Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Revisiting "ye are gods"


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

In Psalm 82, do you think God calling those divine beings "gods" is blasphemy?  The scripture says what it says.  How can we accuse God of blasphemy?

I view those beings in Psalm 82 as the judges of the Old Testament.
 

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

In John 10, the question comes down to what did the Jews of that time consider to be "blasphemy".  When Jesus pointed out that God in scripture refers to other divine beings as "gods", they couldn't argue with scripture, but they still wanted to find some reason to condemn Jesus.  They found ways to accuse people of blasphemy when they were trying to get rid of them.  Even Stephen was accused of blasphemy for speaking words against Moses and against God for repeating the things that Jesus said about the temple (Acts 6:9-14). 

Regarding your use of the word “divine” in connection to Psalm 82, do you consider yourself 
to be a god right now?
 

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

To quote Heiser:  "if the ĕlōhîm in Psalm 82 are humans, why are they sentenced to die “like humans”? This sounds as awkward as sentencing a child to grow up or a dog to bark. The point of verse 6 is that, in response to their corruption, the ĕlōhîm will be stripped of their immortality at God’s discretion and die as humans die." (You've Seen one Elohim, You've Seen Them All? A Critique of Mormonism's Use of Psalm 82, p. 225)   How do you make sense of this?

Could be that the human judges (referred to as gods) would die in a way more fitting of God’s 
judgment than ordinary men who died. Whoever these gods were, they were classified as evil 
(in darkness) in God’s eyes.
 

19 hours ago, InCognitus said:

"For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour."  But the actual Hebrew word in that verse is Elohim (gods), and some translations like the RSV says "For thou hast made him but little lower than God", or like the ESV, which says "Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings".   A Jewish translation of this verse renders it this way with a Rabbinical commentary that follows:  “what is man that You have been mindful of him, mortal man that You have taken note of him, that You have made him little less than divine, and adorned him with glory and majesty;”  The Radak (Rabbi David Kimhi, 1160-1235) commentary of this verse makes these observations:  “For Thou hast made him but little lower than Elohim: – that is, the angels - in that the spirit of man is of the (same) quality as that of the angels, which is incorporeal just as they are incorporeal; and the inferiority consists in the fact of its {i.e. man's spirit) being (lodged) in a body.”  Here, the 12th century Rabbi said that the “elohim” in this verse refers to angels even though the Hebrew word in this verse is Elohim (God or gods).  And the Septuagint translates this verse as ángelos (Greek for angels), and the Septuagint version is quoted in the New Testament (Hebrews 2:7, 9). 

This is all an attempt at changing the meaning of "sons of God" into a different classification of beings, taking them out of the divine realm.  Having it read "sons of God" was offensive, because it meant that God has "sons" and they would have equality with God as his children. 

The use of “God” or god is confusing to me because people can apply various meanings.
 
The 1997 Gospel Principles says, “All good things come from God. Everything that he does 
is to help his children become like him—a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and 
my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).”

Should this be changed to “a God” or is “a god” correct?  What is the LDS understanding 
of the difference in becoming “a God” versus becoming “a god”?  And when does someone 
become “a god” or “a God”?  Is it after the resurrection?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, theplains said:

I view those beings in Psalm 82 as the judges of the Old Testament.
 

Regarding your use of the word “divine” in connection to Psalm 82, do you consider yourself 
to be a god right now?
 

Could be that the human judges (referred to as gods) would die in a way more fitting of God’s 
judgment than ordinary men who died. Whoever these gods were, they were classified as evil 
(in darkness) in God’s eyes.
 

The use of “God” or god is confusing to me because people can apply various meanings.
 
The 1997 Gospel Principles says, “All good things come from God. Everything that he does 
is to help his children become like him—a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and 
my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).”

Should this be changed to “a God” or is “a god” correct?  What is the LDS understanding 
of the difference in becoming “a God” versus becoming “a god”?  And when does someone 
become “a god” or “a God”?  Is it after the resurrection?

Within the patriarchal order of divine seniority, God the Father and Jesus Christ will always and forever be our God because God the Eternal Father is the Father of our spirits, and Christ is the Father of salvation. But to the spirit children of the exalted sons and daughters of God in the celestial kingdom, God with a capital G will be appropriate. 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, theplains said:

Incognitus replied to me in another thread.  He provided this list:

    1.  “A general appellation of deities or divinities”.  This could be either false gods or gods that 
    exist in reality.
    2.  In application to Christ as God
    3.  Spoken of the only and true God: with the article… and very often; with prepositions
    4.   Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: 
    Hebraistically, equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges
    5.   Of the devil  (“the god of this age”), 2 Corinthians 4:4; the person or thing to which one is 
    wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, e. g. the belly in Philippians 3:19.

 

I think this list is sufficiently serviceable for this discussion. Are you OK with it? I might add (not helpfully), anything we place above our devotion to God.

Which of these on the list are within the scope of your OP?

Link to comment
16 hours ago, theplains said:

If Latter-day Saints living on earth today are in the group “ye are gods” spoken of 
in Psalm 82:6, how are you a god?

As you noted before, I believe the gods in Psalms 82:6 are judges, entrusted by God to lead the kingdom on earth, and not exalted beings. But moving away from the text itself for the sake of discussion, and for all I know and pushing the envelope of interpretation, I noted that some of them may have been deities in my Q3 reply.

Back to a more direct application of the Psalm verse, I would say the “gods” in the Church or kingdom of God on earth today begin with those who hold positions of responsibility: general authorities and officers and then to whatever unit level one wishes to apply the delegation of keys and authority.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, CV75 said:

As you noted before, I believe the gods in Psalms 82:6 are judges, entrusted by God to lead the kingdom on earth, and not exalted beings. But moving away from the text itself for the sake of discussion, and for all I know and pushing the envelope of interpretation, I noted that some of them may have been deities in my Q3 reply.

Back to a more direct application of the Psalm verse, I would say the “gods” in the Church or kingdom of God on earth today begin with those who hold positions of responsibility: general authorities and officers and then to whatever unit level one wishes to apply the delegation of keys and authority.

Or did Joseph Smith see gods with the little "g" and boost it up, like a lot of the teachings in the church as in progression and becoming like the Father or that we can become the Father. Joseph seemed to like to create a religion he deemed to be the best course compared those that were surrounding him at the time. He'd read or learn about something and then integrate it. Which is fine and good until it isn't. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Or did Joseph Smith see gods with the little "g" and boost it up, like a lot of the teachings in the church as in progression and becoming like the Father or that we can become the Father. Joseph seemed to like to create a religion he deemed to be the best course compared those that were surrounding him at the time. He'd read or learn about something and then integrate it. Which is fine and good until it isn't. 

Please provide examples of when/how Jospeh Smith's teachings concerning "gods" is fine and good, when/how they aren't, and your personal observation or experience with either outcome. The more specific you can be about Psalms 82:6, the better. Thank you.

I found this item: "The sixth verse of this Psalm reads: “Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” One prominent secular scholar after nearly a hundred pages of analysis on this verse finally concluded that in it the Father is saying to his rebellious children, “I thought that ye were gods, but since you have proven yourself unworthy you will now be divested of your divine natures and forfeit the privilege of living in heaven.” (Joseph Smith and the Poetic Writings | Religious Studies Center (byu.edu), author's paraphrase of the argument of Julian Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” Hebrew Union College Annual, 14:114–17.).

So, this actually counters the thought that "gods" are God's appointed judges and are indeed potential candidates for inclusion in Heavenly Father's council (covered in one section of the article I linked above). I like that, one, because appointed judges (and everyone else) are also potential candidates for godhood; and two, until they aren't.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Or did Joseph Smith see gods with the little "g" and boost it up, like a lot of the teachings in the church as in progression and becoming like the Father or that we can become the Father. Joseph seemed to like to create a religion he deemed to be the best course compared those that were surrounding him at the time. He'd read or learn about something and then integrate it. Which is fine and good until it isn't. 

I think it's really hard to maintain the theory that Joseph Smith developed this doctrine through time and made it up as he went along (i.e. he saw "gods with the little 'g'" and decided to "boost it up") when so much of it is seen in the foundational writings, like the Book of Mormon.  It is more accurate to say that Joseph began to understand the teachings of the revelations better as time went on, and that became more evident in his sermons.

Two studies on the Book of Mormon come to mind:

The Divine Council in the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon, by Stephen O. Smoot:

Quote

Abstract: The Book of Mormon purports to be a record that originates from the ancient Near East. The authors of the book claim an Israelite heritage, and throughout the pages of the text can be seen echoes of Israelite religious practice and ideology. An example of such can be seen in how the Book of Mormon depicts God’s divine council, a concept unmistakably found in the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament). Recognizing the divine council in both the Hebrew Bible and the Book of Mormon may help us appreciate a more nuanced understanding of such theological terms as “monotheism” as well as bolster confidence in the antiquity of the Nephite record.

Theosis in the Book of Mormon: The Work and Glory of the Father, Mother and Son, and Holy Ghost, by Val Larsen and Newell D. Wright

Quote

Abstract: While some scholars have suggested that the doctrine of theosis — the transformation of human beings into divine beings — emerged only in Nauvoo, the essence of the doctrine was already present in the Book of Mormon, both in precept and example. The doctrine is especially well developed in 1 Nephi, Alma 19, and Helaman 5. The focus in 1 Nephi is on Lehi and Nephi’s rejection of Deuteronomist reforms that erased the divine Mother and Son, who, that book shows, are closely coupled as they, the Father, and Holy Ghost work to transform human beings into divine beings. The article shows that theosis is evident in the lives of Lehi, Sariah, Sam, Nephi, Alma, Alma2, Ammon2, Lamoni, Lamoni’s wife, Abish, and especially Nephi2. The divine Mother’s participation in the salvation of her children is especially evident in Lehi’s dream, Nephi’s vision, and the stories of Abish and the Lamanite Queen.

Both articles get rather technical with respect to the historical details from the period of time that Lehi and his family left Jerusalem, but knowing the environment is essential to the point.

One of the most obvious verses teaching the doctrine of theosis (men becoming gods) in the Book of Mormon is quoted in footnote 20 of the latter article:

Quote

“But human deification is implied even in the Book of Mormon, which was dictated before the April 1830 organization of the Church: In mathematics, the so-called ‘transitive property of equality’ that if a=b and b=c, then a=c. At 3 Nephi 28:10, Christ promises three Nephite disciples that ‘ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one.’ Analogously, if those mortal Nephites will someday be like Christ, and Christ is like the Father, they will someday be like the Father. Though rarely emphasized, this verse, which builds directly on 3 Nephi 12:48 and 19:23, seems nonetheless to contain an unmistakable, culminating promise of deified exaltation.”

This is for the teaching on theosis and the divine council of gods, but the same could be said for temple theology and work for the dead, both of which are found in the foundational writings as well.

Link to comment
On 8/4/2023 at 5:20 PM, theplains said:

I view those beings in Psalm 82 as the judges of the Old Testament.

I'm aware of that.  I posted your position on Psalm 82 from a prior discussion we had and responded to it in the other thread before you started this thread.

Did you watch the Bible Project videos on the Divine Council and the "Elohim" that I posted to you in the other thread?  Those videos do a good job of explaining the spiritual beings that are called "gods" in the Bible.

On 8/4/2023 at 5:20 PM, theplains said:

Regarding your use of the word “divine” in connection to Psalm 82, do you consider yourself 
to be a god right now?

That depends on how you define "god" or "God". 

Paul taught the men of Athens (in Acts 17:28-29) that we are all same kind of being as God (or same species if you prefer).  We are all spirit beings, having a divine origin and a divine potential.  As it says in the Gospel Topics Essay:  Becoming Like God:  "Latter-day Saints see all people as children of God in a full and complete sense; they consider every person divine in origin, nature, and potential. Each has an eternal core and is 'a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents.' Each possesses seeds of divinity and must choose whether to live in harmony or tension with that divinity. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all people may 'progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny.' Just as a child can develop the attributes of his or her parents over time, the divine nature that humans inherit can be developed to become like their Heavenly Father’s."

Our "eternal core" is our spirit that comes from God, for God is the "Father of spirits" (Heb 12:9).  It is in this sense that we each have a divine nature.  We are not "gods" in the sense that we have attained our divine potential, but it might be said that we are "gods" in the sense that we each have an eternal spirit, like God himself has.  As Tad R. Callister put it:  "The difference between man and God is significant—but it is one of degree, not kind. It is the difference between an acorn and an oak tree, a rosebud and a rose, a son and a father. In truth, every man is a potential god in embryo, in fulfillment of that eternal law that like begets like."

On 8/4/2023 at 5:20 PM, theplains said:

Could be that the human judges (referred to as gods) would die in a way more fitting of God’s 
judgment than ordinary men who died. Whoever these gods were, they were classified as evil 
(in darkness) in God’s eyes.

This makes no sense at all, because it goes directly contrary to what the verse says.  It doesn't say "you shall die in a way more fitting of God's judgment than ordinary men who died", it plainly says, "You shall die like men", in other words, in the exact same way that all ordinary men die.  The phrase like men is fatal to the view that these are human judges.

On 8/4/2023 at 5:20 PM, theplains said:

The use of “God” or god is confusing to me because people can apply various meanings.

This is why we need to define our terms.

On 8/4/2023 at 5:20 PM, theplains said:

The 1997 Gospel Principles says, “All good things come from God. Everything that he does 
is to help his children become like him—a god. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and 
my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).”

Yes, of course, one of your favorite quotations :)  I'm adding this to my list, like the other times you've brought this up as theplains08/08/2012, 10/15/2012, 02/26/2015, 07/27/2016, 02/23/2017, 03/01/2017, 09/10/2019, 07/24/2020, 08/08/202010/24/2020, and 07/10/2023.  Or posting as TheTanakas 07/03/2021 or 11/25/2022.  Or posting as telnetd04/06/2023 or 11/16/2023.  Or posting as marineland (aka orion88:   10/07/2011, 11/07/2011, 01/01/2012, 02/27/2012.  

We've discussed this before. 

On 8/4/2023 at 5:20 PM, theplains said:

Should this be changed to “a God” or is “a god” correct?  What is the LDS understanding 
of the difference in becoming “a God” versus becoming “a god”?  And when does someone 
become “a god” or “a God”?  Is it after the resurrection?

This was addressed before numerous times.  The reason for either choice has to do with context and the stated relative authority of one being over others who are subject to the one.  Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are always capitalized.  Those who are subject to God are generally designated by the lower case "gods" (see our prior discussion here here, or here).  You are wearing out this topic.

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
7 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please provide examples of when/how Jospeh Smith's teachings concerning "gods" is fine and good, when/how they aren't, and your personal observation or experience with either outcome. The more specific you can be about Psalms 82:6, the better. Thank you.

I found this item: "The sixth verse of this Psalm reads: “Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.” One prominent secular scholar after nearly a hundred pages of analysis on this verse finally concluded that in it the Father is saying to his rebellious children, “I thought that ye were gods, but since you have proven yourself unworthy you will now be divested of your divine natures and forfeit the privilege of living in heaven.” (Joseph Smith and the Poetic Writings | Religious Studies Center (byu.edu), author's paraphrase of the argument of Julian Morgenstern, “The Mythological Background of Psalm 82,” Hebrew Union College Annual, 14:114–17.).

So, this actually counters the thought that "gods" are God's appointed judges and are indeed potential candidates for inclusion in Heavenly Father's council (covered in one section of the article I linked above). I like that, one, because appointed judges (and everyone else) are also potential candidates for godhood; and two, until they aren't.

I just thought that I'd read somewhere that Joseph evolved in this teaching and how there's 4000 changes to the BoM and Joseph corrects certain scriptures. And when I said it's all well and good until it isn't, I thought of the polygamy.

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just thought that I'd read somewhere that Joseph evolved in this teaching and how there's 4000 changes to the BoM and Joseph corrects certain scriptures. And when I said it's all well and good until it isn't, I thought of the polygamy.

Almost all of the changes made to the Book of Mormon were grammatical and have no bearing on doctrine. I believe there were only two changes that could even be called doctrinal, and they were made only for clarity. One of the two changes was made to the verse in Nephi’s vision where Mary was originally called “the mother of God,” but Joseph  later changed it to refer to Mary as “the mother of the Son of God.” While both these descriptions of Mary are doctrinally correct (there are many places found in the Book of Mormon where Christ is referred to as God rather than the Son of God), the change was apparently made in this particular instance because the expression “mother of God,” although doctrinally correct, sounded too much like something that grew out of Catholicism. So this supposed “change” wasn’t a substantive change at all because Christ actually is both the Son of God and God. Perhaps you should have done a little investigation before suggesting that that Joseph Smith made 4000 doctrinal changes to the Book of Mormon? 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Almost all of the changes made to the Book of Mormon were grammatical and have no bearing on doctrine. I believe there were only two changes that could even be called doctrinal, and they were made only for clarity. One of the two changes was made to the verse in Nephi’s vision where Mary was originally called “the mother of God,” but Joseph  later changed it to refer to Mary as “the mother of the Son of God.” While both these descriptions of Mary are doctrinally correct (there are many places found in the Book of Mormon where Christ is referred to as God rather than the Son of God), the change was apparently made in this particular instance because the expression “mother of God,” although doctrinally correct, sounded too much like something that grew out of Catholicism. So this supposed “change” wasn’t a substantive change at all because Christ actually is both the Son of God and God. Perhaps you should have done a little investigation before suggesting that that Joseph Smith made 4000 doctrinal changes to the Book of Mormon? 

I have and it's not all grammatical according to this article. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/did-joseph-smiths-doctrine-of-god-change-over-time/

But I don't want to get into it with you because I had to explain myself to someone else and that was how I felt. Why do I have to explain it to you whom is already suspect of my intentions?

And another: https://www.bible.ca/mor-1830-changes.htm

But I know that most were grammar related. But another one shows, name changes too or more.

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html

And this goes into some things as well, but I know that all of these are critical articles. 

https://www.analyzingmormonism.com/changes-to-the-book-of-mormon/

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I just thought that I'd read somewhere that Joseph evolved in this teaching and how there's 4000 changes to the BoM and Joseph corrects certain scriptures. And when I said it's all well and good until it isn't, I thought of the polygamy.

Please describe how Jospeh evolved in this teaching on "gods," how it was well and good, and then how it wasn't.

Kind of the same as my original question, "Please provide examples of when/how Jospeh Smith's teachings concerning "gods" is fine and good, when/how they aren't, and your personal observation or experience with either outcome. The more specific you can be about Psalms 82:6, the better." Thank you.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I have and it's not all grammatical according to this article. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/did-joseph-smiths-doctrine-of-god-change-over-time/

But I don't want to get into it with you because I had to explain myself to someone else and that was how I felt. Why do I have to explain it to you whom is already suspect of my intentions?

And another: https://www.bible.ca/mor-1830-changes.htm

But I know that most were grammar related. But another one shows, name changes too or more.

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html

And this goes into some things as well, but I know that all of these are critical articles. 

https://www.analyzingmormonism.com/changes-to-the-book-of-mormon/

I find the changes made in the Book of Mormon fascinating (for some odd reason).  But "anti-Mormons" like to blow things out of proportion.   I put "anti-Mormons" in quotes, because that's how it is said in the quote below from Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

The Tanners, (they published 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon), have stated that "most of the changes [in the Book of Mormon] are related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors, but there are some that alter the meaning of the text" (Changing World of Mormonism, 1981 Moody Press, pages 128-129, emphasis added.  See also Mormonism-Shadow or Reality, 1987 5th edition, pg 89). 

Furthermore, the Tanners seem to have had to apologize for some of the more far fetched claims made by overzealous anti-Mormons concerning the number and magnitude of changes in the Book of Mormon, saying, "some anti-Mormons have gone to the other extreme and tried to make it appear that the Book of Mormon has been completely rewritten.  As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text" (ibid, pg 131).

The Cold-Case Christianity article you linked doesn't even get some of it right.  Regarding the change that Joseph Smith made to 2 Nephi 30:6, they say:  "Later, Altered Text (2 Nephi 30:6, 1840 edition)  “…and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white pure and a delightsome people.”   The actual 1840 edition page of that verse can be seen here at the bottom of the second to the last paragraph on the page:  https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/book-of-mormon-1840/119  It says "pure and delightsome" (not white pure).

And the so called doctrinal changes they say that were made really aren't that.  For example, the Cold-Case Christianity article lists "The Most Troubling Changes" (and Jerald and Sandra Tanner also call these the "four most important changes" in Changing World of Mormonism, p. 129) are in 1 Nephi 11:18, 1 Nephi 11:21, 1 Nephi 11:32 and 1 Nephi 13:40.  These were most likely changed by Joseph Smith to clarify the intended meaning of the text because of the context, and not that he was changing the doctrine (because the Book of Mormon teaches the same doctrines without ambiguity elsewhere in the text).

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Please describe how Jospeh evolved in this teaching on "gods," how it was well and good, and then how it wasn't.

Kind of the same as my original question, "Please provide examples of when/how Jospeh Smith's teachings concerning "gods" is fine and good, when/how they aren't, and your personal observation or experience with either outcome. The more specific you can be about Psalms 82:6, the better." Thank you.

Okay, I believe the last part means God, not lower case god, us. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 82&version=NIV

Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

God presides in the great assembly;
    he renders judgment among the “gods”:

“How long will you[a] defend the unjust
    and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
    They walk about in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
    you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
    you will fall like every other ruler.”

Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
    for all the nations are your inheritance.

I believe that Joseph evolved, personal opinion. And fine and good if he evolved with things he learned, until he took it upon himself to live polygamy like the Bible. Or have concubines like the Bible, my opinion. And it's my understanding that apologists agree, such as @DonBradley but it's hearsay. Maybe he can comment about it. 
Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I have and it's not all grammatical according to this article. https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/did-joseph-smiths-doctrine-of-god-change-over-time/

But I don't want to get into it with you because I had to explain myself to someone else and that was how I felt. Why do I have to explain it to you whom is already suspect of my intentions?

And another: https://www.bible.ca/mor-1830-changes.htm

But I know that most were grammar related. But another one shows, name changes too or more.

http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/5000-changes-to-the-book-of-mormon.html

And this goes into some things as well, but I know that all of these are critical articles. 

https://www.analyzingmormonism.com/changes-to-the-book-of-mormon/

If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of all of the changes that have occurred, I'd strongly recommend Royal Skousen's textual analysis.  All 6 volumes are currently hosted at https://bookofmormoncentral.org/content/analysis-of-textual-variants-of-the-book-of-mormon.  He gets into each of the changes, why they probably happened, and what is probably the most correct reading.

For instance, in your first link, the first change that they mention is Alma 29:4 where an entire section is deleted.  The website says that it couldn't be a printer error but doesn't really give any insight into why.  Skousen goes into detail about this section on page 174 in the 4th volume.  He believes that it was an accident caused by the typesetter because the formatting of the verse in 1830 "facilitated the omission".

The next change in that link talks about the change from Benjamin to Mosiah in Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1.  Skousen discusses it in pages 64-67 of the 3rd volume.  This change is an intentional change.  But, it is possible that Joseph actually messed up with this "correction" because Benjamin could be the actual person who should be mentioned in those verses.

The next change is 1 Nephi 20:1.  Skousen discusses this in pages 432-434 of the 1st volume.  It was added as a parenthetical addition in the 1840 edition.  After the martyrdom, the RLDS continued using the addition but the LDS didn't until the 1920 edition.  So, if it was a change for the evolving doctrine of baptism, it is odd that the Utah church didn't use it.  In between the 1840 edition and the 1920 edition, the Utah church published many other editions, including the 1879 which introduced the modern chapters and verses.

The next change is 2 Nephi 30:6.  Skousen discusses this in pages 245-249 of the 2nd volume.  It was an intentional change in the 1840 edition but it didn't make it into the 1841 British printing.  All the later editions by the Utah church didn't have that change until the 1981 edition.  So, Joseph did change it from "white" to "pure" but the editions printed by the Utah church didn't have that change until 1981.  Joseph may have made the change for the reason that the article says, but unlikely since he had no problems baptizing and ordaining non-white skinned people.  Also, there's a lot of other verses that are similar and they didn't get changed.  So to say that the church changed the text to "eradicate early doctrines" is incorrect.

 

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Okay, I believe the last part means God, not lower case god, us. 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm 82&version=NIV

Psalm 82

A psalm of Asaph.

God presides in the great assembly;
    he renders judgment among the “gods”:

“How long will you[a] defend the unjust
    and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
    They walk about in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
    you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
    you will fall like every other ruler.”

Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
    for all the nations are your inheritance.

I believe that Joseph evolved, personal opinion. And fine and good if he evolved with things he learned, until he took it upon himself to live polygamy like the Bible. Or have concubines like the Bible, my opinion. And it's my understanding that apologists agree, such as @DonBradley but it's hearsay. Maybe he can comment about it. 

I guess I don't see how Psalms 82 gets you (or Jospeh Smith) from "gods' to "polygamy." I'm trying to trace your steps but there ain't none!

Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I guess I don't see how Psalms 82 gets you (or Jospeh Smith) from "gods' to "polygamy." I'm trying to trace your steps but there ain't none!

Well, it's what I mean by Joseph evolving on things. But I didn't coincide it with Psalms 82, you're the one that brings that up. And you wanted my feed back on it and I gave it!

Edited by Tacenda
Link to comment
On 8/4/2023 at 9:07 PM, teddyaware said:

Within the patriarchal order of divine seniority, God the Father and Jesus Christ will always and forever be our God because God the Eternal Father is the Father of our spirits, and Christ is the Father of salvation. But to the spirit children of the exalted sons and daughters of God in the celestial kingdom, God with a capital G will be appropriate.

The spirit children of the exalted sons and daughters will in turn worship their own Father God.

Link to comment
On 8/5/2023 at 11:54 AM, CV75 said:

I think this list is sufficiently serviceable for this discussion. Are you OK with it? I might add (not helpfully), anything we place above our devotion to God.

Which of these on the list are within the scope of your OP?

I would says Psalm 82 is a reference to #4 - equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges.

Link to comment
On 8/5/2023 at 12:15 PM, CV75 said:

As you noted before, I believe the gods in Psalms 82:6 are judges, entrusted by God to lead the kingdom on earth, and not exalted beings. But moving away from the text itself for the sake of discussion, and for all I know and pushing the envelope of interpretation, I noted that some of them may have been deities in my Q3 reply.

Which of the gods in Psalm 82 do you believe are deities?

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, theplains said:

Which of the gods in Psalm 82 do you believe are deities?

While I take the text as you do, I am also open to the idea that the term "gods" is also being used more loosely, so that all the gods are deities (see a previous post, Im on a phone so it is dififficult to c/p): it is just that some gods (men) are still in the "potential deity" phase, and others, like the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, are "fully actualized deities." Because of His atonement, God anticipates our deification from our sorry state through His mercy and grace, covenant path, etc., though when we reject Him we are condemned to die like men (or perhaps better put, "dogs," a term the defenders of the covenant called the rebelliuos men who fought against it).

While I lean one way, I am open to others' analysis of the text and in this case, am comfortable with both interpretations of the text, and for me both apply satisfactorially to Jesus' statements in John 10.

Link to comment
On 8/5/2023 at 11:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Did you watch the Bible Project videos on the Divine Council and the "Elohim" that I posted to you in the other thread?  Those videos do a good job of explaining the spiritual beings that are called "gods" in the Bible.

Yes, I just watched them. Thank you. 

Is this officially sponsored by the LDS First Presidency?

The first video does not assign the attribute of deity to these divine beings, heavenly authorities.  
They are called spiritual rulers. The 2:29 part (approximately) says the spiritual rebels are created 
beings.  The human rebels worship the spiritual rebels.

The second video (2:21) says one Elohim is above all other Elohim.

How is Heavenly Father of our Earth above all the other Heavenly Fathers of all the other created 
worlds?  Is he (before or after he became a God) greater than his Father and Mother God?
 

On 8/5/2023 at 11:57 PM, InCognitus said:

Our "eternal core" is our spirit that comes from God, for God is the "Father of spirits" (Heb 12:9).  It is in this sense that we each have a divine nature.  We are not "gods" in the sense that we have attained our divine potential, but it might be said that we are "gods" in the sense that we each have an eternal spirit, like God himself has.

That’s make sense.  It might have been appropriate for Joseph Smith to use the term "gods" 
in Abraham chapter 3.  The video about the divine council you provided earlier would make 
the divine heavenly beings "gods" (but not deities) in the sense that they possessed some 
heavenly authority.  Unless the divine council video is referring to many Heavenly Fathers 
of many other worlds who are worshipped by their respective spirit children on them.
 

On 8/5/2023 at 11:57 PM, InCognitus said:

This makes no sense at all, because it goes directly contrary to what the verse says.  It doesn't say "you shall die in a way more fitting of God's judgment than ordinary men who died", it plainly says, "You shall die like men", in other words, in the exact same way that all ordinary men die.  The phrase like men is fatal to the view that these are human judges.

If Psalm 82:6-7 is a reference to heavenly deities instead of human judges, how do deities die?

Link to comment
5 hours ago, theplains said:

Yes, I just watched them. Thank you. 

Is this officially sponsored by the LDS First Presidency?

Of course not, but it represents the view of most biblical scholars today about the Elohim of ancient Israel.  What is portrayed in those videos may or may not be the LDS view, but at least it's closer to our view than the human judges view that you seem to have been taught.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The 2:29 part (approximately) says the spiritual rebels are created 
beings.  

Yes, and knowing that God's creation involves organizing preexisting materials is important to that understanding.   Joseph Smith taught, "The Father called all spirits before him at the creation of man and organized them."  

5 hours ago, theplains said:

The second video (2:21) says one Elohim is above all other Elohim.

Exactly as it says in in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32, "the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was". 

5 hours ago, theplains said:

How is Heavenly Father of our Earth above all the other Heavenly Fathers of all the other created 
worlds?

He is the one God who is above all others.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

That’s make sense.  It might have been appropriate for Joseph Smith to use the term "gods" 
in Abraham chapter 3.

He used Gods in Abraham chapter 4.

5 hours ago, theplains said:

 The video about the divine council you provided earlier would make 
the divine heavenly beings "gods" (but not deities) in the sense that they possessed some 
heavenly authority.

Yes, heavenly authority.  And ultimately (for those that "overcome") that heavenly authority puts them on the same throne with God, ruling with God (Revelation 3:21).

6 hours ago, theplains said:

If Psalm 82:6-7 is a reference to heavenly deities instead of human judges, how do deities die?

To "die" requires having a mortal body (since death is the separation of the spirit from the body - "the body without the spirit is dead" - James 2:26), and spirits don't die.  So a fallen divine spiritual being might be put into the mortal world and be consigned to "die like men". 

As I stated elsewhere, in the Jewish tradition at the time of Christ, Psalm 82 was understood to represent Israel's reception of the covenant on Mount Sinai as rendering Israel immortal, thus becoming "gods".  But after they sinned in making the golden calf, they were again condemned to mortality.  (See Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition, Daniel O. McClellan, p 93)

Link to comment
On 8/8/2023 at 9:20 PM, InCognitus said:

To "die" requires having a mortal body (since death is the separation of the spirit from the body - "the body without the spirit is dead" - James 2:26), and spirits don't die.  So a fallen divine spiritual being might be put into the mortal world and be consigned to "die like men". 

As I stated elsewhere, in the Jewish tradition at the time of Christ, Psalm 82 was understood to represent Israel's reception of the covenant on Mount Sinai as rendering Israel immortal, thus becoming "gods".  But after they sinned in making the golden calf, they were again condemned to mortality.  (See Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition, Daniel O. McClellan, p 93)

Lesser gods of the divine council might be the same as the council of the zedekim (righteous ones) who were thought to be pre-mortal figures that eventually became mortal, they also contributed to planning or approving of creation. The Midrash Kee Tov, states members of the council of the righteous included Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc. "They were with God before the creation of the world." (Sefer Haparshiyot, Midrash Kee Tov, Alef Machon Lehotzaat Sefarim, T.D. Jerusalem, 894, p. 31). In any case, the gods of the Psalms, and pre-mortal Jesus who is counted as one, were not called gods do to their state of being, rather their adopted status as sons, the law of adoption renders it a legal to call an unrelated person a begotten son in every legal way, and in authority that distinguishes them from other pre-mortal souls kept in the Storehouse of Souls, the Guph. So, losing their status, being ejected from the council, is to be born in mortality.

...OR getting cast out is a spiritual death, bypassing mortality, and straight to the prisons of Gehenna/Tartarus.

Edited by Pyreaux
Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/8/2023 at 10:20 PM, InCognitus said:

He is the one God who is above all others.

Would you clarify.

How is Heavenly Father of our Earth above all the other Heavenly Fathers of all the other created worlds?
 

On 8/8/2023 at 10:20 PM, InCognitus said:

To "die" requires having a mortal body (since death is the separation of the spirit from the body - "the body without the spirit is dead" - James 2:26), and spirits don't die.  So a fallen divine spiritual being might be put into the mortal world and be consigned to "die like men". 

So it seems you believe the beings of Psalm 82:6-7 are not deities” but rather eternal beings 
who became mortal and then their mortal bodies died.
 

On 8/8/2023 at 10:20 PM, InCognitus said:

As I stated elsewhere, in the Jewish tradition at the time of Christ, Psalm 82 was understood to represent Israel's reception of the covenant on Mount Sinai as rendering Israel immortal, thus becoming "gods".  But after they sinned in making the golden calf, they were again condemned to mortality.  (See Psalm 82 in Contemporary Latter-day Saint Tradition, Daniel O. McClellan, p 93)

Since they were not deities and they were already eternal beings (as per LDS theology), in what
way did the reception of the covenant on Mount Sinai mean the Israelites had become gods?

Does immortal mean they were not mortal before they made the golden calf?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...