Mesopotamia. Correct me if I am wrong on this. I am not a biblical scholar. But how thoroughly do you think these four aspects of the ancient near east are supported by biblical scholarship. Majority view? Minority view?

And also to play devils advocate...where could Joseph Smith have gotten his ideas if he wasn't a prophet. Was there anyone else in the 1800s that had similar ideas? Were there other theologians in the 18oos that argued against ex nihilo creation? I am just curious, if his ideas had any support from contemporaries of the time period who were not Mormon. Personally I think his ideas in the King Follett sermon show him to be a prophet, since many of them have been supported by biblical scholarship.

[Five Solas]

You use the phrase "supported by biblical scholarship" in your opening paragraph and you use it again in your closing.  In my view, you're much mistaken--but I'll take correction.  Do you have some examples to back it up?  Regarding the origin of Joseph Smith's ideas, I'm not aware any of them were truly novel.  Arianism, for example, is a heresy that dates back to the 4th century and denies the Trinity.  The Joseph Smith/LDS view of Jesus sounds more than a little like what Arius invented.  (If you're unfamiliar, let Google be your friend.)  And for an example closer to the contemporary, fast forward 14 centuries from Arius to Emanuel Swedenborg--and again you're likely to find some of it familiar.

But even if some of Joseph Smith's ideas were truly unique--do you think novelty is the criteria to be a prophet?  

--Erik

 

[RevTestament]

I believe these 4 ideas are definitely the minority view of Christian Biblical scholarship - by far. 

At least since the time of the Nicene Creed the vast majority of biblical scholarship has headed in the opposite direction of each of these 4 views. 

Where could Joseph gotten these ideas? I really don't know. The Kabbalah, might have some of them.

Other than that, I would say he was given these ideas because he was being shown the oracles of God.

R they supported by the biblical text itself? I believe so. Genesis says God formed the earth when His spirit moved upon "the waters." What waters? Where does it say He created them? The text is most compatible with the idea that God formed the earth by organizing it from "the waters." I don't find it inconsistent with the scientific view at all. That once the earth began to form that light began to shine on it when the Sun was formed, etc. Indeed it says that life was first created in the sea...just like science does. 

The creation days are said to be "the generations of the earth when it was created." 

As to how much role we played in the creation... I would say very little since we were all limited spirits. However, it is possible some of us played a role in organizing things under Christ by whom all things were made.

[kryoung1983]

For me his ideas are far removed from Arianism. I have studied Arianism, but I haven't taken a look at it in a very long time. The only similarity seems to be that Arius believed Christ was a created being. And some of the aspects of Emanuel Swedenborg don't have as much similarity as some people stress. There are several things that I think are supported. For one creation as imposing matter on Chaos, creation that is viewed as ordering, is something that is pretty proven. Jon Levenson wrote an entire book about it. Its entitled creation and the persistence of evil. He teaches at Harvard, and the book was published by Princeton press. He pretty much proves the first point by Joseph Smith pretty strongly. He also talks about the divine council in the ancient near east, and its relationship to the creative act. That is all pretty standard fare because of the research of Ugaritic. In terms of ritualistically becoming a part of the council I think that is pretty obvious if you look at any of the cultic elements in these ancient civilizations. I know David bokovoy has addressed this. For instance you have Isaiah having his lips purged with a burning coal, which is similar to what happened in Akkadian sources with the priest having coal resin wiped on his lips and then he received the word of the God. If I remember accurately most ancient near eastern societies had a ceremony where the initiate becomes a member of the assembly. It was usually associated with kingship such as pharaoh becoming one with Ra, and was tied to the creation. I don't know how much my last point is stressed by biblical scholars though. Since I am very much not trained in this field I will obviously take correction if I get something wrong in the technical details. For me it isn't just that Joseph Smiths ideas were a novelty but that they fit in so well with what we know about the ancient near east. Like how they viewed creation.  

[kryoung1983]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe these 4 ideas are definitely the minority view of Christian Biblical scholarship - by far. 

At least since the time of the Nicene Creed the vast majority of biblical scholarship has headed in the opposite direction of each of these 4 views. 

Where could Joseph gotten these ideas? I really don't know. The Kabbalah, might have some of them.

Other than that, I would say he was given these ideas because he was being shown the oracles of God.

R they supported by the biblical text itself? I believe so. Genesis says God formed the earth when His spirit moved upon "the waters." What waters? Where does it say He created them? The text is most compatible with the idea that God formed the earth by organizing it from "the waters." I don't find it inconsistent with the scientific view at all. That once the earth began to form that light began to shine on it when the Sun was formed, etc. Indeed it says that life was first created in the sea...just like science does. 

The creation days are said to be "the generations of the earth when it was created." 

As to how much role we played in the creation... I would say very little since we were all limited spirits. However, it is possible some of us played a role in organizing things under Christ by whom all things were made.

I have always had the impression that the Ugaritic discoveries have increased the role of the divine council in biblical studies. It also appears that Joseph Smiths views on creation are now the mainstream view, of at least higher criticism.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, kryoung1983 said:

For those who have read the King Folett Discourse which is probably Joseph Smith's most controversial sermons, he addresses the nature of God, the nature of man, and his views of the correct biblical interpretation. It is obvious that many of his statements are heavily supported by biblical scholarship, even if said scholars wouldn't accept him as a prophet.

1. He rejected creation ex nihilo and taught creation from pre existent matter and said the Bible taught this.

2. Taught that there was a divine council of the gods and this is taught in the bible.

3. We need to learn to be Gods ourselves by becoming part of said council.

4. And heavily conceptualizes this in the framework of the creation, and our part in it. Or at least alludes to this in my opinion, based off the structure of the speech. Becoming part of the council in the ancient near east seems to be about participating in the creation, and becoming a member of the divine assembly.

It appears Josephs speech mirrors the ideas and thinking of the ancient near east in a very detailed way.

Obviously we can't go into temple content, but it seems pretty obvious that most of biblical scholarship supports the importance of the creation in the ancient near east, the importance of the divine council, supports his views on creation, and also the importance of how this is conceptualized as an ascent. I think that is pretty obvious by anyone who has read the ritualistic ceremonies of say Egypt or Mesopotamia. Correct me if I am wrong on this. I am not a biblical scholar. But how thoroughly do you think these four aspects of the ancient near east are supported by biblical scholarship. Majority view? Minority view?

And also to play devils advocate...where could Joseph Smith have gotten his ideas if he wasn't a prophet. Was there anyone else in the 1800s that had similar ideas? Were there other theologians in the 18oos that argued against ex nihilo creation? I am just curious, if his ideas had any support from contemporaries of the time period who were not Mormon. Personally I think his ideas in the King Follett sermon show him to be a prophet, since many of them have been supported by biblical scholarship.

Agree 

Remember also though Joseph as a prophet had portions of the bible "re-revealed" and corrected errors in the bible

For me, King Follette  is as much revelation as the bible is, standing on its own.   I don't care if it agrees or disagrees with nuances of the bible.

So yes I agree with you fully, I would just suggest that it is irrelevant as to whether or not it agrees with the bible.

The bible is just one of many many "scriptures" in world religions.  The question is why we should accept any of them, and for me the answer to that is testimony.

 

[kryoung1983]

I see that as a pretty valid point. He did correct errors. But the divine council has been pretty heavily proven in the scriptures. I am sure it would be even more apparent if I knew Hebrew. I think the Ugaritic discoveries of the 1920s have proven his points pretty strongly. I was just curious if any of his points were being argued by contemporaries. I was especially interested in whether the rejection of ex nihilo creation was something that was being argued by others besides him. Or if that came later as we came to understand the ancient near east beliefs more fully.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, kryoung1983 said:

I see that as a pretty valid point. He did correct errors. But the divine council has been pretty heavily proven in the scriptures. I am sure it would be even more apparent if I knew Hebrew. I think the Ugaritic discoveries of the 1920s have proven his points pretty strongly. I was just curious if any of his points were being argued by contemporaries. I was especially interested in whether the rejection of ex nihilo creation was something that was being argued by others besides him. Or if that came later as we came to understand the ancient near east beliefs more fully.

Philosophically he was leading the pack toward Pragmatism and Phenomenology by 50 years, but was a bit behind Kant in understanding that the human mind organizes reality.

Hume also attacked the idea of a First Cause- which is a necessary assumption behind ex nihilo.  So philosophically these ideas were definitely in the air in the 17th and 18th centuries.  And again, as has been mentioned, there was Swedenborg who had many similar ideas, yet they were framed within a classical Christian philosophy based on Catholic scholasticism.

I am now speaking of God as a "human"- an exalted and perfect Human infinitely above us but a human nevertheless.  We as gods in embryo share in his divine nature. This also shows up in the American frontier spirit where one goes out and creates a homestead out of nothing but "raw nature"

He had the spirit of American pragmatism, common on the American Frontier.

But putting it all together in a religious context, I am convinced, could not have been possible through human agency alone.  The temple ordinances, and yes I have studied masonry, could not have been invented by a human mind.

[volgadon]

The first two points absolutely are majority positions.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I believe these 4 ideas are definitely the minority view of Christian Biblical scholarship - by far. 

At least since the time of the Nicene Creed the vast majority of biblical scholarship has headed in the opposite direction of each of these 4 views. 

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

Well, a minority in evangelical Bible scholarship rejects those four ideas, but that is only because they refuse to accept standard biblical scholarship.  They are too wedded to the traditional confessions of faith.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, kryoung1983 said:

For those who have read the King Folett Discourse which is probably Joseph Smith's most controversial sermons, he addresses the nature of God, the nature of man, and his views of the correct biblical interpretation. It is obvious that many of his statements are heavily supported by biblical scholarship, even if said scholars wouldn't accept him as a prophet.

1. He rejected creation ex nihilo and taught creation from pre existent matter and said the Bible taught this.

2. Taught that there was a divine council of the gods and this is taught in the bible.

3. We need to learn to be Gods ourselves by becoming part of said council.

4. And heavily conceptualizes this in the framework of the creation, and our part in it. Or at least alludes to this in my opinion, based off the structure of the speech. Becoming part of the council in the ancient near east seems to be about participating in the creation, and becoming a member of the divine assembly.

It appears Josephs speech mirrors the ideas and thinking of the ancient near east in a very detailed way.

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

Of course, you are correct:

1.  See Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 2nd ed. (Univ. of Chicago, 1951); E. A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible 1 (Doubleday, 1964).

2.  See Michael Heiser, "The Divine Council," in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry & Writings, eds. Tremper Longman III and Peter Enns (Downers Grove, IL; Nottingham, England: IVP Academic; Inter-Varsity Press, 2008), 112. online at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/HeiserIVPDC.pdf .

3 & 4.   Non-Mormon scholar Ernst Benz has said of the Mormon doctrine of apotheosis (godhood), that 

Quote

Regardless of how one feels about the doctrine of progressive deification, one thing is certain: Joseph Smith=s anthropology of man is closer to the concept of man in the primitive church than that of the proponents of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin, who considered the idea of such a fundamental and corporeal relationship between God and man as the quintessential heresy.  "Imagio Dei: Man in the Image of God," in T. Madsen, ed., Reflections on Mormonism (Provo, 1978), 201-219.

It is clear to the majority of biblical scholars that Gen 1-3 is a temple story and ritual, basically the same as that performed as Enuma elish annually at the Esagila temple in Babylon.  See John H. Walton, Genesis 1 as Ancient Cosmology (Eisenbrauns, 2011), and his video:
  

.

[halconero]

11 hours ago, volgadon said:

The first two points absolutely are majority positions.

Yup. Was about to say this. I'm cranky and tired from late night baby sitting, so I'll post sources later, but the first two points have wide acceptance among non-church-based biblical scholars.

Also, the idea that Arianism and Joseph Smith's theology are similar beyond a surface level (and I'd argue against even that) is demonstrative of a misunderstanding of both.

[Nevo]

16 hours ago, kryoung1983 said:

Was there anyone else in the 1800s that had similar ideas? Were there other theologians in the 18oos that argued against ex nihilo creation? I am just curious, if his ideas had any support from contemporaries of the time period who were not Mormon.

"Creation ex nihilo, so long the bedrock of Christian belief, was being called into question by scientists and churchmen alike, with the dawn of the nineteenth century. . . . So when Joseph Smith declared in 1833 that 'the elements are eternal' and that creation was always recombination, he was not alone in challenging centuries of Christian cosmology" (Terryl L. Givens, Wrestling the Angel, vol. 1, The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity [New York: Oxford University Press, 2015], 54–55).
 

[Calm]

 

7 hours ago, halconero said:

I'm cranky and tired from late night baby sitting

Point for babysitting...don't really care about the discussion.  

 

(Just teasing kryoung)

[Five Solas]

The evidence of "widespread acceptance" and "majority positions" for the rejection of Creation Ex Nihilo...  Forgive me, gentlemen, but it looks a little thin (a handful of books and authors scattered across several decades very few have heard of, let alone read). 

How about one example of one leader of a contemporary Christian church or denomination (be it Protestant or Catholic) who agrees with Joseph Smith?  Needs to lead a real congregation(s) and have a published statement of belief that includes a commitment to the Bible as God's revealed word.  Not too much to ask, right?  Thanks in advance!

;0)

--Erik 

 

[volgadon]

16 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

The evidence of "widespread acceptance" and "majority positions" for the rejection of Creation Ex Nihilo...  Forgive me, gentlemen, but it looks a little thin (a handful of books and authors scattered across several decades very few have heard of, let alone read). 

How about one example of one leader of a contemporary Christian church or denomination (be it Protestant or Catholic) who agrees with Joseph Smith?  Needs to lead a real congregation(s) and have a published statement of belief that includes a commitment to the Bible as God's revealed word.  Not too much to ask, right?  Thanks in advance!

;0)

--Erik 

 

Few lay readers have heard of most academic authors. Really has nothing to do with the strength of their arguments. I'll be happy to provide a bibliography of credible sources showing that the Christian belief in creatio ex nihilo postdates the Bible by a good many years.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

The evidence of "widespread acceptance" and "majority positions" for the rejection of Creation Ex Nihilo...  Forgive me, gentlemen, but it looks a little thin (a handful of books and authors scattered across several decades very few have heard of, let alone read). 

How about one example of one leader of a contemporary Christian church or denomination (be it Protestant or Catholic) who agrees with Joseph Smith?  Needs to lead a real congregation(s) and have a published statement of belief that includes a commitment to the Bible as God's revealed word.  Not too much to ask, right?  Thanks in advance!

;0)

--Erik 

Sorry Erik, but, as I said, the majority of biblical scholars support all four positions cited.  Most evangelicals do not.  No surprise at all there, although you might want to watch this video in which evangelical Peter Enns interviews Anglican Bishop Tom Wright:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxQpFosrTUk .

Of course, I already gave you the book and video of evangelical John Walton.  Even serious evangelical scholars now accept all four of the positions cited.  You need to get with the program, Erik.  That you do not even know the names of these prominent evangelicals (Enns and Walton), is part of your problem.

Jeff Morrow of Seton Hall says:

Quote

Genesis 1-3, in its account of creation, presents the cosmos as one large temple, the Garden of Eden as the Holy of Holies, and the human person as made for worship. The very content and structure of Genesis 1-3 is in a very real sense liturgical; the seventh day is creation’s high point.  The Journal of OCABS, 2/1 [2009]:1-13, online at http://www.ocabs.org/journal/index.php/jocabs/article/viewFile/43/18 .

I gave only a few examples of this majority view, but you can discover many more by looking at the footnotes of those I have cited.

[Five Solas]

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound, volgadon?

[volgadon]

11 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound, volgadon?

If a tree falls in a forest, but you insist on wearing earplugs, does it make a sound?

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, volgadon said:

If a tree falls in a forest, but you insist on wearing earplugs, does it make a sound?

Or what if it's like, Thursday, and it falls and hits you in the head and then you get a concussion and get amnesia and you wake up in the hospital , like next Wednesday and nobody knows what happened,  did it really like, happen??

Or what if the whole world just appeared one day but nobody was there because there were no people, so like nobody saw it, but then some other guys said that it happened that way, and like pretended God said it, and so nobody knows, then did it like really happen?

And then somebody else says that more guys said it happened like that but still nobody saw it, does it matter how many guys that didn't see it, said it happened?

[kryoung1983]

3 hours ago, Five Solas said:

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound, volgadon?

Seems like a random thing to say. The book I mentioned is pretty reputable. It was published by Princeton University Press. And I know Jon Levenson is not in the minority in terms of his stance on the issue. He builds a solid case that certain chapters like Isaiah 51, psalms 82, and psalms 89 to name a few use imagery from surrounding cultures. In particular there is a lot of cross over between the imagery from Ugaritic sources and what is found in the bible. I have the book so I quote large portions of it if you would like to see his arguments. I am very much a layperson but I did read an article once about the similarities between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian texts, specifically the coffin texts in particular. So I think with the genesis account it is more similar to the Egyptian sources, where some of the other chapters show more of an Ugaritic influence. But that is just my opinion, as someone that doesn't have any specialized training.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/14/2016 at 6:51 PM, kryoung1983 said:

I have always had the impression that the Ugaritic discoveries have increased the role of the divine council in biblical studies. It also appears that Joseph Smiths views on creation are now the mainstream view, of at least higher criticism.

You are correct, and the best sources on that are as follows:

Loren R. Fisher and Stan Rummel, eds.,  Ras Shamra Parallels: The Texts from Ugarit and the Hebrew Bible, AnOr 49-51 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1972-1981).

Gregorio del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit, 2^nd ed., trans. W. G. E. Watson, AOAT 408 (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2014).

B. Margulis, "Weltbaum and Weltberg in Ugaritic Literature," ZAW, 86 (1974):1-23.

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature, Harvard Semitic Monograph 24 (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980).

E. Theodore Mullen, Jr., "Divine Assembly," in D. N. Freedman, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary, II:214-217.

Conrad E. L'Heureux, Rank Among the Canaanite Gods: El, Ba’al, and the Rephaim, Harvard Semitic Monographs 21 (Scholars Press, 1979).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/15/2016 at 2:23 AM, kryoung1983 said:

Seems like a random thing to say. The book I mentioned is pretty reputable. It was published by Princeton University Press. And I know Jon Levenson is not in the minority in terms of his stance on the issue. He builds a solid case that certain chapters like Isaiah 51, psalms 82, and psalms 89 to name a few use imagery from surrounding cultures. In particular there is a lot of cross over between the imagery from Ugaritic sources and what is found in the bible. I have the book so I quote large portions of it if you would like to see his arguments. I am very much a layperson but I did read an article once about the similarities between Genesis 1 and the Egyptian texts, specifically the coffin texts in particular. So I think with the genesis account it is more similar to the Egyptian sources, where some of the other chapters show more of an Ugaritic influence. But that is just my opinion, as someone that doesn't have any specialized training.

Genesis 1 has far more in common with the annual Babylonian Akitu-festival in which Enuma elish was recited -- a creation account which had the same items created in the very same order as in Gen 1, and from pre-existent materials, as in Gen 1 also.  I already cited Heidel and Speiser for you on that.

[kryoung1983]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Genesis 1 has far more in common with the annual Babylonian Akitu-festival in which Enuma elish was recited -- a creation account which had the same items created in the very same order as in Gen 1, and from pre-existent materials, as in Gen 1 also.  I already cited Heidel and Speiser for you on that.

I will have to look into their arguments. I don't have any awareness of the languages involved so I can't make a call on the technical details that authors bring up in many cases. I know that those that argue for the Egyptian connection, their major point is that in Genesis 1 there is no conflict between God and the waters, where that kind of imagery is invoked later in some of the psalms and Isaiah if I am remembering correctly. There is also an interesting insight made by James K Hoffmeir in "Some thoughts on Genesis 1 and 2 and Egyptian Cosmology."

"In Genesis 1:1 bereshit the word used to describe the 'beginning' of God creative activity, the root is ros which literally means 'head' the Egyptian expression used to refer to primeval time or beginning." I know he is not implying what Joseph implied because he is talking about the creative process, and not the divine council, but the connection to Genesis 1:1 is interesting. I will have to read the sources that you provided.

[Vance]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 10:02 PM, Five Solas said:

The evidence of "widespread acceptance" and "majority positions" for the rejection of Creation Ex Nihilo...  Forgive me, gentlemen, but it looks a little thin (a handful of books and authors scattered across several decades very few have heard of, let alone read). 

 

 

Ok, so either there are not many evangelical scholars or you are just unaware of them.  Or both.  Either way, it doesn't look good for you.

 

Quote

How about one example of one leader of a contemporary Christian church or denomination (be it Protestant or Catholic) who agrees with Joseph Smith? 

It was "scholars" and "scholarship" that was said, NOT a "leader of a contemporary Christian church or denomination".  There is a HUGE difference.