Hi David, I'm back.
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.
It does for the whole non-testimony bearing world. Your paradigm of choice here seems to be one which focuses on similarities while discounting discrepancies. The discrepancies mean something, but I understand now why you don’t see it. Your recent post about paradigm shifts helped me on that I think.
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
But this isn’t biblical and you have yet to show a Bible scholar who agrees with this. You only have Dan Peterson. You’re asserting it is biblical and trying to push for it, but you do so
not because you’re interpreting evidence objectively, but rather you’re interpreting evidence to fit anything mentioned by Joseph Smith.
My point was simply that if Joseph was using words (and clearly he was) to convey his thoughts then he was using symbols.
Well, this goes without saying, doesn’t it? But what you haven’t established is a reasonable argument that Joseph Smith referred to gods in two entirely different ways. Again, I suppose this is another paradigm shift of yours. When Joseph Smith seems to be contradicting his own theology, shift the paradigm to make the facts fit a predetermined premise; i.e. Joseph Smith was a real prophet and would therefore, not teach a contradiction. Solution: he must have been speaking symbolically. Well this needs to be demonstrated beyond the axiom that words are symbols. If in one instance didn’t mean gods in a second instance, what reason is there to believe this, other than the need to avoid an unpleasant conclusion?
The gods came to earth so that they could progress to become Gods. I just made sense of it.
Do you really think so? Does it also make sense to say next year Marc Brettler plans to go back to school so he can earn a Ph.D. and become a professor? If so, then you have to explain how he is not currently a professor. You can’t just say “it makes sense” and leave it at that.
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.
This is like saying the word human sometimes refers to Russians in space and in other contexts it refers to waitresses in Manhatten. This kind of argument doesn’t explain any fundamental differences here. Do astronauts aspire to be waitresses or vice versa? It
doesn’t make sense.
Here is what I am getting at. I do not think the evidence is sufficient to conclude that Joseph Smith believed humans were in generally “gods” in the preexistence. Yes, some were privileged to be at the divine council, but Abraham 3 calls them “spirits” or “souls.” Is there no explicit statement that unambiguously says, Abraham was a “god” in the council? For example, when Joseph Smith says, “we were in the Grand Council amongst the Gods,” I do not think the necessary inference here is that humans amongst them were in fact gods just the same. The primary reason for my conclusion is his doctrine of exaltation. It makes no sense to say gods came to earth to progress to godhood. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. And according to Psalm 8:5 God made man a little lower than
elohim. This suggests that man and
elohim, even if we assume a preexistence, are not one in the same.
Of course I’m saying that gods as premortal divine council members were not gods in the same sense that God is God.
Am I’m saying there is (a) No clear biblical evidence that humans preexisted mortal life and (b) There is no clear evidence that even in Joseph Smith’s theology, humans were considered “gods” in any sense. You seem to be taking pieces of evidences and inferring from them what you already assumed to be true. But I do not believe that when humans participate in a council among gods, that this makes them gods, anymore than a senator becomes a congressman when he stands in the House of Representatives.
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.
Color me impressed.
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.
Does this mean you are changing your “paradigm” and rejecting your original premise that his understanding was one based on divine revelation?
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.
That’s fine. But for the sake of clarity, you no longer believe Joseph Smith’s understanding of this verse was based on divine revelation?
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.
Yes, and thanks to your other thread, we know this now. Your paradigm is forever changing in order to accommodate all undermining facts. Honestly I don’t know how you can take this approach seriously, but hey, whatever works for you.
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’re not bothered by the fact that God might have told Joseph Smith an incorrect understanding of the passage? With this kind of granted leeway and margin for error, what purpose would any critical thinking really serve? Am I to believe that God now tells people to incorrectly interpret scripture, just for the sake of telling a new doctrine? Even a true doctrine doesn’t need to be told using this method, right?
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.
I accept that he expanded on it. Obviously he did when he added a great-grandfather above the grandfather. The problem is that only Joseph Smith does this while falsely attributing a specific intent to the original author.
That’s interesting. Where do you suggest the translating of coordinating conjunction kai should go? Before God? “Unto and God his Father”?
Obviously
before “Father” but
after the possessive adjective, which is equally misplaced. As modern translations render it “to serve his God and Father.” This leaves no room for error as does the KJV’s “priests unto God and his Father.”
Since I do not believe that Joseph’s interpretation of the verse was wrong
Wait a minute. You don’t? Let me get this straight. You believe that Joseph Smith was wrong to attribute this understanding to John the Revelator, but you say the verse really does the doctrine he was using it for? Now how is the heck does that work exactly?
So God reveals to Joseph Smith a revelation. Joseph Smith says it means X. Yet 100 years later another prophet takes that same verse which was revealed to Joseph Smith, and says it actually means Y. How can both prophets be right?
it reflects the additional light and knowledge he obtained later in his prophetic career, I’ll stick with my suggestion.
Yes, I understand he expanded on it, which is beside the point really. It seems perfectly clear he did so based on an erroneous premise that this was what John the Revelator taught. Joseph Smith made his argument from the scriptures, not from revelation. He said it could be logically implied that since the Bible says there is a grandfather then there has to be a great-grandfather, as well. But if we accept the premise that the author of that scripture
never intended to convey such a message – which s what I understood you saying - then Joseph Smith’s error was far more grievous than you’re willing to acknowledge. He effectively misused scripture to prove his theology. Since when are prophets allowed to get away with this?
For someone who keeps reiterating the fallibility of a prophet, you sure do seem unwilling to admit any error that really matters.
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.
And obviously Joseph Smith wasn’t very critical. Keep in mind his comment that
elohim should be rendered gods “all the way through.”
I would submit that understanding the grammar is much, much more important for interpreting a text than an ability to simply look up definitions.
Yes, but he owned Seixas’ book on Hebrew grammar, so your argument is really without merit here. Even more, we know Joseph Smith sought after books on this topic, not just dictionaries. He did run a school, after all.
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.
I was thinking the same thing. He had some of this posted on his website a few years ago but I forgot the password and I’m not even sure if he still has it uploaded.
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
If he did, I’m sure you would argue that it was unlikely that he obtained this from lexicons and must therefore be evidence of further divine inspiration (grin).
But the KJV translates
sod to mean “assembly” or “counsel”
most of the time it appears, and not all modern translations disagree with “secret” in Amos 3:7. So I see no reason why this should be used as evidence that Joseph Smith was relying strictly on the KJV.
In fact, all evidence suggests just the opposite; for Joseph who was primarily dependent upon the KJV, the sod was simply a divine secret.
Again, you are taking the minority examples where it was translated secret but you’re not acknowledging the fact that the KJV usually rendered
sod to mean assembly or counsel.
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.
We already know from the ridiculous abuse of Rev 1:6 that Joseph Smith was actively engaged in dissecting any scripture he thought he could use to boost his innovative doctrines. It is unlikely, given this tendency that he would not consciously look for verses that pointed to a divine council scene. But as Parker and Heiser have said, allusions to a divine council are obvious, even if you aren’t someone who is looking for it.
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.
I never thought to try, but when I get back to the states, and have more resources, I will look into it. However, it is not necessary to prove this with specific examples as Joseph Smith has already established himself as a man who uses the Bible to further his theology. He knew very well that he had to present his new theologies as biblical.
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.”
No evidence?
How about the facts that:
1) He read the Bible.
2) The Bible clearly illustrates the functions of the divine council as explained in Joseph Smith’s theology.
3) He owned books on Hebrew Grammar, lexicons, etc. He was actively involved in learning as much as he could about the Old Testament language.
Your argument that he couldn’t have had any of these in mind, or that he wasn’t mindful of their existence, or that he wasn’t aware that these referred to a divine council, simply because you haven’t found any explicit references where he uses these scriptures to further his theology, is really an argument based on silence. In the absence of any specific references, we already know Joseph Smith borrowed concepts, ideas, jargon, themes, from the Bible without him coming right out and saying, “You see this revelation is from God because this biblical verse teaches the same thing.” He didn’t have to.
This is irrelevant.
If you maintain that natural acquisition of knowledge is a necessary step in the supernatural acquisition of knowledge, then this point is entirely relevant.
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.
Yet, when it turns out that he came to a full stop in the Book of Abraham translation and then immediately tried to learn Hebrew before recommencing translations, you change your paradigm to account for this fact by saying learning naturally is a fundamental step in the process of receiving divine revelation. My point is that it is not a necessary step. This is not supported by the facts of history.
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.
And that’s fine if you personally believe that. But you are wrong to insist that this was a fundamental step in the revelation process.
I’m afraid I disagree with your interpretation of the facts. Joseph did seek to learn ancient Egyptian, remember the KEP?
He tried to create a grammar and alphabet based on his divinely inspired translations, sure. But he did not actively try to learn Egyptian via natural means before actually engaging in supernatural translation; Egyptian was not learnable via natural means – at least not in Kirtland Ohio.
Moreover, Joseph didn’t translate the Hebrew Bible. He revised the KJV.
Well, you can take that matter up with the Church since they still call it the Joseph Smith
T. Joseph Smith clearly believed he was correcting mistranslations.
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.)
Come on David. This means everyone can know through inspiration that what the first Presidency receives is true. It does not mean every member is able to receive revelation on the same level as the Prophet. If “the least Saint” went to Church Headquarters with a message that God gave him a revelation for the Church, he’d be laughed at and would never be granted a sit-down with the first Presidency. If he went to his own bishop, it would not be taken up the chain of command and given to Hinckley. The layperson is provided revelation on a personal level, but not for the Church.
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.
But this is not how the Church proceeds with this. The investigator is committed to baptism almost immediately, before even half of the set discussions are provided. The investigator is asked to make a quick decision based on a pray and his or her feelings. Reasoning, investigation, independent research and studying are not part of the process acknowledged by the Church.
I believe that it is. Not because God is limited, but because we are limited.
Again, this flies in the face of history of supernatural experiences. Paul was limited in every way imaginable, yet there was no required “natural” steps before he received revelation.
You don’t believe that Joseph put forth an effort to interpret the texts?
Of course he did, but he did so through supernatural means. Again, he began translating the papyrus as soon as it was presented to him.
Evidence please.
The historical evidence says that when Chandler presented him with the texts, he immediately started identifying things, such as one text as the Book of Abraham and another coming from Joseph. There is no historical evidence that he took a quick time out to go pray and then returned with his identifications. It seems this strange detail wouldn’t have been excluded from the historical record if it really happened.
Of course, you can simply undergo another paradigm shift and insist the history is flawed, and that maybe Satan played a part in excluding it from the record. Who can argue with that?
And you said my analogy was absurd!
David my analogy is entirely appropriate. In both cases you have someone claming to know something via supernatural means, after they already discovered it through natural means. You admit Joseph Smith studied the Bible and Hebrew, and that he did so to uncover truths fond therein. But you have rigged the game from the start by accepting everything he got right as revelation, and everything he got wrong as a result of poor studying. This distinction is another result of your paradigm shift, and is not a distinction made by the Prophet. He said he learned of the plurality of gods from the Bible. He said others in his day had translated the text accordingly. Yet, for you this means it came to him supernaturally, simply because you’ve rearranged your paradigm to allow for the natural acquisition of knowledge to precede revelation?
There really is overwhelming evidence that Joseph proclaimed his views of a plurality of gods came via divine revelation. “I have it from God.”
Context, context, context David. If you think this comment, which was in reference to Paul’s comments, applies to everything he presented in the sermon, then you really don’t have an appropriate grasp of context. And again, if it applies to his Gen 1 exegesis, then it must also apply to his abuse of Rev 1:6, which you admitted is not how the original author intended.
I think you’ve shifted the goal posts so much, that you’ve now paradigmed yourself into a corner. Any way you slice it, Joseph Smith was acting inappropriately by misinterpreting scripture and misapplying its meaning to the author.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein