Divine Council Dart/Enuma thread

[_Bond...James Bond]

Question for David/Kevin....would you guys like me to break off the posts from this discussion and move it to the Celestial....since this thread was started on a thread concerning Trashcanman?

[_Enuma Elish]

Cool thanks! Let's do that to avoid confusion!

Also, thanks to all those from MD who despite our differences have kindly welcomed my return.

[_Bond...James Bond]

This topic was split off from this thread concerning trashcanman being banned from MAD.

[_cksalmon]

Surely you know that Kevin and Trashman are one and the same. Which, in all honesty, makes this whole affair all the more intriguing. Consider Kevin’s comments about himself:

I don't want to belabor the obvious here, David. But, I do want to reiterate that this suggestion is both false and unfounded.

TCM and KG are certainly not the same person. I've corresponded privately with TCM: he's not KG.

Not to derail. Just wanted to make this, to my mind, rather obvious point again for any who might be wondering.

It's just not true.

Carry on.

CKS

[_Bond...James Bond]

Surely you know that Kevin and Trashman are one and the same. Which, in all honesty, makes this whole affair all the more intriguing. Consider Kevin’s comments about himself:

I don't want to belabor the obvious here, David. But, I do want to reiterate that this suggestion is both false and unfounded.

TCM and KG are certainly not the same person. I've corresponded privately with TCM: he's not KG.

Not to derail. Just wanted to make this, to my mind, rather obvious point again for any who might be wondering.

It's just not true.

Carry on.

CKS

I think David cleared up this point....maybe I left it on the other thread. (Forgive me....I'm a humble nevermo)

[Guest]

The first human being, who of course in the Bible represents humanity as a whole, is a member of the divine council of deities and you view this fact as a “huge departure” from what Joseph Smith taught? Well, obviously I don’t see it that way.

Again, the Joseph Smith view places Adam in the council in the preexistence. Scholars discussing the biblical divine council do not appear to acknowledge this aspect which seems unique only to Joseph Smith. So the relation Adam has with the divine council, as it is discussed among modern biblical scholars, is really different from Joseph Smith’s idea. So yes, this is a huge departure, and whether or not you see it that way, this difference still deserves at least some acknowledgment in your work.

What doctrine? That humans are presented as members of the divine council of deities in both the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism? If you honestly believe that the only support for this position is Daniel Peterson then you should clearly return and reread the article.

That isn’t what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that according to Joseph Smith, the divine council consisted of premortal humans. There is no support for this in scholarship other than Dan Peterson, who isn’t a Bible scholar.

I don’t see it that way. Yes there are questions for which we do not have answers, but Latter-day teachings regarding the council of gods are not obscure.

Official LDS teachings do not even make the grade of obscurity. Again, most Mormons are not even aware of it, and the most vocal advocate is about to appeal to symbolism to fill in some holes.

But I think part of the problem lies in the fact that words are simply symbols and symbols carry a variety of meanings depending upon context.

Joseph Smith was not using symbolism here. He said it was a divine council of gods. He made no mystery of this fact. He made no equivocation and he wasn’t playing a game of semantics. He said it consisted of premortal humans. Where is the hint of symbolism? I am asking you to make sense of the doctrine that gods came to earth so they could progress to become gods. Assuming Joseph Smith was playing a game of semantics isn’t reassuring. Following this line of thought, one cannot pin-point anything about the doctrine because one first needs to presume what sense of “God” Joseph Smith had in mind.

As a result, we can’t simply take a term like “gods” and say that simply because D&C 132:20, for example, specifically applies the title “god” to exalted, resurrected beings that therefore, every other time the term “gods” appears in scripture that it must likewise carry the exact same nuance. Words are simply symbols and symbols are always multi-dimensional.

So are you saying “gods” as premortal divine council members, were not “gods” in the same sense God is God? That sounds like something a die-hard monotheist might argue. I can think of several Evangelical who do.

Latter-day Saint commentators have used the term “gods” as a title for the pre-mortal sons and daughters of Heavenly Father and scriptural texts refer to Jesus Christ as a god before he obtained a physical body.

That’s fine, but I’m not interested in unnamed commentators; I am interested in how Joseph Smith referred to divine council members as “gods” in a different sense.

I’m not using the fact that we don’t know for sure if Joseph Smith said that the verse “is altogr. Correct in the translatn” as a defense. Many of the issues you are raising rely upon precision, and so, when considering this issue, I simply feel that we should remain consistent in our approach.

Of course. But doubt usually comes when there is a reason to doubt. You haven’t presented one, so I see no reason to say “we don’t know is that’s what he said.” Technically we can say this about virtually everything he said.

When Joseph Smith used Revelation 1:6 to teach that God the Father has a Father, you believe that Joseph was "wrong" because that’s not what the original author of Revelation 1:6 meant when he wrote the words Jesus “hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.”

Naturally.

First of all, I’m going to agree with your argument in as much as I too believe that the original author did not intend to suggest what Joseph taught, namely that God the Father of Jesus Christ has a father.

Fantastic.

I’m going to reject your conclusion, however, that Joseph Smith was wrong.

I’m absolutely stunned.

First of all, he wasn’t wrong in the sense that the verse is translated correctly (assuming that's what Joseph actually said).

Yes he was. Again, literal translations are some of the worst translations known to man. I deal with translations on a daily basis. The whole point of saying the verse was altogether “correct” was to validate his interpretation before he presented it.

Second of all, Joseph wasn’t wrong in the sense that he expanded the verse to mean concepts above and beyond what the original author intended.

Please don’t insult our intelligence. This is a wild statement coming out of left field without a shred of evidence. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear that John the revelator believed this, and he believed it without benefit of Joseph Smith’s “expansion.”

He said, and I quote:

“If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father?”

The highlighted portion refers to the Revelation 1:6 which he used to kick start his sermon. And I quote:

“President Joseph Smith read the 3rd chapter of Revelation, and took for his text 1st chapter, 6th verse—"And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father: to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.”

Good luck trying to convince onlookers that there is no connection between these two statements.

Throughout the Bible, inspired authors do precisely what Joseph Smith did by taking an inspired text and expanding the verse via divine revelation to mean more than what the original author meant.

You first need to substantiate that this is what Joseph Smith did before using it as a premise and focusing on what prophets have done in the Bible.

After all, if Joseph is “wrong” for using this technique, then so is every other biblical prophet who refashioned an earlier text to fit a different context.

Again, Joseph Smith wasn’t using any such “technique.” He stated very clearly that this is what John believed based on the KJV rendering. Joseph expanded by adding a great-grandfather in the equation but this has nothing to do with the fact that he based his divine grandfather doctrine on Rev 1:6 and he said this is what John believed.

Was Matthew “wrong” when he took Isaiah’s prophetic judgment “behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emanuel” and reinterpreted the text as a prophecy of Jesus Christ?

You’re on a fishing expedition now, in a dried out lake bed. First substantiate the assertion that this is what Joseph Smith was doing. I’m not going to simply take it for granted because you say so. Where is your evidence?

What about when Matthew took out of its original context Jeremiah’s text “in Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning Rachel weeping for her children and would not be comforted, because they are not.” Was Matthew wrong on this occasion since we can easily establish that this event in Jesus’ life is not what Jeremiah had in mind?

If Matthew said, “This is what Jeremiah said” then yes, this makes the error all the more grievous. But there is no reason to drag New Testament apostles into Joseph Smith’s mess. This is a diversionary attempt. I don’t see how pointing out errors in the Bible somehow justifies Joseph Smith’s blunder here.

I expect a true prophet to expand upon texts in a way that extends the scripture above and beyond what the original author meant.

Wow. Even when Joseph Smith is blatantly wrong, you manage to find ways to interpret this as evidence that he is a true prophet.

Simply breath taking.

So while I accept your position that the original author of Revelation 1:6 did not mean to suggest that God the Father has a Father, I reject your conclusion that Joseph was wrong.

Would it help dissuade you if you at least acknowledge Joseph Smith’s own statement which said this is what John (the original author) believed, without any required “expansion”? Probably not, but here goes anyway: “…unto God and His Father (Rev 1:6)…and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father…”

The verse is translated correctly

So when you grade translations, you don’t think proper placement of the conjunction makes any difference between a good and bad translation? Then all I have to say is I’m and shocked surprised.

I appreciate the way Joseph Smith expanded it.

He expanded it by adding a great-grandfather in the equation, but the fact that he believed John the revelator said “God the Father has a Father” is not dependant on any expansion by Joseph Smith. It is clearly stated by him. Thus, Joseph Smith is wrong in attributing a doctrine based on ambiguous translation, to the original author.

Of course, but is the message best conveyed through a literal word for word equivalency or through an attempt to simply recreate the author’s general sense?

Joseph wasn’t trying to create anything. He misunderstood the KJV rendering and took advantage of the ambiguity to help him justify his innovative plurality of gods theology. He used it specifically to prove God the Father has a Father. He used a scripture that ended up not saying what he said it said.

Particularly in an ancient text that relies heavily upon cultural and grammatical puns?!

There is no pun involved here.

In reality, translators of ancient texts debate back and forth on this very issue and have for decades. Both approaches have their merits, which is why, in part, that so many translations of the Bible exist.

And that is precisely why Joseph Smith’s interpretation is without support today. Scholars have polished Rev 1:6 in a way that leaves no room for his misinterpretation.

Interesting, however, that you argue here for the preference of establishing meaning through context rather than literal nuance which is of course exactly what I did in reference to the use of “take to task” in Trashman’s post where he clearly used the idiom to mean a successful rebuke rather than a mere critique <grin>.

Joseph Smith’s failure to understand what the original author really said cannot be blamed on idiomatic expressions.

I see Joseph’s interpretation of Revelation 1:6 at this end of his ministry as superior to the interpretation provided in the JST.

Bad suggestion, since this means his misunderstanding came through revelation, “line upon line.” He was better off sticking to the earlier version he provided in the JST, but he came across the ambiguity in the KJV and decided to use it to his advantage with a naïve crowd.

Remember, you just argued that a literal interpretation is quite often an incorrect interpretation. I wasn’t suggesting that Joseph Smith was a literal artist.

I know what you were suggesting, and it is totally without merit. To say the chances of someone being able to connect four dots, has the same likelihood of Mona Lisa appearing as paint is thrown up in the air, is patently absurd. The latter is virtually impossible whereas the former is not only possible, but in this case highly probable. Joseph Smith moved to a plurality theology which explains why he pursued further scriptural justification. I mean good grief, his misuse of Rev 1:6 pretty much encapsulates his desperation.

You can’t prove this. The mere fact that Joseph had a few Hebrew lessons doesn’t mean that Joseph read Hebrew. I would go so far as to suggest that we have strong evidence that Joseph didn’t know Hebrew at all right from the King Follett Sermon.

The evidence suggests he knew it well enough to translate any verse if he set his mind to it. He created a school and purchased books on the subject. He spent days and nights studying, and this was just in early 1836. His sermon took place eight years after his Hebrew studies began. Did he really expect to learn the language in a month, or is it more likely that he continued with his private studies? In any event, there is no reason to believe he depended on the KJV given his library with books on the subject.

And of course, if Joseph couldn’t read Hebrew then he was almost entirely dependent upon the KJV.

This is absurd logic. I cannot read Hebrew either but I am hardly dependant on the KJV or any other Bible translation. There is this nifty little tool called a lexicon, and Joseph Smith purchased several of them. He also owned Seixas’ book on Hebrew grammar. It is a huge leap to say that because he didn’t know one specific rule, that he couldn’t properly translate sod as council, or that he couldn’t see the obvious functioning of the council in the relevant verses. Again, Simon Parker clearly disagrees, and he has no apologetic or theological stake in this matter.

Moreover, since you already admitted he borrowed concepts and ideas from the Hebrew Bible, this means he had specific verses already in his cross-hairs. Having some background in Hebrew, it only naturally follows that he would take a keen interest in translating these as well as he could. Given his interest in the divine council, it only makes sense that he would take the verses from the Hebrew Bible that point to this theme and then seek to fully understand it in the Hebrew.

In any event, I’m not a smart guy but even I can see a heavenly council in the relevant KJV verses, despite the “obscurity.”

No. I find it extraordinary that Joseph borrowed highly obscured council imagery from Isaiah and then correctly applied it in his own revelation. I find this not just "wild," but incredible, simply incredible!

Well, you’re nothing if not apologetically creative.

Only in your understanding is there a difference between the steps involved in the revelatory process between Church President and lay member.

Then please answer the question I asked. How much Egyptian did Joseph Smith learn before translating the Book of Abraham? At what point did “natural” acquisition of knowledge precede the revelation he received in this translation process? For that matter, how much Reformed Egyptian did Joseph Smith know before translating the Book of Mormon, and how many lay members have translated ancient scriptures through revelation? Why rely on the prophet at all if any lay member can provide their own “inspired” translation of the Bible?

The fact is Joseph Smith never sought to learn these ancient languages naturally, nor did he seek to learn Hebrew until after he had already “translated” the Hebrew Bible via inspiration. So what you consider a “fundamental” step in receiving divine revelation was not so fundamental for Joseph Smith in his earlier and more important revelations.

I can provide dozens of references from Church Presidents that profess that revelations come to the Prophet via the same exact process.

What process? By acquiring the knowledge naturally beforehand? Again, I am not talking about learning something naturally and then asking God to verify its truth. This is something entirely different from what I am talking about and I am amazed that you would try to obfuscate this subject by suggesting the lay members have the same exact authority as the Prophet. There is only ONE prophet in the Church. That is a fundamental bedrock principle of the gospel. So why is that so if everyone in the Church can receive divine revelation just the same?

You still have not provided any evidence that a natural acquisition of knowledge is a necessary step before supernatural acquisition is granted.

Almost everyone of the revelations provided in the D&C came as a direct result of a “subject of enquiry” that the Prophet or his colleagues had as a direct result of studying, pondering, and/or conversing with others.

I am not saying studying precludes revelation. I am simply saying it is not a necessary step. Obviously it isn’t since you cannot tell me how much Egyptian Joseph Smith learned beforehand. “Subject of enquiry” hardly refutes anything I have said. Enquiry is simply an act of questioning something. Naturally someone can receive revelation after inquiring to God about the subject. But is God’s ability to communicate truths to us limited by a “process”? What questions did Paul have while on the road to Damascus? Did Joseph Smith inquire about marriage life before the angel appeared with a flaming sword commanding him to practice polygamy?

My criticism of your interpretation of Joseph Smith’s views has nothing whatsoever to do with my beliefs, it has everything to do with the way you present Joseph’s beliefs. And the inductive logic you employ misrepresents Joseph’s claims.

I guess we’ll agree to disagree and let the readers decided.

I think your understanding of “essential” steps in divine revelation contradict what we know of Joseph Smith’s more important revelations. I presented a few examples above, and you have yet to respond or reconcile them with your model. All you’ve done is to insist it isn’t your model. Joseph Smith identified the papyri as belonging to Abraham and Joseph, almost immediately after they were presented to him. There was no moment where a “subject of enquiry” took place. He didn’t even go pray about it. He received revelation because he was the prophet. The lay members were not presented the papyri because it was understood that only the prophet could translate the texts. He did and no one else even tried. Joseph Smith never suggested anyone else could. That is what makes his ability different from the layperson.

I notice you never responded to my analogy in which a psychic claims to have supernaturally determined your birth date while holding your drivers license and using it as a spiritual catalyst. She tells you that reading your license is a fundamental step in ascertaining the information supernaturally.

When all is said and done, this is essentially what the Bokovoy concept of revelation boils down to. It makes Joseph Smith’s revelations irrefutably valid, because no matter what evidence there is to suggest he acquired knowledge otherwise, you’re there with all kinds of apologetic stratagems to insist this counter-evidence actually validates his status as prophet.

You’ve got to be kidding?!

Not at all. It is called context. He verified with God that Paul wasn’t alluding to heathen gods. He did this via revelation because it was up in the air for interpretation. There was no natural means he could prove it. He didn’t know Greek. The situation changed with Gen 1. He didn’t bear his testimony that God told him elohim was plural. He mounted a defense based on Hebrew grammar; a natural means to obtain this knowledge.

You can’t simply draw a phrase (“I have it from God”) from the core of a sermon and then insist it has to apply to every single thing that was said in the sermon.

So you’re going to ignore his specific claims in favor of what you perceive as his tacit admissions?! How is this good reasoning?

I’ve ignored nothing. There are no specific claims that overthrow the obvious implication in his tacit admission, and you still haven’t provided any alternative theory as to whom “others” refers. One thing is clear: Joseph Smith was not the only person in his day who translated the text that way. The fact that he cites their translation proves he was aware of it.

Testing the veracity of Joseph’s claims is not the same thing as recognizing that Joseph declared that he had received knowledge concerning the plurality of gods via revelation.

In 1836 he learned it from Hebrew. He saw “others” translate it Gen 1:1 as “gods.” This we know. Whatever he might say later concerning subsequent revelations doesn’t change these facts.

Really Kevin, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I honestly have no idea how you can still cling to this claim.

There is no overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is just rhetoric. You have a bad habit of taking bits from specific instances and applying them with a broad brush, assuming you have established a universal rule without considering the possibility that these are merely exceptions. For example, if Joseph Smith goes to the bathroom before receiving one of his revelations, this doesn’t make it a “fundamental step” in the general divine revelation “process.”

And again, if the evidence is so overwhelming, then you should have no problems whatsoever in telling us how much Egyptian Joseph Smith tried to learn before translating the papyri. Nor should you have any problem explaining what “subject of enquiry” event took place on the road to Damascus.

Having said all this, I see no reason to believe the biblical concept of revelation involved a “process” at all. The only instances where a process is involved seems to be a one step process whereby the recipient asks God a question. That’s the extent of the “process.” In many, perhaps most cases God strikes prophets down with knowledge without any required step by step process.

Joseph Smith’s mixed notion (study and pondering = revelation) seems to have been an ad hoc attempt to explain why so many of his “revelations” showed striking resemblances to things he had read in books (i.e. Thomas Dick and Josephus). But nothing about this “process” is really biblical. Prophets are not required to study contemporary scholarship and then filter from them truths they think are worth using to develop theology. This is just a lame way to excuse plagiarism in the name of God.

[_Enuma Elish]

Just got home and read Kevin's response to my last post. I will certainly respond, but until then, I simply wanted to offer a sincere congratulations to Kevin for both presenting some very challenging/thought-provoking questions throughout this thread and for doing so in a non-threatening manner. While I do not agree, I can't help but be impressed.

[_dartagnan]

Make sure you read the edited version. I went back and changed some points where I thought I came across too abrasively.

[_CaliforniaKid]

I'd like to make a few brief comments. First, I'm pleased that you two are talking again. Second, these threads are much easier for me to follow when they are heavy on DC-related content and light on direct references to the debate opponent. When they get bogged down with personal commentary, I stop reading. So for the sake of your audience, please keep that in mind.

David, Josep Smith seems to have had an interest in the council in the Book of Daniel, when the Ancient of Days comes and the council sits. He wrote in the D&C that this was Adam sitting at the head of the council at the end of time. Elsewhere in the D&C, he speaks of Adam-- near the end of his earthly life-- calling together the antediluvian patriarchs and giving them a blessing. Both times the "council" occurs at Adam-ondi-Ahman. There's clearly a sort of symmetry here.

Obviously Joseph's interpretation of Daniel 7, by making the Ancient of Days Adam rather than Jesus (as the New Testament tends to do), makes Daniel 7 into a separate event from Revelation 20. In Revelation 20 (an event also mentioned by the gospels, which have the apostles sitting on twelve thrones in Christ's court) there is a council of judgment in which the books are opened, judgment pronounced, and the saints are participants. I can't help but wonder if, when Joseph Smith argued with Seixas about whether elohim should be translated in the plural, Joseph made the same kind of symmetrical connection. If before the world there are "gods" consulting together in creation, and at the end of the world the saints are participants in the council, then it's no great leap to turn the saints into gods (especially since Jesus says so explicitly that "ye are gods" in the New Testament). Does this sound like a plausible thought process?

-Chris

[_Enuma Elish]

Again, the Joseph Smith view places Adam in the council in the preexistence. Scholars discussing the biblical divine council do not appear to acknowledge this aspect which seems unique only to Joseph Smith. So the relation Adam has with the divine council, as it is discussed among modern biblical scholars, is really different from Joseph Smith’s idea. So yes, this is a huge departure, and whether or not you see it that way, this difference still deserves at least some acknowledgment in your work.

I have acknowledged that the Bible presents a very sketchy view of human preexistence. I’m not sure what more you want.

Since both the Bible and modern revelation depict human beings as inclusive members of the divine council of deities, I’m never going to acknowledge the legitimacy of your perspective that Joseph’s view of the council presents a “huge departure” from the biblical portrayal. It just dosen't.

That isn’t what I am referring to. I am referring to the fact that according to Joseph Smith, the divine council consisted of premortal humans. There is no support for this in scholarship other than Dan Peterson, who isn’t a Bible scholar.

Well if in the Bible, Adam was a member of the divine council of deities before he became mortal then clearly the divine council portrayed in the Bible consisted of premortal humans.

Joseph Smith was not using symbolism here. He said it was a divine council of gods.

My point was simply that if Joseph was using words (and clearly he was) to convey his thoughts then he was using symbols.

Words are symbols.

As English speakers, we have chosen to use the sounds ch-eh-er to symbolize an object we sit upon but there’s nothing naturally inherit in the object itself to force us to assume that it is in reality a “chair.”

After all, it could be a porta!

I am asking you to make sense of the doctrine that gods came to earth so they could progress to become gods.

The gods came to earth so that they could progress to become Gods. I just made sense of it.

Assuming Joseph Smith was playing a game of semantics isn’t reassuring. Following this line of thought, one cannot pinpoint anything about the doctrine because one first needs to presume what sense of “God” Joseph Smith had in mind.

I’m not suggesting that Joseph was playing semantic games. I am suggesting that like it or not, in order to pin-point anything that Joseph Smith taught, or for that matter, anything that appears in scriptural texts, one first needs to specify how Joseph and/or the scriptural author is using the word, i.e. symbol.

In other words, one cannot truly “pin-point” anything if one does not read in context.

In LDS scripture, sometimes the word “god” is used to refer to exalted, resurrected beings and sometimes the term “god” is used to refer to premortal beings who make up the divine race, including the pre-exalted Jesus Christ.

So are you saying “gods” as premortal divine council members, were not “gods” in the same sense God is God? That sounds like something a die-hard monotheist might argue. I can think of several Evangelical who do.

Of course I’m saying that gods as premortal divine council members were not gods in the same sense that God is God.

Please don’t insult our intelligence. This is a wild statement coming out of left field without a shred of evidence. Joseph Smith made it perfectly clear that John the revelator believed this, and he believed it without benefit of Joseph Smith’s “expansion.”

You’ve brought up a really good point. I won’t deny that it appears that Joseph Smith believed that John the Revelator taught in Revelation 1:6 that God the Father has a Father.

I also won’t deny the fact that I it appears that Joseph Smith was wrong.

I believe that Joseph was wrong to assume that John the Revelator wrote the book of Revelation (I don’t believe that he did), and I believe that Joseph Smith was wrong when he believed that John taught that God the Father has a Father in Rev. 1:6.

I do not believe that Joseph Smith was wrong in suggesting that God the Father has a Father, nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was wrong to take Revelation 1:6 and expand upon its meaning above the original author’s intent.

Since I don’t hold Joseph Smith or an other Prophet to the status of perfection, I do not find Joseph’s apparently mistaken assumptions problematic.

I’m not bothered by the fact that Joseph Smith assumed that John the Revelator wrote the book of Revelation, nor am I bothered by the fact that when the Prophet received insight from God concerning the way he should interpret this passage that Joseph naturally assumed that this interpretation was the original author’s intent.

You first need to substantiate that this is what Joseph Smith did before using it as a premise and focusing on what prophets have done in the Bible.

Well then our conversation on this issue will have to end here, because I freely admit that I cannot prove that Joseph Smith expanded upon the original meaning of Revelation 1:6 through inspiration, any more than I can substantiate that Matthew did the same thing when he took Old Testament prophets out of context and expanded the meaning of their writings to fit the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

I can prove that that this technique is what prophet’s do, but proving whether or not they were inspired in their efforts is beyond anything that I can establish.

So when you grade translations, you don’t think proper placement of the conjunction makes any difference between a good and bad translation? Then all I have to say is I’m and shocked surprised.

That’s interesting. Where do you suggest the translating of coordinating conjunction kai should go? Before God? “Unto and God his Father”?

Bad suggestion, since this means his misunderstanding came through revelation, “line upon line.” He was better off sticking to the earlier version he provided in the JST, but he came across the ambiguity in the KJV and decided to use it to his advantage with a naïve crowd.

Since I do not believe that Joseph’s interpretation of the verse was wrong, but rather that it reflects the additional light and knowledge he obtained later in his prophetic career, I’ll stick with my suggestion.

I know what you were suggesting, and it is totally without merit. To say the chances of someone being able to connect four dots, has the same likelihood of Mona Lisa appearing as paint is thrown up in the air, is patently absurd. The latter is virtually impossible whereas the former is not only possible, but in this case highly probable. Joseph Smith moved to a plurality theology which explains why he pursued further scriptural justification.

As illustrated via my references to the council imagery in Isaiah 40 reflected in D&C 128, I obviously believe that the view of the council in LDS theology provided by Joseph Smith represents much, much more than a mere connecting of four dots.

This is absurd logic. I cannot read Hebrew either but I am hardly dependant on the KJV or any other Bible translation.

The logic isn’t absurd. Without being able to read the original languages you’re primarily dependent upon translations, even if you can look up some words. Of course dictionaries are simply commentaries/interpretations and must be critically scrutinized before accepting. I would submit that understanding the grammar is much, much more important for interpreting a text than an ability to simply look up definitions.

There is this nifty little tool called a lexicon, and Joseph Smith purchased several of them. He also owned Seixas’ book on Hebrew grammar. It is a huge leap to say that because he didn’t know one specific rule, that he couldn’t properly translate sod as council, or that he couldn’t see the obvious functioning of the council in the relevant verses.

This is an interesting point, and I would really, really like to know how Seixas’ grammar defined the word sod. Unfortunately, our friend Ben promised to send me a PDF version of the grammar for my MAC and has yet to come through.

Irregardless, however, of this interesting point that I would very much like to follow up on, we can turn to Joseph’s use of biblical texts that employ the term sod in order to determine whether or not Joseph recognized that the word meant “council.” If he did not, then clearly your argument is off track.

To illustrate how different the KJV accessible to Joseph Smith is from modern renderings of passages that contain the word sod, consider the following passages:

“Have you listened in the council [sod] of God” (Job 15:7; NRSV)

“Hast thou heard the secret of God” (Job 15:8; KJV)

“Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealed his secret [sod] unto his servants the prophets” (Amos 3:7; KJV)

Now if Joseph used these types of references with the word sod in the context of his discussions of the council then clearly you would be correct, Joseph may have simply looked up the term sod and recognized that it could mean “council” in the Bible and subsequently shaped his theological discussions to reflect this view.

I haven’t found any examples, however, of the prophet using Bible references to the sod to mean “council” instead of “secret.” The closest I believe that you are going to get is the following:

“[Christ] did not say that there was no man throughout all generations that should not know the day or the hour [of the Second Coming]. No for this would be in flat contradiction with other scripture for the prophet says that God will do nothing but what he will reveal unto his Servants the prophets consequently if it is not made known to the Prophets it will not come to pass” (Words, 181).

It would seem to me that Joseph was clearly using Amos 3:7 to mean that, prior to its occurrence, God would reveal the secret date of Jesus’ Second Coming to his servants the prophets. So based upon the evidence that we have for Joseph’s use of Amos 3:7, Joseph did not associate this biblical reference to the sod with the divine council.

So even if Joshua Sexias’ grammar defined “sod” as “council,” (and I doubt that it did), we don’t have any evidence that this information impacted the Prophet in the manner you’ve suggested.

In fact, all evidence suggests just the opposite; for Joseph who was primarily dependent upon the KJV, the sod was simply a divine secret.

Moreover, since you already admitted he borrowed concepts and ideas from the Hebrew Bible, this means he had specific verses already in his cross-hairs. Having some background in Hebrew, it only naturally follows that he would take a keen interest in translating these as well as he could. Given his interest in the divine council, it only makes sense that he would take the verses from the Hebrew Bible that point to this theme and then seek to fully understand it in the Hebrew.

Evidence please! Let’s see some examples of Joseph Smith using any of the texts now recognized as divine council references as actual allusions to the divine council. Let’s see Joseph using Genesis 6 as a reference to the divine council having sex with human beings. Let’s see where Joseph uses references to the seraphim, host of heaven, the holy ones, etc. as divine council texts. If you are correct and Joseph was simply connecting the dots it would have been only natural for Joseph to take a keen interest in translating these texts, so surely you can provide a few examples.

The fact of the matter is that there’s no evidence that Joseph recognized any of these biblical texts as references to the divine council of deities and if he didn’t recognize these allusions in the Bible to the heavenly assembly then he wasn’t just “connecting the dots.”

Then please answer the question I asked. How much Egyptian did Joseph Smith learn before translating the Book of Abraham? At what point did “natural” acquisition of knowledge precede the revelation he received in this translation process? For that matter, how much Reformed Egyptian did Joseph Smith know before translating the Book of Mormon…

This is irrelevant. I do not believe that Joseph had to acquire an actual knowledge of Egyptian in order to produce the Book of Mormon and/or the Book of Abraham. I do believe that Joseph had to put forth an actual effort to interpret the languages and that the windows of heavenly inspiration were subsequently opened via the studying out, pondering, steps.

The fact is Joseph Smith never sought to learn these ancient languages naturally, nor did he seek to learn Hebrew until after he had already “translated” the Hebrew Bible via inspiration.

I’m afraid I disagree with your interpretation of the facts. Joseph did seek to learn ancient Egyptian, remember the KEP? Moreover, Joseph didn’t translate the Hebrew Bible. He revised the KJV.

What process? By acquiring the knowledge naturally beforehand? Again, I am not talking about learning something naturally and then asking God to verify its truth. This is something entirely different from what I am talking about and I am amazed that you would try to obfuscate this subject by suggesting the lay members have the same exact authority as the Prophet. There is only ONE prophet in the Church. That is a fundamental bedrock principle of the gospel. So why is that so if everyone in the Church can receive divine revelation just the same?

Everyone can receive revelation just the same as the Church President. To borrow your quote, this is a “fundamental bedrock principle of the gospel.” As Joseph himself declared,

“God hath not revealed anything to Joseph, but what he will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them. …” (Teachings, p. 149.)

Contrary to your assertion, there is not only ONE prophet in the Church today. First of all, the reason that Gordon B. Hinckley is the President of the Church has nothing to do with the fact that he is a prophet. The reason that Gordon B. Hinckley is the Prophet of the Church today is because he is the chief Apostle.

In the Old Testament, prophets were mediators and messengers sent from God. To add the perspective of prophecy witnessed in the book of Revelation, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy” (19:10). Therefore, there should in theory exist some thirteen odd million prophets and prophetesses in the Church today, individuals who receive revelation, including the testimony of Jesus, and who act as mediators and messengers sent from God over their various stewardships of responsibility.

As the chief Apostle, President Hinckley receives revelation for and in behalf of the entire Church and is therefore referred to in our nomenclature as “the Prophet.” His sacred office as Revelator, meaning “one who has the right to reveal his revelations” to the Church, does not preclude the rights of every Latter-day Saint to communicate with and receive revelations from God.

You still have not provided any evidence that a natural acquisition of knowledge is a necessary step before supernatural acquisition is granted.

Well, based upon my experience, God doesn’t typically reveal the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon to an investigator until one has acquired the book through natural means and then devotes some serious, good old fashioned, “natural” study to its contents.

From my experiences, this example of a natural acquisition of knowledge is typically a necessary step before supernatural acquisition is granted.

I am not saying studying precludes revelation. I am simply saying it is not a necessary step.

Perhaps maybe not studying it out in every case, but certainly some level of “natural” acquisition of knowledge precludes the supernatural.

But is God’s ability to communicate truths to us limited by a “process”?

I believe that it is. Not because God is limited, but because we are limited.

What questions did Paul have while on the road to Damascus?

I don’t know. The texts don’t specify.

Did Joseph Smith inquire about marriage life before the angel appeared with a flaming sword commanding him to practice polygamy?

Absolutely! D&C 132 is an amalgamation of three separate questions the Prophet had regarding marriage while producing his new translation of the Bible. Historical evidence suggests that these questions and the answers obtained when Joseph inquired about marriage happened prior to the angel’s alleged appearance.

As Joseph F. Smith explained:

"When that principle was revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, he very naturally shrank, in his feelings, from the responsibilities thereby imposed upon him… but he did not falter, although it was not until an angel of God, with a drawn sword, stood before him; and commanded that he should enter into the practice of that principle, or he should be utterly destroyed, or rejected, that he moved forward to reveal and establish that doctrine." Journal of Discourses, 20: 28-29

I think your understanding of “essential” steps in divine revelation contradict what we know of Joseph Smith’s more important revelations. I presented a few examples above, and you have yet to respond or reconcile them with your model. All you’ve done is to insist it isn’t your model. Joseph Smith identified the papyri as belonging to Abraham and Joseph, almost immediately after they were presented to him. There was no moment where a “subject of enquiry” took place.

You don’t believe that Joseph put forth an effort to interpret the texts?

He didn’t even go pray about it.

Evidence please.

I notice you never responded to my analogy in which a psychic claims to have supernaturally determined your birth date while holding your drivers license and using it as a spiritual catalyst. She tells you that reading your license is a fundamental step in ascertaining the information supernaturally.

And you said my analogy was absurd!

There is no overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is just rhetoric. You have a bad habit of taking bits from specific instances and applying them with a broad brush, assuming you have established a universal rule without considering the possibility that these are merely exceptions. For example, if Joseph Smith goes to the bathroom before receiving one of his revelations, this doesn’t make it a “fundamental step” in the general divine revelation “process.”

There really is overwhelming evidence that Joseph proclaimed his views of a plurality of gods came via divine revelation. “I have it from God.” It just doesn’t get any plainer than that.

Having said all this, I see no reason to believe the biblical concept of revelation involved a “process” at all. The only instances where a process is involved seems to be a one step process whereby the recipient asks God a question. That’s the extent of the “process.” In many, perhaps most cases God strikes prophets down with knowledge without any required step by step process.

Since when have the advanced theological views available through the Restoration ever been dependent upon what the Bible does or does not contain?

This is just a lame way to excuse plagiarism in the name of God.

I’m going to be quite sincere here and simply state that I’m sorry you see it that way.

Kevin, I really do appreciate your challenging/thought-provoking questions/insights expressed throughout this thread. I’ll try to keep the conversation going, but given the quality of the issues you raise and the strength of your arguments, providing responses proves a bit time consuming.

So given my schedule and other interests, I simply won’t be able to keep the conversation going at this pace.

Best,

--DB