Harold Bloom: What Joseph Smith restored was "truly a Biblical religion."

[Saint Bonaventure]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

My inclination is that we just need to follow our own hearts to find what the Lord has in mind for each of us.

That sounds consistent with what I know of your overall perspective.

Jeremiah 17 has a classic warning about following one's heart, but you're no doubt aware of it.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's more like finding your own vocation or niche than finding "universal truth".

I can understand that perspective. The way I view things, though, vocation is rooted in universal truth.

[Eschaton]

14 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

It'd be more precise to say, Joseph Smith restored the "Yahwist" religion.

“Smith’s insights could have come only from a remarkably apt reading of the Bible, and there I would locate the secret of his religious genius. …So strong was this act of reading that it broke through all the orthodoxies—Protestant, Catholic, Judaic—and found its way back to elements that Smith rightly intuited had been censored out of the stories of the archaic Jewish religion. Smith’s radical sense of the theomorphic patriarchs and anthropomorphic gods is an authentic return to J, or the Yahwist, the Bible’s first author."

-Harold Bloom 

Well, he restored selectively a few bits and pieces of it and grafted it on to his mostly protestant framework, and added his own innovations as well. Probably the biggest J influence is the anthropomorphism of God in Mormonism. 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Eschaton

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Well, he restored selectively a few bits and pieces of it and grafted it on to his mostly protestant framework, and added his own innovations as well. Probably the biggest J influence is the anthropomorphism of God in Mormonism. 

Anthropomorphic God and theomorphic patriarchs. And as a result, closer than anyone else.

[CA Steve]

We should change our name to:

"The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day J Sources."

[Eschaton]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Anthropomorphic God and theomorphic patriarchs. And as a result, closer than anyone else.

Still not very close though. I mean it really wouldn't work in the modern world anyway - it was based on ancient worldviews and cultural practices that just don't exist anymore. 

[Hamilton Porter]

17 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Still not very close though. I mean it really wouldn't work in the modern world anyway - it was based on ancient worldviews and cultural practices that just don't exist anymore. 

As close as possible given the constraint you mentioned.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 5/14/2023 at 4:35 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

While one group of scholars is of the opinion that the word refers to people, in particular to human judges, another group contends that the reference here is to gods.

On 5/11/2023 at 3:52 PM, Navidad said:

Eerdmans is a fascinating press. Located in the epicenter of Christian publishing, it has managed to be considered conservative, moderate, and mainstream by leading pundits of each. That is not an easy thing to accomplish.  If I see a book is published by Eerdmans, I am inclined to believe I will find something thoughtful and intellectually stimulating whether conservative, moderate, or mainstream

That's why. Eerdmans is Christian and this includes conservatives, moderates, AND mainstream. Look up HarperCollins or Oxford and you'll get something totally different.

[Saint Bonaventure]

Maybe someone can help me understand how Latter-day Saints might fit Psalm 82 into their beliefs?

[Eschaton]

4 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Maybe someone can help me understand how Latter-day Saints might fit Psalm 82 into their beliefs?

I'm not sure how it would work with LDS theology. I mean it supports the general idea that there are gods other than the Yahweh, the god of Israel (and really, God having a name implies that he's not the only god - if there's only one God he doesn't need a name to distinguish himself from other gods). But Psalm 82 is also about how the other gods are inferior, unjust, and will be overthrown or even killed. In LDS theology other gods are righteous, not wicked.

In general, not much of the content from the Hebrew Bible really works in support of any Christian religious movement, Mormon or otherwise. That's why there's the long tradition of reinterpreting the Hebrew Bible to serve as a prooftext for other agendas. 

[Hamilton Porter]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Maybe someone can help me understand how Latter-day Saints might fit Psalm 82 into their beliefs?

Dan Mclellan gave an SBL presentation on LDS use of Psalm 82. I haven't read this one.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/psalm-82-in-contemporary-latter-day-saint-tradition/

Edited May 19, 2023 by Hamilton Porter

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

In LDS theology other gods are righteous, not wicked.

There's nothing in LDS theology that says that has to be so. For example, Satan.

[Eschaton]

22 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

There's nothing in LDS theology that says that has to be so. For example, Satan.

Satan didn't achieve godhood in LDS theology. Per the Book of Mormon, if God ceases to follow law he ceases to be God. 

[Hamilton Porter]

13 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

Satan didn't achieve godhood in LDS theology. Per the Book of Mormon, if God ceases to follow law he ceases to be God. 

There are different kinds of "gods." Satan is undoubtedly a divine being.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Hamilton Porter
kinds not kids

[Eschaton]

52 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

There are different kinds of "gods." Satan is undoubtedly a divine being.

I mean angels aren't even a different class of being in LDS theology, they're just people who have the job of being a messenger of God. Satan was divine only the same sense that you or I are divine. I'm not aware of any LDS teaching that says Satan was a god of any kind. 

[InCognitus]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Maybe someone can help me understand how Latter-day Saints might fit Psalm 82 into their beliefs?

Psalm 82 was quoted a lot in early Christian teachings too.

[Saint Bonaventure]

19 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Psalm 82 was quoted a lot in early Christian teachings too.

Indeed. Some of those quotes might be worth exploring.

[Saint Bonaventure]

 

 

Here's Augustine on just Psalm 82:1-2:

Quote

 

1. This Psalm, like others similarly named, was so entitled either from the name of the man who wrote it, or from the explanation of that same name, so as to refer in meaning to the Synagogue, which Asaph signifies; especially as this is intimated in the first verse. For it begins, “God stood in the synagogue of gods” (ver. 1). Far however be it from us to understand by these Gods the gods of the Gentiles, or idols, or any creature in heaven or earth except men; for a little after this verse the same Psalm relates and explains what Gods it means in whose synagogue God stood, where it says, “I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are all the children of the Most High: but ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.” In the synagogue of these children of the Most High, of whom the same Most High said by the mouth of Isaiah, “I have begotten sons and brought them up, but they despised Me,” stood God. By the synagogue we understand the people of Israel, because synagogue is the word properly used of them, although they were also called the Church. Our congregation, on the contrary, the Apostles never called synagogue, but always Ecclesia; whether for the sake of the distinction, or because there is some difference between a congregation whence the synagogue has its name, and a convocation whence the Church is called Ecclesia: for the word congregation (or flocking together) is used of cattle, and particularly of that kind properly called “flocks,”8 whereas convocation (or calling together) is more of reasonable creatures, such as men are.… I think then that it is clear in what synagogue of gods God stood.

2. The next question is, whether we should understand the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity, “to have stood among the congregation of gods, and in the midst to distinguish the gods;” because Each One is God, and the Trinity itself is One God. It is not indeed easy to make this clear, because it cannot be denied that not a bodily but a spiritual presence of God, agreeable to His nature, exists with created things in a wonderful manner, and one which but a few do understand, and that imperfectly: as to God it is said, “If I shall ascend into heaven, Thou art there; if I shall go down into hell, Thou art there also.” Hence it is rightly said, that God stands in the congregation of men invisibly, as He fills heaven and earth, which He asserts of Himself by the Prophet’s mouth;10 and He is not only said, but is, in a way, known to stand in those things which He hath created, as far as the human mind can conceive, if man also stands and hears Him, and rejoices greatly on account of His voice within. But I think that the Psalm intimates something that took place at a particular time, by God’s standing in the congregation of gods. For that standing by which He fills heaven and earth, neither belongs peculiarly to the synagogue, nor varies from time to time. “God,” therefore, “stood in the congregation of gods;” that is, He who said of Himself, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” The cause too is mentioned; “but in the midst, to judge of the gods.” …

Augustine of Hippo, “Expositions on the Book of Psalms,” in Saint Augustin: Expositions on the Book of Psalms, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 8, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888), 395–396.

 

I'll read the Dan Mclellan article that was shared above. I'm open to a wide range of LDS perspectives on this Psalm, as I've mostly thought of the passage in terms of Augustine's exposition, and within the larger narrative of angels/messengers/sons of God in the Old Testament.

[Hamilton Porter]

On 5/19/2023 at 1:58 PM, Eschaton said:

I mean angels aren't even a different class of being in LDS theology, they're just people who have the job of being a messenger of God. Satan was divine only the same sense that you or I are divine. I'm not aware of any LDS teaching that says Satan was a god of any kind. 

In the beginning of Moses 4 he appears to have started on equal footing with Jesus.

[InCognitus]

13 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

In the beginning of Moses 4 he appears to have started on equal footing with Jesus.

I don't read Moses 4 that way.  I get the following from Moses 4:  Jesus is the "Only Begotten" (verse 1) and the "Beloved and Chosen from the beginning" (verse 2), and Satan was also there in the beginning (but not the Beloved and Chosen from the beginning) and tried to offer a different plan.  Elsewhere Jesus is called the "firstborn", and consequently Satan wouldn't have been on equal footing with him in that way, but he was definitely there with him in the beginning. 

Even the early Christians had similar views.  Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD), an early Christian apologist and historian, put it this way:

Quote

Since God was possessed of the greatest foresight for planning, and of the greatest skill for carrying out in action, before He commenced this business of the world, -- in asmuch as there was in Him, and always is, the fountain of full and most complete goodness, -- in order that goodness might spring as a stream from Him, and might flow forth afar, He produced a Spirit like to Himself, who might be endowed with the perfections of God the Father.  But how He willed that, I will endeavour to show in the forth book.  Then He made another being, in whom the disposition of the divine origin did not remain.  Therefore he was infected with his own envy as with poison, and passed from good to evil; and at his own will, which had been given to him by God unfettered, he acquired for himself a contrary name.  From which it appears that the source of all evils is envy.  For he envied his predecessor, who through his stedfastness is acceptable and dear to God the Father.  This being, who from good became evil by his own act, is called by the Greeks "diabolus": we call him accuser, because he reports to God the faults to which he himself entices us.  God, therefore, when He began the fabric of the world, set over the whole work that first and greatest Son, and used Him at the same time as a counsellor and artificer, in planning, arranging, and accomplishing, since He is complete both in knowledge, and judgment, and power; concerning whom I now speak more sparingly, because in another place both His excellence, and His name, and His nature must be related by us.   (The Divine Institutes, Book II, Chap. IX Lactantius, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol 7, page 52-53)

It can be inferred from Lactantius, that since he referred to Jesus as the "first and greatest Son", that the "diabolus" was also a "son" but not of the same disposition as his elder brother.

[Eschaton]

19 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

In the beginning of Moses 4 he appears to have started on equal footing with Jesus.

I'm not sure what makes you think that? All it says he made a proposal that was shot down, and then he became Satan.

 

Quote

And I, the aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the cbeginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely eI will do it; wherefore fgive me thine honor.

2 But, behold, my Beloved aSon, which was my Beloved and bChosen from the beginning, said unto me—cFather, thy dwill be done, and the eglory be thine forever.

3 Wherefore, because that aSatan brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be dcast down;

4 And he became aSatan, yea, even the bdevil, the father of all clies, to ddeceive and to blind men, and to lead them ecaptive at his will, even as many as would not fhearken unto my voice.

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I don't read Moses 4 that way.  I get the following from Moses 4:  Jesus is the "Only Begotten" (verse 1) and the "Beloved and Chosen from the beginning" (verse 2), and Satan was also there in the beginning (but not the Beloved and Chosen from the beginning) and tried to offer a different plan.  Elsewhere Jesus is called the "firstborn", and consequently Satan wouldn't have been on equal footing with him in that way, but he was definitely there with him in the beginning. 

Even the early Christians had similar views.  Lactantius (c. 240-c 320 AD), an early Christian apologist and historian, put it this way:

It can be inferred from Lactantius, that since he referred to Jesus as the "first and greatest Son", that the "diabolus" was also a "son" but not of the same disposition as his elder brother.

Lactantius is quite a character. A strategist for Constantine and right in the middle of the Arian controversy. He has a notion of creation that is structured with dichotomous pairs--light and darkness, of course, but also warm and cold, etc. I read this very passage last week when we had a few passing comments about creation ex nihilo.

Lactantius believes in creation ex nihilo, including in reference to the passage that you've cited.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Lactantius is quite a character. A strategist for Constantine and right in the middle of the Arian controversy. He has a notion of creation that is structured with dichotomous pairs--light and darkness, of course, but also warm and cold, etc. I read this very passage last week when we had a few passing comments about creation ex nihilo.

Lactantius believes in creation ex nihilo, including in reference to the passage that you've cited.

Yes, the book of Moses doesn't mention the creation ex-nihilo stuff  

Lactantius goes on for a while about creation out of nothing.  And he seems to include Jesus and the "diabolos" in that production too.