Our Earth was the last to be subjected to the Fall?

[Mfbnew]

12 hours ago, Dario_M said:

We? There're still people here who are saints....so. 

Absolutely!

But here in the USA, because often one would hear our church described as "The Mormon Church" many many people - most in fact- who did not know anything about the church, they did not know that we were even Christians!

But now President Nelson has encouraged us to NOT call ourselves "Mormons" and instead always use the name of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".

This I think was an EXCELLENT move- when I was growing up I thought the church was some kind of cult which worshiped "American Indians" - not Jesus Christ!  That's exactly what I thought before studying the beliefs of the church!

So President Nelson very wisely made the decision that we should always us the sacred name of Jesus Christ in describing the church.   And of course we do not worship "Saints" since for us, that word does not mean what it does to some other Christians- for us it simply means members of our church.

Edited January 22, 2025 by Mfbnew

[marineland]

On 1/21/2025 at 3:15 PM, longview said:

No. I mentioned that Lucifer and his fallen angels (the third part of Heaven that were cast out) could have worked in teams.

To clarify what I believe, @Robert F. Smith said "other worlds -- an infinity of them." My perspective is there is only a finite number of concurrent worlds for a given creative generation. Robert would be correct if he was speaking of an infinite number of creative generations (which I believe). Each creative generation is implementing its own Plan of Redemption.

Yes. Lucifer and his fallen angels are in cahoots. The punishment for them was imposed only AFTER ALL the concurrent worlds (including our Earth) in this present creative generation had successfully transitioned to the Fall. Remember the term "Fortunate Fall" ? Lucifer was the "commander" over his fallen angels. When Lucifer was punished, so also was his army of devils punished.

I wasn't able to give you a thanks in a reply so I paste an image here.

[marineland]

On 1/22/2025 at 6:01 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

You cited https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1984/04/the-great-council-in-heaven?lang=eng , which cites Abraham 3:21-28, and Moses 4:1-4.

In fact, it is precisely this well-known doctrine which is considered by anti-Mormons a main point of attack against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Yet both faithful and secular biblical scholars accept the Divine Council:  https://www.thedivinecouncil.com/#:~:text=January 8%2C 2015,worldview of the biblical writers. 

See also Psalms 82:1, 89:5-7, Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7, I Kings 22:19-23, Isaiah 6, Zechariah 3, Daniel 7, etc.

I read that article on The Divine Council.

"The term divine council is used by Hebrew and Semitics scholars to refer to the
heavenly host, the pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the 
cosmos".

How those those gods of Psalms 82:1 (referred to as children of the most High God
in 82:6) considered a pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the
cosmos?

How does this pantheon of divine beings die like men as 82:7 says?

Psalm 89:8 says "O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? or to 
thy faithfulness round about thee?"

Considering the LDS plurality of Gods, does this question only make sense when
applying it only to the God of our Earth and the worlds he created?

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, marineland said:

I read that article on The Divine Council.

"The term divine council is used by Hebrew and Semitics scholars to refer to the
heavenly host, the pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the 
cosmos".

How those those gods of Psalms 82:1 (referred to as children of the most High God
in 82:6) considered a pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the
cosmos?

How does this pantheon of divine beings die like men as 82:7 says?

All of us are children of God, and it is our destiny to become gods.  We all are of the genus and species of God.  The heavenly host includes all of us at that Divine Council where we made the decision to follow God's Plan of Salvation.  Ps 82 is mocking elitists who imagine that they have already attained godhood here and now.  Yet they will die like ordinary men.  That they were all divine beings in the premortal phase of their existence will not save them.

47 minutes ago, marineland said:

Psalm 89:8 says "O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? or to 
thy faithfulness round about thee?"

Considering the LDS plurality of Gods, does this question only make sense when
applying it only to the God of our Earth and the worlds he created?

We humans in the days of our probation need to be concerned with only one world.  1 Cor 8:5-6: "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God"

[Benjamin McGuire]

54 minutes ago, marineland said:

How those those gods of Psalms 82:1 (referred to as children of the most High God in 82:6) considered a pantheon of divine beings who administer the affairs of the cosmos?

This is a retelling of a very old mythical story found in ancient Israelite texts - there are similar stories from Ancient Israel's neighbors. The Psalm itself is a chiastic structure, and is broken into three parts as a performance - the first delivered by a narrator of sorts, and the second part is given by someone representing YHWH, and a third part sung collectively by the congregation.

Part of this story is found in Deuteronomy 32:7-8. The text in the KJV reads:

Quote

Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

This text is considered to be a late redaction. It comes from the Masoretic text, but earlier versions - the LXX text and the Hebrew texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls all replace that last line (which doesn't make a lot of sense in context - why would we number the nations following the Tower of Babel by using the sons of Israel - none of whom exist or will occur in the text for quite some time) with this: "he fixed the borders of the peoples according the number of the sons of God." In early Israelite literature (like some of its contemporaries), there was a Highest God who had 70 sons - who were divinities - and each of these divinities was assigned to rule one of the 70 nations of humanity on the earth following the dispersal of mankind at the Tower of Babel. YHWH was one of these divinities. In this context, Psalm 82 is about the God of Israel standing up in that divine assembly and accusing the others of not doing what they are supposed to be doing - their not doing their jobs (with regard to the needy and poor) is returning the world to chaos (reminding us of the chaos out of which God created the earth) - an undoing of creation. Verse 1 is spoken by a narrator. Verses 2-7 are the person of the God of Israel addressing the gods of the other nations. Verse is is the congregation responding to the speech by God.

God stands in the assembly to judge the gods of the nations. He confronts them with their failures. He describes the chaos they are causing. He confronts them again. And then the congregation asks the one God who has done what He was supposed to, to stand and rule the entire earth (and not just Israel).

It is in this mythical story that the gods in the divine assembly are considered a pantheon of divinities administering the affairs of the cosmos. By the time we get to the second temple period (post Babylonian captivity), this idea has, for the most part, disappeared in Israelite theology. And so, even though the text doesn't make a lot of sense the way it reads in the Masoretic text, the text was changed - because it also didn't make a lot of sense to them as it originally read.

1 hour ago, marineland said:

How does this pantheon of divine beings die like men as 82:7 says?

The death of divinities is part of that older mythological period. As an example, the Ugaritic pantheon (which also included the god YHWH), Baal was a god who died. That the death is like that of a man (something you couldn't say if the divinity was a man), was simply a way of suggesting the banality of it. And its worth pointing out that here is another ambiguity. The Hebrew word translated "men" is the same as the name Adam. It could just as easily be translated "die like Adam." The next line is probably more interesting - "like one of the leaders you will fall" is most likely a reference to the mythic story of the fall of Lucifer - which fits into these early narratives of the divine assembly (Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:12-17). The fall removes these divinities from that divine assembly for not completing their obligations. Ultimately, this also sets the stage for the monotheism of Israel because, once all but YHWH have fallen, only YHWH is left to rule the entire earth. And naturally, once Israel is fully monotheistic, the stories themselves tend to be less interesting (from a religious standpoint), leading to the changes in the text like that at Deuteronomy 32:8.

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Psalm 89:8 says "O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee?"

Considering the LDS plurality of Gods, does this question only make sense when applying it only to the God of our Earth and the worlds he created?

I think that we have to be particularly careful of trying to read our own modern theology back onto ancient scripture. But I think that we can understand this passage in the same context as this reading of Psalm 82. "Lord God" in this verse is YHWH Elohe (Elohe is the singular of elohim). This can be read as a comparison (again) between YHWH and the other elohim in God's divine Assembly. And the same idea that we read in Psalm 82 can be read here - none of the other divinities can compare with YHWH - who alone is supremely strong and faithful. And of course, this doesn't really require any significant changes in the shift to strict monotheism - because the comparison is assumed to be to everything that isn't YHWH (even if it doesn't read quite as nicely in that context).

As much as some people like to see it, there isn't really a lot of room for overlap between an ancient Israelite view of pantheon and the modern LDS view of a plurality of gods. Further, the apocalyptic overtones of Psalm 82 were mostly replaced by a later eschatological myth. I say mostly because if we compare Psalm 82 with Revelation, we see some of these themes of chaos before the end come back (the story has changed, but some of these basic ideas persist). This doesn't just play a role in Revelations (in New Testament eschatology), but it also appears in the Book of Mormon - remember the chaos that comes in the time period associated with the death of Jesus (the same darkness, the shaking of the cosmos) - it's part of the reason why some (if not most) of the Nephites believed that they were experiencing the final apocalypse instead of merely a brief period of destruction.

[marineland]

On 1/24/2025 at 12:06 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

All of us are children of God, and it is our destiny to become gods.  We all are of the genus and species of God.  The heavenly host includes all of us at that Divine Council where we made the decision to follow God's Plan of Salvation.  Ps 82 is mocking elitists who imagine that they have already attained godhood here and now.  Yet they will die like ordinary men.  That they were all divine beings in the premortal phase of their existence will not save them.

Do the divine beings in the Council of Psalm 82 represent those who had
already become gods in the past or is it referring to divine beings who 
hope to become gods in the future?
 

[marineland]

On 1/24/2025 at 1:06 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

but it also appears in the Book of Mormon - remember the chaos that comes in the time period associated with the death of Jesus (the same darkness, the shaking of the cosmos)

Three hours of darkness vs. three days.  One earthquake vs. multiple. Three
dead vs. hundreds of thousands (or millions?).  No cities destroyed vs. more
than ten.

Edited January 26, 2025 by marineland

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Do the divine beings in the Council of Psalm 82 represent those who had already become gods in the past or is it referring to divine beings who hope to become gods in the future?

Neither. In the original context, they represented a class of divine beings - less than the most high God, and more than, say angels. They didn't "become" divine beings - they were created that way. And there isn't any "hope to become gods" because this idea doesn't make much sense in that context. They simply are. These are myths - a part of very old traditions that from our modern perspective aren't particularly true or accurate (in the same way that in the future, many of our traditions may be recognized as not particularly true or accurate). The divine assembly in Psalm 82 represents a period of time when ancient Israelite religion wasn't strictly monotheistic. The link has things I would question - but it will effectively paint a picture of the context for the Psalm. By the time we get to the New Testament, Israelite religion had become strictly monotheism and many of these older narratives received new interpretations.

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Three hours of darkness vs. three days.  One earthquake vs. multiple. Three dead vs. hundreds of thousands (or millions?).  No cities destroyed vs. more than ten.

It isn't the scale that I am referring to. It's the fact that in experiencing something that they believed was described in their prophetic writings, the Nephites associated that event with their apocalyptic expectations. Their expectations changed. Similarly, when Jesus died, the expectations of His Jewish followers had to be changed, because what they thought the Messiah would do was different from what He did.

We tend to experience the same sort of thing, even though Christians today have different sets of expectations. Harold Camping is one example of this sort of thing. But we have developed a narrative of the 'signs of the times' and it is something that is regularly invoked. Even Joseph Smith had an expectation of the arrival of the Millennium that didn't seem to have been met. But whenever we see specific world events as a precursor to the second coming, we tend to engage in the same process.

[Mfbnew]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It isn't the scale that I am referring to. It's the fact that in experiencing something that they believed was described in their prophetic writings, the Nephites associated that event with their apocalyptic expectations. Their expectations changed. Similarly, when Jesus died, the expectations of His Jewish followers had to be changed, because what they thought the Messiah would do was different from what He did.

We tend to experience the same sort of thing, even though Christians today have different sets of expectations. Harold Camping is one example of this sort of thing. But we have developed a narrative of the 'signs of the times' and it is something that is regularly invoked. Even Joseph Smith had an expectation of the arrival of the Millennium that didn't seem to have been met. But whenever we see specific world events as a precursor to the second coming, we tend to engage in the same process.

And imo at some point it really doesn't matter if some of these alleged "historical" events did or will not happen- their importance lies in the practical changes in our lives that the belief and expectation brings with it.

IF the "second coming" never comes, pragmatically the preparation for such events can be life changing spiritually - in encouraging additional "righteousness" in one's life- and on the practical side, preparations for the second coming could have helped some in the recent LA fires, for example, because they were prepared for an Armageddon that never happens.

Faith is HOPE for things unseen, and that hope can be life changing.

All religion can be seen to caused by that kind of hope.   Regarding secular religion for example, one might argue that business start-ups are as much based on "hope for things unseen" as any religious claim.

Disney enterprises comes to mind as a great example.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a

Edited January 26, 2025 by Mfbnew

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/24/2025 at 11:06 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

..........................:

................, the Ugaritic pantheon (which also included the god YHWH), ...........................

An Ugaritic YHWH?  Are you referring to Amorite yahwī?

We do have Ugaritic šm il “Name of God,” which is the same as Amorite Šamû-Ilâ.

On 1/24/2025 at 11:06 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that we have to be particularly careful of trying to read our own modern theology back onto ancient scripture. But I think that we can understand this passage in the same context as this reading of Psalm 82. "Lord God" in this verse is YHWH Elohe (Elohe is the singular of elohim). This can be read as a comparison (again) between YHWH and the other elohim in God's divine Assembly. And the same idea that we read in Psalm 82 can be read here - none of the other divinities can compare with YHWH - who alone is supremely strong and faithful. And of course, this doesn't really require any significant changes in the shift to strict monotheism - because the comparison is assumed to be to everything that isn't YHWH (even if it doesn't read quite as nicely in that context).

As much as some people like to see it, there isn't really a lot of room for overlap between an ancient Israelite view of pantheon and the modern LDS view of a plurality of gods. .....................

Are you sure about that last claim?  G. del Olmo Lete characterizes ilhm in Ugaritic texts as "the ʼIlāhūma, divine beings," and relates them to Hebrew אלהים ʼĕlōhîm.  Tess Dawson says that "the Ugaritic word ʼilahuma is related to one of the names of the Hebrew deity, Elohim, which means 'gods'."  However, she sees the ʼilahuma or Divine Assembly as the sons and daughters of ʼAthiratu and Ilu., Ashera and El (which, as you know, appears in an Israelite context as Asherah and YHWH).  Del Olmo Lete goes on to emphasize the pre-eminence of 

Quote

“the ‘god-father’ (ilib), an epithet in which, possibly there is an evolution or syncretism: from the ‘father of the god’ or the ‘father-god’ of family / personal / nomadic religion with its divinized ancestors, there is a shift to the ‘god / ʼIlu-father’, i.e., to the confession of the supreme god ʼIlu under the title of ‘universal father’ (‘father of gods and men’, as he is known in myth and epic).  To this ‘primitive’ epithet / title belong two other personal names of the supreme deity, culturally more exact but noetically more imprecise, il and dgn (1 + 2), forming a first tri-unity of epithets (cf. also KTU 1.123:1-3: il wilm…il…il šr).  Although the epithets might be distinct in the cult and in the prayers of the faithful, in myth and theology they correspond to the same god.  There can be little doubt that the equation of ʼIlu and Dagānu expresses the process of cultural and cultic identification of two (Canaanite / Amorite) pantheons.”  del Olmo Lete, Canaanite Religion, 2^nd ed.,368;  366, “a late sublimation of the ancestor cult.”

Does any of that make sense in a Latter-day Saint theological context?

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, marineland said:

Do the divine beings in the Council of Psalm 82 represent those who had
already become gods in the past or is it referring to divine beings who 
hope to become gods in the future?

You can go with Ben McGuire's interpretation, or go with the approach I take in my reply to Ben.  Naturally, I take the view that all those in the Council are divine beings which have further potential -- if they do not rebel -- to become much greater divine beings.  Moreover, the Ugaritic (Canaanite) conception sees all humans as part of a divine family, with a Father-god (il-ib) at the head.  The Israelites are Canaanites:  The Bible contains Canaanite stories and language (Hebrew is actually Canaanite), and biblical YHWH is clearly the equivalent of Ba'al.

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

An Ugaritic YHWH?  Are you referring to Amorite yahwī?

Actually, if we step back from the names, the Ugaritic YHWH is really Baal - that is, both do the same things and hold the same place in the pantheon. The real similarity between the Ugaritic and Israelite pantheon is El. When Israelite religion conflates El and YHWH, YHWH takes (among other things) the consort of El (Asherah in Hebrew, Atirat in the Ugaritic). I think that everyone discusses YHWH directly as potentially a part of the Ugaritic pantheon and the possibility of various names represeting YHWH in there, but no one is convinced of anything. The most convincing theory is that YHWH originates in Edom.

However, there is really broad consensus that at least in Psalm 82, El and YHWH are different divinities.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you sure about that last claim?

I am absolutely certain of this. I think that the sort of games that get played to try and create a connection are a stretch. LDS theology is built on entirely different premises - and the process itself is even more difficult to connect. So, when you ask:

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does any of that make sense in a Latter-day Saint theological context?

The answer clearly should be - not at all.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You can go with Ben McGuire's interpretation, or go with the approach I take in my reply to Ben.  Naturally, I take the view that all those in the Council are divine beings which have further potential -- if they do not rebel -- to become much greater divine beings.  Moreover, the Ugaritic (Canaanite) conception sees all humans as part of a divine family, with a Father-god (il-ib) at the head.  The Israelites are Canaanites:  The Bible contains Canaanite stories and language (Hebrew is actually Canaanite), and biblical YHWH is clearly the equivalent of Ba'al.

And here is the crux. I like Jonathon Smith's take on all of this in his Drudgery Divine. But, the idea that the Israelites were simply Canaanites who shared their pantheon with other Canaanites (probably best articulated by Mark Smith) - isn't conducive at all to the idea that Mormonism teaches - of a perfect religion, corrupted over time, and then restored. Finding these historical elements and then comparing them to revealed LDS belief is, more or less, its own form of parallelomania. There isn't any effort being made to determine what might be an accurate reflection of LDS belief, versus finding inappropriate parallels to that corrupted past, versus mere coincidence. In the process, it creates both a twisted view of history - defining history through the lens of our own beliefs, and it creates a warped view of LDS beliefs in the present by forcing them into this mold created by misapprehending the past.

That's my two cents. The idea that you can find LDS belief in the three thousand year old pre-Judaism religious views of Israel is a pipe dream.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Actually, if we step back from the names, the Ugaritic YHWH is really Baal - that is, both do the same things and hold the same place in the pantheon. The real similarity between the Ugaritic and Israelite pantheon is El. When Israelite religion conflates El and YHWH, YHWH takes (among other things) the consort of El (Asherah in Hebrew, Atirat in the Ugaritic). I think that everyone discusses YHWH directly as potentially a part of the Ugaritic pantheon and the possibility of various names represeting YHWH in there, but no one is convinced of anything. The most convincing theory is that YHWH originates in Edom.

Yes, Egyptian inscriptions and texts suggest that Edom is a good place to look for early YHWH, who does indeed replace Ba'al, as I pointed out already.

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

However, there is really broad consensus that at least in Psalm 82, El and YHWH are different divinities.

Yes, and not simply because both terms are titles rather than names, but also because El & Ba'al are different deities, and biblical YHWH explicitly takes over the role of Ba'al.  That does not obviate the confusion of terms in parallel E and J texts (as in the Psalter, where it is most obvious).  Nor should we ignore the popular, vernacular expression of Israelite religion exposed by archeological recovery of fertility figurines (Ashera) in ordinary Israelite homes.

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am absolutely certain of this. I think that the sort of games that get played to try and create a connection are a stretch. LDS theology is built on entirely different premises - and the process itself is even more difficult to connect. So, when you ask:

The answer clearly should be - not at all.

Certainly, if one's interpretation of LDS theology is narrowly defined.

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And here is the crux. I like Jonathon Smith's take on all of this in his Drudgery Divine. But, the idea that the Israelites were simply Canaanites who shared their pantheon with other Canaanites (probably best articulated by Mark Smith) - isn't conducive at all to the idea that Mormonism teaches - of a perfect religion, corrupted over time, and then restored. Finding these historical elements and then comparing them to revealed LDS belief is, more or less, its own form of parallelomania.

The problem is that Canaanite religion at Ugarit includes specific Israelite ritual such as Sukkot on the roof, Day of Atonement, etc.  It is not parallelomania for Del Olmo Lete to make such reasonable comparisons.  Indeed, Hayyim ben Yosef Tawil even takes us back to Akkadian culture for a huge number of linguistic parallels.  Besides, I don't at all accept the notion that Latter-day Saint theology teaches a "perfect" religion during any phase of humanity.  Humans are always flawed, and their transmittal of tradition is always fraught with diversity of expression.  Or, as Dan McClellan likes to point out, it is nonsense to imagine univocality in the Bible.  One has only to look at differing creation texts in the LDS Scriptures to see how silly that notion is.

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There isn't any effort being made to determine what might be an accurate reflection of LDS belief, versus finding inappropriate parallels to that corrupted past, versus mere coincidence. In the process, it creates both a twisted view of history - defining history through the lens of our own beliefs, and it creates a warped view of LDS beliefs in the present by forcing them into this mold created by misapprehending the past.

That's my two cents. The idea that you can find LDS belief in the three thousand year old pre-Judaism religious views of Israel is a pipe dream.

I hope this does not mean that you disregard the main lesson of Jonathan Z. Smith's Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown, in which he maintains that local history and geography have a profound effect on the diversity of religious expression.  There is no reason to think that LDS beliefs must mirror exactly any earlier phase of human religious expression.  We need to look deeper than mere surface impressions.

Edited January 27, 2025 by Robert F. Smith

[Kevin Christensen]

Interesting discussion.  One thing I notice about Ps. 82 is that it describes what can happen when a covenant is broken, and King Benjamin describes covenant making and the promises if kept.

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

compare: 

...I at this time have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together, that I might be found blameless, and that your blood should not come upon me, when I shall stand to be judged of God of the things whereof he hath commanded me concerning you.

28 I say unto you that I have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together that I might rid my garments of your blood, at this period of time when I am about to go down to my grave, that I might go down in peace, and my immortal spirit may join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God. (Mosiah 2:27-28)

Ps. 82 again,

2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

Compare  King Benjamin again:

20 And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.

21 And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

23 I say unto you, wo be unto that man, for his substance shall perish with him; and now, I say these things unto those who are rich as pertaining to the things of this world.

24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give.

25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.

26 And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

27 And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

Ps. 82

5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness:

 

King Benjamin, chapter 2

if ye shall keep the commandments of my son, or the commandments of God which shall be delivered unto you by him, ye shall prosper in the land, and your enemies shall have no power over you.

32 But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah.

33 For behold, there is a wo pronounced upon him who listeth to obey that spirit; for if he listeth to obey him, and remaineth and dieth in his sins, the same drinketh damnation to his own soul; for he receiveth for his wages an everlasting punishment, having transgressed the law of God contrary to his own knowledge.

Ps. 82

all the foundations of the earth are out of course.  (This is the Cosmic Covenant broken, as discussed by Robert Murray in his book on The Cosmic Covenant and often discussed by Barker)

King Benjamin (Mosiah 4:6-8):

the atonement which has been prepared from the foundation of the world, that thereby salvation might come to him that should put his trust in the Lord, and should be diligent in keeping his commandments, and continue in the faith even unto the end of his life, I mean the life of the mortal body—

7 I say, that this is the man who receiveth salvation, through the atonement which was prepared from the foundation of the world for all mankind, which ever were since the fall of Adam, or who are, or who ever shall be, even unto the end of the world.

8 And this is the means whereby salvation cometh.

Ps. 82

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (compare DSS version of Deut 32:8-9)

Benjamin, (Mosiah 5:7)

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Ps. 82 

But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

King Benjamin, (Mosiah 2:36-41)

36 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom’s paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—

37 I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

39 And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment.

40 O, all ye old men, and also ye young men, and you little children who can understand my words, for I have spoken plainly unto you that ye might understand, I pray that ye should awake to a remembrance of the awful situation of those that have fallen into transgression.

41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

Ps. 82

Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.  (compare Deut. 32:8-9 DDS version, 

8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God.

9 For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.)

King Benjamin, (Mosiah 3:10, 13, 20)

10 And he shall rise the third day from the dead; and behold, he standeth to judge the world; and behold, all these things are done that a righteous judgment might come upon the children of men.

13 And the Lord God hath sent his holy prophets among all the children of men, to declare these things to every kindred, nation, and tongue, that thereby whosoever should believe that Christ should come, the same might receive remission of their sins, and rejoice with exceedingly great joy, even as though he had already come among them.

20 And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited January 27, 2025 by Kevin Christensen

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Certainly, if one's interpretation of LDS theology is narrowly defined.

And....

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Interesting discussion.  One thing I notice about Ps. 82 is that it describes what can happen when a covenant is broken, and King Benjamin describes covenant making and the promises if kept.

These things go together, and I wish I could upvote them again.  

I have no idea how (or if) Psalm 82 fits with LDS theology, but there are possibilities and this discussion is very interesting indeed.

[2BizE]

I’m not entirely sure this concept of the Earth being the last to be subjected to the fall, but one thing I do know for certain is Kolob was the first planet to have an IHOP. Even before Earth.

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

I’m not entirely sure this concept of the Earth being the last to be subjected to the fall, but one thing I do know for certain is Kolob was the first planet to have an IHOP. Even before Earth.

There is something about IHOP pancakes that transports me to heaven***, so this does not surprise me.

***fond memories of childhood I am guessing rather than taste as no one beats my mom’s pancakes especially when smothered in butter.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/27/2025 at 3:40 PM, InCognitus said:

.......

I have no idea how (or if) Psalm 82 fits with LDS theology, but there are possibilities and this discussion is very interesting indeed.

See Daniel McClellan on Psalm 82, online at https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/tag/psalm-82/.

[marineland]

On 1/26/2025 at 12:28 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Neither. In the original context, they represented a class of divine beings - less than the most high God, and more than, say angels. They didn't "become" divine beings - they were created that way. And there isn't any "hope to become gods" because this idea doesn't make much sense in that context.

They are created gods (exalted beings) without a need for a future exaltation?

[marineland]

On 1/26/2025 at 8:39 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

You can go with Ben McGuire's interpretation, or go with the approach I take in my reply to Ben.  Naturally, I take the view that all those in the Council are divine beings which have further potential -- if they do not rebel -- to become much greater divine beings.

Are you referring to non-exalted beings becoming exalted beings (Gods)?

[Benjamin McGuire]

19 minutes ago, marineland said:

They are created gods (exalted beings) without a need for a future exaltation?

Yeah. We aren't discussing LDS theology here but the Psalms in their original context. The whole concept of future exaltation isn't something you find in the Psalms and their theology.

Perhaps that is the disconnect.

Edit - I am not saying that we can't or shouldn't read the Psalms in the context of our current theology. We can certainly liken the scriptures unto ourselves. The issue is that we shouldn't then project that interpretation back on to the ancient texts and their authors and their first readers. Our readings would not make any sense to them.

Edited January 29, 2025 by Benjamin McGuire

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

Are you referring to non-exalted beings becoming exalted beings (Gods)?

Becoming a god is the final step in the evolution of divine beings who are the sons of God.  It begins with the spiritual embodiment of individual intelligences (eternal sparks of being), proceeds through acceptance of the Plan of Salvation at the Divine Council, physical embodiment and earthly experience (a probationary test), and ending with a final judgment and Celestial Glory (Exaltation) for those who pass the test.  Some argue for a very exclusive final status, while others think that God the Father is inclusive, and that nearly everyone rises incorruptible and glorious at the end (telos/ eschaton).

[Robert F. Smith]

On 1/22/2025 at 10:55 AM, Mfbnew said:

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

So President Nelson very wisely made the decision that we should always us the sacred name of Jesus Christ in describing the church.   And of course we do not worship "Saints" since for us, that word does not mean what it does to some other Christians- for us it simply means members of our church.

Yes, and he also changed the church logo:

[RevTestament]

On 1/26/2025 at 6:39 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

The Bible contains Canaanite stories and language (Hebrew is actually Canaanite), and biblical YHWH is clearly the equivalent of Ba'al.

Please elucidate.

On 1/24/2025 at 10:06 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Ps 82 is mocking elitists who imagine that they have already attained godhood here and now.  Yet they will die like ordinary men.  That they were all divine beings in the premortal phase of their existence will not save them.

When will man learn to read what God has written? You fall into the same trap as the typical Christian apologists do... If this is correct, why did Yeshua quote it to His detractors for denouncing His saying He is the Son of God? Yet, the truth doesn't quite fit the current LDS narrative. It says what it means, which is why the Jews were the chosen people, and why BY was right about Adam being "god" or elohim if you will.... Nice to debate with you again BTW...  

On 1/27/2025 at 5:10 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's my two cents. The idea that you can find LDS belief in the three thousand year old pre-Judaism religious views of Israel is a pipe dream.

Because you do not see it through Hebrew eyes, and so remain blind.... no offense.... It applies to just about everyone.