McBell
Unbound
As a Mormon, of course you think it's silly -- but it isn't. LDS sources are trying to proe something, non-LDS are just showing what is there, that is it.
Is it your claim that a Mormon cannot tell the truth about Mormonism?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Joseph Smith - Prophet of God
- Thread starter Polaris
- Start date
Is it your claim that a Mormon cannot tell the truth about Mormonism?
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Their version of the 'truth'. Watchman said in fact that science cannot prove Mormonism, so they are telling what they 'believe' to be true instead of actual factual facts.
Clear said in post 1299 :
Hi Watchmen/Mestemia : I agree that Nymphs demand for information “about the LDS”, but only from “non-LDS” sources is completely silly and completely transparent.
I visit the forum rarely but wanted to make a comment on this thread.
Obviously we all see the world through our own perspectives. I am an adult convert to LDS Christian theology. Because I already had a prior protestant belief in God and in Jesus Christ as our redeemer, I did not need to change these specific beliefs upon adopting LDS theology. Because of my background and interest in early judeo-christian textual history, I tend to view LDS theology through that narrow lens.
I was introduced to LDS theology by a respected university scholar who was adopting LDS theology and described their early impression of it, including the LDS base claim that LDS theology was a restoration of a version of early Christianity. I knew nothing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Young's diary of the “mormons” move to the west….) It was both the quality of this scholar and their life, as well as this claim to be a version of early Christianity that piqued my interest. I felt then and still feel, that IF the base LDS claim that Joseph Smith restored a version of early Christian theology was correct, then base parallels to LDS theology should be found in the earliest judeo-christian textual traditions.
In my historical area of interest, the “objective” data often consists of the early Judeo-Christian texts, mishnas, sacred and historical texts, hymns, lectionaries, psalms, early Christian fiction literature, the sacred libraries such as the documents from Nag Hamadi, Qumranic documents, Papyri (oxyrhynchus, etc). Most of such texts became available only after Josephs lifetime.
For me, the historical interest was not historical themes where Joseph Smith agreed with other Christian movements who held to early Christian traditions, but in early base doctrines and traditions that were part of early the Judeo-Christian movement but which were lost to or obscured to most modern movements. Did his “restoration” involve the transfer of obscure or lost early Judeo-Christian traditions into the modern age or not?
As I became more aware of LDS claims and parallels to early judeo-christian literature, I remember the tentative and growing awareness of multiple early doctrinal themes that fell into that category of "restoration" of a base doctrine. For examples :
The LDS recognized the base concept that modern Christian movements and the doctrines are not, in the main, the same as early Judeo-Christianity.
The early Judeo-Christian doctrine/tradition of the spirits of mankind existing as spirits before the creation of the earth and the details of what God was doing and his motives and purposes of creation are no longer taught in any significant detail and depth in modern Christian movements. Whereas this theme both underlies early judeo-christian theology and was taught in greater detail and depth in early judeo-christian texts. LDS theology restores this theological theme in greater depth and detail than any modern Christian movement of which I am aware. This theme and it’s expanding implications neatly removes 1800 years of philosophical disputes regarding many of life’s perceived injustices, injustice of God, variability of character; source of Evil; the origin of the Devil; the reasons for the Devil’s enmity, etc.
LDS theology restores the early version of creation-from-matter rather than creation from “nothing”.
Early Judeo-Christian pre-existent tradition placed the fall of Adam (and the rest of us) into a logical context for an omniscient God (i.e. Did God anticipate and intend the fall of mankind or was he dupe by a wiley Lucifer?, etc). The LDS theology restores the Judeo-Christian concept that the fall was the original plan of God and not a “glitch” in an omnipotent and omniscient God’s original plan.
Early Judeo-Christians also describe their belief in post death existence of a cognizant spirit and their literature contain descriptions of a physical resurrection, of the gospel being taught to those spirits who had no chance to learn of it when alive; of eternal principles of Justice based of variable reward, etc. These are NOT themes that the majority of modern Christians teach or even are aware of, yet they are restored to LDS theology in versions that parallel early Judeo-Christian descriptions.
When one discusses the early Judeo-Christian tradition of Christ’s decensus into Hell, most protestant movements do not have any detail or depth to this doctrine, certainly nothing as detailed as the early judeo-christians possessed. Yet LDS theology contains a discretely accurate version of this tradition.
As we continue to recover and discover and analyze vast and detailed early Judeo-Christian libraries and texts, it will continue to change our base assumptions and paradigms regarding Early Judeo-Christian beliefs. The scholars are adopting the new base theory regarding the Henotheism of per-exilic Jews. This new paradigm of the scholars is a parallel to that of LDS theology. The new accepted base theory regarding the council of “gods” (small “g” that is causing so much excitement and illumination among scholars of Early Ugaritic/Judaic history is wonderful and it is creating historical connections in many different direction. It is also a parallel to the restoration of the LDS model. This new and vast discoveries of early textual data is funneling these scholars into directions that are friendly to LDS theology that is almost 200 years old.
Like many others who have adopted LDS theology, I have considered other theories as to where and how Joseph Smith could possibly have developed a mature and detailed ancient theology and detailed traditions that so closely paralleled relatively unknown and obscure early Judeo-Christian traditions and theologies in so many ways in some manner other than revelation. I was unable to do it then and am unable to do so now. The sheer magnitude of the historical task of doing this is difficult to explain. My examples are merely broad strokes of large base themes. Often the details underlying these themes are even more impressive historically.
It’s as though the panama canal appeared overnight and a man standing there with a shovel claims to have dug it. If someone counters, “No, he had a friend helping him!”, it still doesn’t explain the impossibility of what was done, whether it was two people or a hundred who are involved.
To me, Historically, it feels like the young Joseph Smith did something similar. Joseph Smith appears on the scene with a mature, detailed, version of multiple early judeo-christian theology with multiple parallels to early Christianity which, in his age, disagreed with the majority of the Christian Movement, but which , in reality, truly were correct parallels to early Judeo-Christian doctrines and traditions.
Even if I theorize : “he stole it from someone else”, this doesn’t solve anything because it simply transfers to another person what is still impossible. If I say that this teenager from the early 1800s amassed a group of eclectic scholars who knew traditions and doctrines that only a handful of scholars in that age knew, still, I am left trying to explain the multiple inconsistencies, increasing improbabilities, and problems that each new theory creates, (including how these scholars themselves knew texts and data that had not yet been discovered). My point is, that every theory I considered is even less likely and involves as many or more improbabilities than the theory the LDS claim. That is, that Joseph Smith received this mature and detailed model of Early Christian Base theology through revelation as a source.
There are other reasons why I believe Joseph Smith received based doctrines by revelation, but, for me, the vast amount of the earliest sacred judeo-christian texts feels like they are a vast source of fairly objective textual data that serves as a reference for what early Judeo-Christians believed and the later texts (i.e. 150 c.e. and beyond) become increasingly good data as to the evolutions and changes that took place among the various christian movements.
Watchmen / Mestemia, Good luck in your journey
Nymphs claimed in post #1300 : “As a Mormon, of course you think it's silly -- but it isn't. LDS sources are trying to pro[v]e something, non-LDS are just showing what is there, that is it”
Nymphs, The claim that pro-LDS are trying to prove something, but the anti-LDS are not trying to prove anything is simply another illogical assumption. Almost all of us project and offer data that reflects our own position. It is not a case of LDS being biased while anti-LDS have no bias. This is irrational. When I was not LDS, my biases and my thoughts and my theories and my discussions reflected THAT other theology with it's own set of biases.
Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? In any case Nymphs, I hope your journey in this life is good.
Clear
Hi Watchmen/Mestemia : I agree that Nymphs demand for information “about the LDS”, but only from “non-LDS” sources is completely silly and completely transparent.
I visit the forum rarely but wanted to make a comment on this thread.
Obviously we all see the world through our own perspectives. I am an adult convert to LDS Christian theology. Because I already had a prior protestant belief in God and in Jesus Christ as our redeemer, I did not need to change these specific beliefs upon adopting LDS theology. Because of my background and interest in early judeo-christian textual history, I tend to view LDS theology through that narrow lens.
I was introduced to LDS theology by a respected university scholar who was adopting LDS theology and described their early impression of it, including the LDS base claim that LDS theology was a restoration of a version of early Christianity. I knew nothing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Young's diary of the “mormons” move to the west….) It was both the quality of this scholar and their life, as well as this claim to be a version of early Christianity that piqued my interest. I felt then and still feel, that IF the base LDS claim that Joseph Smith restored a version of early Christian theology was correct, then base parallels to LDS theology should be found in the earliest judeo-christian textual traditions.
In my historical area of interest, the “objective” data often consists of the early Judeo-Christian texts, mishnas, sacred and historical texts, hymns, lectionaries, psalms, early Christian fiction literature, the sacred libraries such as the documents from Nag Hamadi, Qumranic documents, Papyri (oxyrhynchus, etc). Most of such texts became available only after Josephs lifetime.
For me, the historical interest was not historical themes where Joseph Smith agreed with other Christian movements who held to early Christian traditions, but in early base doctrines and traditions that were part of early the Judeo-Christian movement but which were lost to or obscured to most modern movements. Did his “restoration” involve the transfer of obscure or lost early Judeo-Christian traditions into the modern age or not?
As I became more aware of LDS claims and parallels to early judeo-christian literature, I remember the tentative and growing awareness of multiple early doctrinal themes that fell into that category of "restoration" of a base doctrine. For examples :
The LDS recognized the base concept that modern Christian movements and the doctrines are not, in the main, the same as early Judeo-Christianity.
The early Judeo-Christian doctrine/tradition of the spirits of mankind existing as spirits before the creation of the earth and the details of what God was doing and his motives and purposes of creation are no longer taught in any significant detail and depth in modern Christian movements. Whereas this theme both underlies early judeo-christian theology and was taught in greater detail and depth in early judeo-christian texts. LDS theology restores this theological theme in greater depth and detail than any modern Christian movement of which I am aware. This theme and it’s expanding implications neatly removes 1800 years of philosophical disputes regarding many of life’s perceived injustices, injustice of God, variability of character; source of Evil; the origin of the Devil; the reasons for the Devil’s enmity, etc.
LDS theology restores the early version of creation-from-matter rather than creation from “nothing”.
Early Judeo-Christian pre-existent tradition placed the fall of Adam (and the rest of us) into a logical context for an omniscient God (i.e. Did God anticipate and intend the fall of mankind or was he dupe by a wiley Lucifer?, etc). The LDS theology restores the Judeo-Christian concept that the fall was the original plan of God and not a “glitch” in an omnipotent and omniscient God’s original plan.
Early Judeo-Christians also describe their belief in post death existence of a cognizant spirit and their literature contain descriptions of a physical resurrection, of the gospel being taught to those spirits who had no chance to learn of it when alive; of eternal principles of Justice based of variable reward, etc. These are NOT themes that the majority of modern Christians teach or even are aware of, yet they are restored to LDS theology in versions that parallel early Judeo-Christian descriptions.
When one discusses the early Judeo-Christian tradition of Christ’s decensus into Hell, most protestant movements do not have any detail or depth to this doctrine, certainly nothing as detailed as the early judeo-christians possessed. Yet LDS theology contains a discretely accurate version of this tradition.
As we continue to recover and discover and analyze vast and detailed early Judeo-Christian libraries and texts, it will continue to change our base assumptions and paradigms regarding Early Judeo-Christian beliefs. The scholars are adopting the new base theory regarding the Henotheism of per-exilic Jews. This new paradigm of the scholars is a parallel to that of LDS theology. The new accepted base theory regarding the council of “gods” (small “g”
that is causing so much excitement and illumination among scholars of Early Ugaritic/Judaic history is wonderful and it is creating historical connections in many different direction. It is also a parallel to the restoration of the LDS model. This new and vast discoveries of early textual data is funneling these scholars into directions that are friendly to LDS theology that is almost 200 years old.Like many others who have adopted LDS theology, I have considered other theories as to where and how Joseph Smith could possibly have developed a mature and detailed ancient theology and detailed traditions that so closely paralleled relatively unknown and obscure early Judeo-Christian traditions and theologies in so many ways in some manner other than revelation. I was unable to do it then and am unable to do so now. The sheer magnitude of the historical task of doing this is difficult to explain. My examples are merely broad strokes of large base themes. Often the details underlying these themes are even more impressive historically.
It’s as though the panama canal appeared overnight and a man standing there with a shovel claims to have dug it. If someone counters, “No, he had a friend helping him!”, it still doesn’t explain the impossibility of what was done, whether it was two people or a hundred who are involved.
To me, Historically, it feels like the young Joseph Smith did something similar. Joseph Smith appears on the scene with a mature, detailed, version of multiple early judeo-christian theology with multiple parallels to early Christianity which, in his age, disagreed with the majority of the Christian Movement, but which , in reality, truly were correct parallels to early Judeo-Christian doctrines and traditions.
Even if I theorize : “he stole it from someone else”, this doesn’t solve anything because it simply transfers to another person what is still impossible. If I say that this teenager from the early 1800s amassed a group of eclectic scholars who knew traditions and doctrines that only a handful of scholars in that age knew, still, I am left trying to explain the multiple inconsistencies, increasing improbabilities, and problems that each new theory creates, (including how these scholars themselves knew texts and data that had not yet been discovered). My point is, that every theory I considered is even less likely and involves as many or more improbabilities than the theory the LDS claim. That is, that Joseph Smith received this mature and detailed model of Early Christian Base theology through revelation as a source.
There are other reasons why I believe Joseph Smith received based doctrines by revelation, but, for me, the vast amount of the earliest sacred judeo-christian texts feels like they are a vast source of fairly objective textual data that serves as a reference for what early Judeo-Christians believed and the later texts (i.e. 150 c.e. and beyond) become increasingly good data as to the evolutions and changes that took place among the various christian movements.
Watchmen / Mestemia, Good luck in your journey
Nymphs claimed in post #1300 : “As a Mormon, of course you think it's silly -- but it isn't. LDS sources are trying to pro[v]e something, non-LDS are just showing what is there, that is it”
Nymphs, The claim that pro-LDS are trying to prove something, but the anti-LDS are not trying to prove anything is simply another illogical assumption. Almost all of us project and offer data that reflects our own position. It is not a case of LDS being biased while anti-LDS have no bias. This is irrational. When I was not LDS, my biases and my thoughts and my theories and my discussions reflected THAT other theology with it's own set of biases.
Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? In any case Nymphs, I hope your journey in this life is good.
Clear
Last edited:
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Just because someone isn't for the LDS religion and doesn't support its preposterous claims, doesn't mean they are anti. Stop trotting out that argument, it doesn't work.
McBell
Unbound
What post did Watchman say that science cannot prove Mormonism?
Seems to me you have moved the goal posts from Joseph Smith being a prophet to Mormonism being true.....
You mean like you did when you claimed that Joseph Smith is not a prophet?
And again when you claimed there is no god?
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
To Mormons, they are one in the same. If Joseph Smith is not a prophet, the Mormon religion cannot possibly be true.
idea
Question Everything
There are many scientists who are also Mormons...
Mormon Scholars Testify » Blog Archive » Index by Specialty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR8qIrJcJh4
Mormon Scholars Testify » Blog Archive » Index by Specialty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR8qIrJcJh4
Last edited:
McBell
Unbound
Wait, now you are going to dictate to Mormons their own beliefs?
You forgot to address the second part of the post you quoted:
Clear said in post 1299 :
Hi Watchmen/Mestemia : I agree that Nymphs demand for information “about the LDS”, but only from “non-LDS” sources is completely silly and completely transparent... (Then I discussed the vast amount of historical and textual data that is available that parallels and supports the underlying LDS claim.)
Nymphs claimed in post #1300 : “As a Mormon, of course you think it's silly -- but it isn't. LDS sources are trying to pro[v]e something, non-LDS are just showing what is there, that is it”
Clear replied in post # 1303 “The claim that pro-LDS are trying to prove something, but the anti-LDS are not trying to prove anything is simply another illogical assumption. Almost all of us project and offer data that reflects our own position. It is not a case of LDS being biased while anti-LDS have no bias. This is irrational. When I was not LDS, my biases and my thoughts and my theories and my discussions reflected THAT other theology with it's own set of biases.
Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? In any case Nymphs, I hope your journey in this life is good.”
Nymphs replied in post 1304: “Just because someone isn't for the LDS religion and doesn't support its preposterous claims, doesn't mean they are anti. Stop trotting out that argument, it doesn't work.”
Nymphs : You are confused Nymphs. I am not speaking of “pro” or “anti” in reference to a personal bias against people or religion but as a specific position regarding the proposition that Joseph Smith restored early Christian theology. I started out “anti” regarding this proposition and became “pro” regarding this proposition. I stand by my claim that we all have bias and our thoughts and theories and discussions reflect personal biases just as your comments reflect your personal bias.
The question is : Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? They are obviously NOT written by LDS individuals (since they are peri-c.e. era documents)
Clear
φυτζτωνεακ
Hi Watchmen/Mestemia : I agree that Nymphs demand for information “about the LDS”, but only from “non-LDS” sources is completely silly and completely transparent... (Then I discussed the vast amount of historical and textual data that is available that parallels and supports the underlying LDS claim.)
Nymphs claimed in post #1300 : “As a Mormon, of course you think it's silly -- but it isn't. LDS sources are trying to pro[v]e something, non-LDS are just showing what is there, that is it”
Clear replied in post # 1303 “The claim that pro-LDS are trying to prove something, but the anti-LDS are not trying to prove anything is simply another illogical assumption. Almost all of us project and offer data that reflects our own position. It is not a case of LDS being biased while anti-LDS have no bias. This is irrational. When I was not LDS, my biases and my thoughts and my theories and my discussions reflected THAT other theology with it's own set of biases.
Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? In any case Nymphs, I hope your journey in this life is good.”
Nymphs replied in post 1304: “Just because someone isn't for the LDS religion and doesn't support its preposterous claims, doesn't mean they are anti. Stop trotting out that argument, it doesn't work.”
Nymphs : You are confused Nymphs. I am not speaking of “pro” or “anti” in reference to a personal bias against people or religion but as a specific position regarding the proposition that Joseph Smith restored early Christian theology. I started out “anti” regarding this proposition and became “pro” regarding this proposition. I stand by my claim that we all have bias and our thoughts and theories and discussions reflect personal biases just as your comments reflect your personal bias.
The question is : Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? They are obviously NOT written by LDS individuals (since they are peri-c.e. era documents)
Clear
φυτζτωνεακ
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
They are Mormons, so I wouldn't exactly call them unbiased.
Plus, most of that list is from BYU....#justsaying
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
Ask them. Without Joseph Smith, Mormonism could not possibly be true. It's a core concept of their faith. I'm not dictating what they believe, I'm simply stating it.
1) Clear said in post 1299 :
Hi Watchmen/Mestemia : I agree that Nymphs demand for information “about the LDS”, but only from “non-LDS” sources is completely silly and completely transparent... (Then I discussed the vast amount of historical and textual data that is available that parallels and supports the underlying LDS claim.)
2) Nymphs claimed in post #1300 : “As a Mormon, of course you think it's silly -- but it isn't. LDS sources are trying to pro[v]e something, non-LDS are just showing what is there, that is it”
3) Clear replied in post # 1303 “The claim that pro-LDS are trying to prove something, but the anti-LDS are not trying to prove anything is simply another illogical assumption. Almost all of us project and offer data that reflects our own position. It is not a case of LDS being biased while anti-LDS have no bias. This is irrational. When I was not LDS, my biases and my thoughts and my theories and my discussions reflected THAT other theology with it's own set of biases.
Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? In any case Nymphs, I hope your journey in this life is good.”
4) Nymphs replied in post 1304: “Just because someone isn't for the LDS religion and doesn't support its preposterous claims, doesn't mean they are anti. Stop trotting out that argument, it doesn't work.”
5) Clear said in post # 1310 : Nymphs : You are confused Nymphs. I am not speaking of “pro” or “anti” in reference to a personal bias against people or religion but as a specific position regarding the proposition that Joseph Smith restored early Christian theology. I started out “anti” regarding this proposition and became “pro” regarding this proposition. I stand by my claim that we all have bias and our thoughts and theories and discussions reflect personal biases just as your comments reflect your personal bias.
The question is : Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? They are obviously NOT written by LDS individuals (since they are peri-c.e. era documents)
6) Nymphs claimed in post 1307 : To Mormons, they are one in the same. If Joseph Smith is not a prophet, the Mormon religion cannot possibly be true.
PLEASE, lest anyone believe this last statement that Nymphs claims regarding “what the LDS believe”. Her statement is disingenuous and erroneous. Read my post # 1299 regarding LDS theology. I AM LDS and I do NOT believe what Nymphs says I believe. (as opposed to Nymphs who is NOT LDS; and who does not understand LDS theology, but is trying to teach errors regarding LDS theology)
Her statement is the OPPOSITE of my belief. Whether Joseph was a prophet or not, the LDS restoration of early parallel judeo-christian theology and traditions remains just as authentic early Judeo-Christian doctrines in any case.
Also, I have OFFERED multiple times to discuss these early and objective Judeo-Christian texts with Nymphs. It does NOT further efficient communication to tell us she wants objective data but then refuse it when offered. It also does NOT further communication nor Nymphs credibility when she presents an inaccurate claim, in the place of authentic LDS belief.
Clear
Hi Watchmen/Mestemia : I agree that Nymphs demand for information “about the LDS”, but only from “non-LDS” sources is completely silly and completely transparent... (Then I discussed the vast amount of historical and textual data that is available that parallels and supports the underlying LDS claim.)
2) Nymphs claimed in post #1300 : “As a Mormon, of course you think it's silly -- but it isn't. LDS sources are trying to pro[v]e something, non-LDS are just showing what is there, that is it”
3) Clear replied in post # 1303 “The claim that pro-LDS are trying to prove something, but the anti-LDS are not trying to prove anything is simply another illogical assumption. Almost all of us project and offer data that reflects our own position. It is not a case of LDS being biased while anti-LDS have no bias. This is irrational. When I was not LDS, my biases and my thoughts and my theories and my discussions reflected THAT other theology with it's own set of biases.
Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? In any case Nymphs, I hope your journey in this life is good.”
4) Nymphs replied in post 1304: “Just because someone isn't for the LDS religion and doesn't support its preposterous claims, doesn't mean they are anti. Stop trotting out that argument, it doesn't work.”
5) Clear said in post # 1310 : Nymphs : You are confused Nymphs. I am not speaking of “pro” or “anti” in reference to a personal bias against people or religion but as a specific position regarding the proposition that Joseph Smith restored early Christian theology. I started out “anti” regarding this proposition and became “pro” regarding this proposition. I stand by my claim that we all have bias and our thoughts and theories and discussions reflect personal biases just as your comments reflect your personal bias.
The question is : Do you want to discuss the objective data, texts, doctrines and traditions I am referring to? They are obviously NOT written by LDS individuals (since they are peri-c.e. era documents)
6) Nymphs claimed in post 1307 : To Mormons, they are one in the same. If Joseph Smith is not a prophet, the Mormon religion cannot possibly be true.
PLEASE, lest anyone believe this last statement that Nymphs claims regarding “what the LDS believe”. Her statement is disingenuous and erroneous. Read my post # 1299 regarding LDS theology. I AM LDS and I do NOT believe what Nymphs says I believe. (as opposed to Nymphs who is NOT LDS; and who does not understand LDS theology, but is trying to teach errors regarding LDS theology)
Her statement is the OPPOSITE of my belief. Whether Joseph was a prophet or not, the LDS restoration of early parallel judeo-christian theology and traditions remains just as authentic early Judeo-Christian doctrines in any case.
Also, I have OFFERED multiple times to discuss these early and objective Judeo-Christian texts with Nymphs. It does NOT further efficient communication to tell us she wants objective data but then refuse it when offered. It also does NOT further communication nor Nymphs credibility when she presents an inaccurate claim, in the place of authentic LDS belief.
Clear
Last edited:
Mestemia : “Based solely upon her posting history thus far on RF, Nymphs is not the least bit interested in truth or facts.”
Though her demand for information “about the LDS” from “non-LDS” sources was a transparent and obvious indication of her position and methods, still, it serves as an ironic but poignant example to all of us who are tempted to do the very same thing.
I think that the generic temptation or willingness (for any of us) to be untruthful to further one’s position, whether it is an atheist, OR a Christian theist (perhaps especially Christians who lie) is counterproductive since accurate communications and conclusions are so dependent upon the quality of the information supplied to us.
For example, if individuals believe Nymphs erroneous "educational statement" regarding the LDS in post # 1312, it will make them MORE ignorant concerning the LDS rather than educating them. Such statements serve to OBSCURE a specific position, rather than to ILLUMINATE a position.
If we, as individuals, give in to bias and ignorance, it will create a religious EDUCATION forum that does NOT educate, but simply passes on religious bias in the same way that racial bias is perpetuated. To demand objective information from others while hypocritically passing on erroneous and subjective information is something that we must not allow ourselves to do.
Good journey Mestemia
Clear
φυτζδρσιφυ
Though her demand for information “about the LDS” from “non-LDS” sources was a transparent and obvious indication of her position and methods, still, it serves as an ironic but poignant example to all of us who are tempted to do the very same thing.
I think that the generic temptation or willingness (for any of us) to be untruthful to further one’s position, whether it is an atheist, OR a Christian theist (perhaps especially Christians who lie) is counterproductive since accurate communications and conclusions are so dependent upon the quality of the information supplied to us.
For example, if individuals believe Nymphs erroneous "educational statement" regarding the LDS in post # 1312, it will make them MORE ignorant concerning the LDS rather than educating them. Such statements serve to OBSCURE a specific position, rather than to ILLUMINATE a position.
If we, as individuals, give in to bias and ignorance, it will create a religious EDUCATION forum that does NOT educate, but simply passes on religious bias in the same way that racial bias is perpetuated. To demand objective information from others while hypocritically passing on erroneous and subjective information is something that we must not allow ourselves to do.
Good journey Mestemia
Clear
φυτζδρσιφυ
Last edited:
The proof is in the spirit (as I've already explained) and you deny that.
Wow. You twisted what I said.
Nymphs
Well-Known Member
^^^^^
POST ONE OF SIX
Watchmen/Mestemia/and other forum members, especially to the LDS on this forum :
I did not want to abandon this thread and return to my other activities without leaving some objective examples of my point. As a Christian historian, a return to the earliest, and presumably more authentic version of the Christian movement has important implications. I do not believe that any of the modern, theologian-derived Christian models have any advantage over the earliest Judeo-Christian religious principles. This is partly why the LDS attempt to return to early Christianity has profound implications for me as an adult convert to LDS theology. Perhaps I can best introduce objective historical examples by repeating my introduction to this sort of objective data (post 1299) and then giving a brief overview from early Judeo-Christian documents.
Clear said in post #1299 :
“Obviously we all see the world through our own perspectives. I am an adult convert to LDS Christian theology. Because I already had a prior protestant belief in God and in Jesus Christ as our redeemer, I did not need to change these specific beliefs upon adopting LDS theology. Because of my background and interest in early judeo-christian textual history, I tend to view LDS theology through that narrow lens.
I was introduced to LDS theology by a respected university scholar who was adopting LDS theology and described their early impression of it, including the LDS base claim that LDS theology was a restoration of a version of early Christianity. I knew nothing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Young's diary of the “mormons” move to the west….) It was both the quality of this scholar and their life, as well as this claim to be a version of early Christianity that piqued my interest. I felt then and still feel, that IF the base LDS claim that Joseph Smith restored a version of early Christian theology was correct, then base parallels to LDS theology should be found in the earliest judeo-christian textual traditions.
In my historical area of interest, the “objective” data often consists of the early Judeo-Christian texts, mishnas, sacred and historical texts, hymns, lectionaries, psalms, early Christian fiction literature, the sacred libraries such as the documents from Nag Hamadi, Qumranic documents, Papyri (oxyrhynchus, etc). Most of such texts became available only after Josephs lifetime.
For me, the historical interest was not historical themes where Joseph Smith agreed with other Christian movements who held to early Christian traditions, but in early base doctrines and traditions that were part of early the Judeo-Christian movement but which were lost to or obscured to most modern movements. Did his “restoration” involve the transfer of obscure or lost early Judeo-Christian traditions into the modern age or not?
As I became more aware of LDS claims and parallels to early judeo-christian literature, I remember the tentative and growing awareness of multiple early doctrinal themes that fell into that category of "restoration" of a base doctrine. For examples :
The LDS recognized the base concept that modern Christian movements and the doctrines are not, in the main, the same as early Judeo-Christianity.
The early Judeo-Christian doctrine/tradition of the spirits of mankind existing as spirits before the creation of the earth and the details of what God was doing and his motives and purposes of creation are no longer taught in any significant detail and depth in modern Christian movements. Whereas this theme both underlies early judeo-christian theology and was taught in greater detail and depth in early judeo-christian texts. LDS theology restores this theological theme in greater depth and detail than any modern Christian movement of which I am aware. This theme and it’s expanding implications neatly removes 1800 years of philosophical disputes regarding many of life’s perceived injustices, injustice of God, variability of character; source of Evil; the origin of the Devil; the reasons for the Devil’s enmity, etc.
LDS theology restores the early version of creation-from-matter rather than creation from “nothing”.
Early Judeo-Christian pre-existent tradition placed the fall of Adam (and the rest of us) into a logical context for an omniscient God (i.e. Did God anticipate and intend the fall of mankind or was he dupe by a wiley Lucifer?, etc). The LDS theology restores the Judeo-Christian concept that the fall was the original plan of God and not a “glitch” in an omnipotent and omniscient God’s original plan.
Early Judeo-Christians also describe their belief in post death existence of a cognizant spirit and their literature contain descriptions of a physical resurrection, of the gospel being taught to those spirits who had no chance to learn of it when alive; of eternal principles of Justice based of variable reward, etc. These are NOT themes that the majority of modern Christians teach or even are aware of, yet they are restored to LDS theology in versions that parallel early Judeo-Christian descriptions.
When one discusses the early Judeo-Christian tradition of Christ’s decensus into Hell, most protestant movements do not have any detail or depth to this doctrine, certainly nothing as detailed as the early judeo-christians possessed. Yet LDS theology contains a discretely accurate version of this tradition.
As we continue to recover and discover and analyze vast and detailed early Judeo-Christian libraries and texts, it will continue to change our base assumptions and paradigms regarding Early Judeo-Christian beliefs. The scholars are adopting the new base theory regarding the Henotheism of per-exilic Jews. This new paradigm of the scholars is a parallel to that of LDS theology. The new accepted base theory regarding the council of “gods” (small “g” that is causing so much excitement and illumination among scholars of Early Ugaritic/Judaic history is wonderful and it is creating historical connections in many different direction. It is also a parallel to the restoration of the LDS model. This new and vast discoveries of early textual data is funneling these scholars into directions that are friendly to LDS theology that is almost 200 years old.
Like many others who have adopted LDS theology, I have considered other theories as to where and how Joseph Smith could possibly have developed a mature and detailed ancient theology and detailed traditions that so closely paralleled relatively unknown and obscure early Judeo-Christian traditions and theologies in so many ways in some manner other than revelation. I was unable to do it then and am unable to do so now. The sheer magnitude of the historical task of doing this is difficult to explain. My examples are merely broad strokes of large base themes. Often the details underlying these themes are even more impressive historically.
It’s as though the panama canal appeared overnight and a man standing there with a shovel claims to have dug it. If someone counters, “No, he had a friend helping him!”, it still doesn’t explain the impossibility of what was done, whether it was two people or a hundred who are involved.
To me, Historically, it feels like the young Joseph Smith did something similar. Joseph Smith appears on the scene with a mature, detailed, version of multiple early judeo-christian theology with multiple parallels to early Christianity which, in his age, disagreed with the majority of the Christian Movement, but which , in reality, truly were correct parallels to early Judeo-Christian doctrines and traditions.
Even if I theorize : “he stole it from someone else”, this doesn’t solve anything because it simply transfers to another person what is still impossible. If I say that this teenager from the early 1800s amassed a group of eclectic scholars who knew traditions and doctrines that only a handful of scholars in that age knew, still, I am left trying to explain the multiple inconsistencies, increasing improbabilities, and problems that each new theory creates, (including how these scholars themselves knew texts and data that had not yet been discovered). My point is, that every theory I considered is even less likely and involves as many or more improbabilities than the theory the LDS claim. That is, that Joseph Smith received this mature and detailed model of Early Christian Base theology through revelation as a source.
There are other reasons why I believe Joseph Smith received based doctrines by revelation, but, for me, the vast amount of the earliest sacred judeo-christian texts feels like they are a vast source of fairly objective textual data that serves as a reference for what early Judeo-Christians believed and the later texts (i.e. 150 c.e. and beyond) become increasingly good data as to the evolutions and changes that took place among the various christian movements.”
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
POST TWO OF SIX FOLLOWS
Watchmen/Mestemia/and other forum members, especially to the LDS on this forum :
I did not want to abandon this thread and return to my other activities without leaving some objective examples of my point. As a Christian historian, a return to the earliest, and presumably more authentic version of the Christian movement has important implications. I do not believe that any of the modern, theologian-derived Christian models have any advantage over the earliest Judeo-Christian religious principles. This is partly why the LDS attempt to return to early Christianity has profound implications for me as an adult convert to LDS theology. Perhaps I can best introduce objective historical examples by repeating my introduction to this sort of objective data (post 1299) and then giving a brief overview from early Judeo-Christian documents.
Clear said in post #1299 :
“Obviously we all see the world through our own perspectives. I am an adult convert to LDS Christian theology. Because I already had a prior protestant belief in God and in Jesus Christ as our redeemer, I did not need to change these specific beliefs upon adopting LDS theology. Because of my background and interest in early judeo-christian textual history, I tend to view LDS theology through that narrow lens.
I was introduced to LDS theology by a respected university scholar who was adopting LDS theology and described their early impression of it, including the LDS base claim that LDS theology was a restoration of a version of early Christianity. I knew nothing of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. (I thought the Book of Mormon was Brigham Young's diary of the “mormons” move to the west….) It was both the quality of this scholar and their life, as well as this claim to be a version of early Christianity that piqued my interest. I felt then and still feel, that IF the base LDS claim that Joseph Smith restored a version of early Christian theology was correct, then base parallels to LDS theology should be found in the earliest judeo-christian textual traditions.
In my historical area of interest, the “objective” data often consists of the early Judeo-Christian texts, mishnas, sacred and historical texts, hymns, lectionaries, psalms, early Christian fiction literature, the sacred libraries such as the documents from Nag Hamadi, Qumranic documents, Papyri (oxyrhynchus, etc). Most of such texts became available only after Josephs lifetime.
For me, the historical interest was not historical themes where Joseph Smith agreed with other Christian movements who held to early Christian traditions, but in early base doctrines and traditions that were part of early the Judeo-Christian movement but which were lost to or obscured to most modern movements. Did his “restoration” involve the transfer of obscure or lost early Judeo-Christian traditions into the modern age or not?
As I became more aware of LDS claims and parallels to early judeo-christian literature, I remember the tentative and growing awareness of multiple early doctrinal themes that fell into that category of "restoration" of a base doctrine. For examples :
The LDS recognized the base concept that modern Christian movements and the doctrines are not, in the main, the same as early Judeo-Christianity.
The early Judeo-Christian doctrine/tradition of the spirits of mankind existing as spirits before the creation of the earth and the details of what God was doing and his motives and purposes of creation are no longer taught in any significant detail and depth in modern Christian movements. Whereas this theme both underlies early judeo-christian theology and was taught in greater detail and depth in early judeo-christian texts. LDS theology restores this theological theme in greater depth and detail than any modern Christian movement of which I am aware. This theme and it’s expanding implications neatly removes 1800 years of philosophical disputes regarding many of life’s perceived injustices, injustice of God, variability of character; source of Evil; the origin of the Devil; the reasons for the Devil’s enmity, etc.
LDS theology restores the early version of creation-from-matter rather than creation from “nothing”.
Early Judeo-Christian pre-existent tradition placed the fall of Adam (and the rest of us) into a logical context for an omniscient God (i.e. Did God anticipate and intend the fall of mankind or was he dupe by a wiley Lucifer?, etc). The LDS theology restores the Judeo-Christian concept that the fall was the original plan of God and not a “glitch” in an omnipotent and omniscient God’s original plan.
Early Judeo-Christians also describe their belief in post death existence of a cognizant spirit and their literature contain descriptions of a physical resurrection, of the gospel being taught to those spirits who had no chance to learn of it when alive; of eternal principles of Justice based of variable reward, etc. These are NOT themes that the majority of modern Christians teach or even are aware of, yet they are restored to LDS theology in versions that parallel early Judeo-Christian descriptions.
When one discusses the early Judeo-Christian tradition of Christ’s decensus into Hell, most protestant movements do not have any detail or depth to this doctrine, certainly nothing as detailed as the early judeo-christians possessed. Yet LDS theology contains a discretely accurate version of this tradition.
As we continue to recover and discover and analyze vast and detailed early Judeo-Christian libraries and texts, it will continue to change our base assumptions and paradigms regarding Early Judeo-Christian beliefs. The scholars are adopting the new base theory regarding the Henotheism of per-exilic Jews. This new paradigm of the scholars is a parallel to that of LDS theology. The new accepted base theory regarding the council of “gods” (small “g”
that is causing so much excitement and illumination among scholars of Early Ugaritic/Judaic history is wonderful and it is creating historical connections in many different direction. It is also a parallel to the restoration of the LDS model. This new and vast discoveries of early textual data is funneling these scholars into directions that are friendly to LDS theology that is almost 200 years old.Like many others who have adopted LDS theology, I have considered other theories as to where and how Joseph Smith could possibly have developed a mature and detailed ancient theology and detailed traditions that so closely paralleled relatively unknown and obscure early Judeo-Christian traditions and theologies in so many ways in some manner other than revelation. I was unable to do it then and am unable to do so now. The sheer magnitude of the historical task of doing this is difficult to explain. My examples are merely broad strokes of large base themes. Often the details underlying these themes are even more impressive historically.
It’s as though the panama canal appeared overnight and a man standing there with a shovel claims to have dug it. If someone counters, “No, he had a friend helping him!”, it still doesn’t explain the impossibility of what was done, whether it was two people or a hundred who are involved.
To me, Historically, it feels like the young Joseph Smith did something similar. Joseph Smith appears on the scene with a mature, detailed, version of multiple early judeo-christian theology with multiple parallels to early Christianity which, in his age, disagreed with the majority of the Christian Movement, but which , in reality, truly were correct parallels to early Judeo-Christian doctrines and traditions.
Even if I theorize : “he stole it from someone else”, this doesn’t solve anything because it simply transfers to another person what is still impossible. If I say that this teenager from the early 1800s amassed a group of eclectic scholars who knew traditions and doctrines that only a handful of scholars in that age knew, still, I am left trying to explain the multiple inconsistencies, increasing improbabilities, and problems that each new theory creates, (including how these scholars themselves knew texts and data that had not yet been discovered). My point is, that every theory I considered is even less likely and involves as many or more improbabilities than the theory the LDS claim. That is, that Joseph Smith received this mature and detailed model of Early Christian Base theology through revelation as a source.
There are other reasons why I believe Joseph Smith received based doctrines by revelation, but, for me, the vast amount of the earliest sacred judeo-christian texts feels like they are a vast source of fairly objective textual data that serves as a reference for what early Judeo-Christians believed and the later texts (i.e. 150 c.e. and beyond) become increasingly good data as to the evolutions and changes that took place among the various christian movements.”
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
POST TWO OF SIX FOLLOWS
Last edited:
POST TWO OF SIX
[FONT="]AN OVERVIEW OF SOME EARLY TRADITIONS AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I AM DESCRIBING[/FONT]
[FONT="]Idea[/FONT][FONT="], who is an LDS RF member, once quoted Joseph Smiths’ summarization of God’s plan surrounding the atonement in the most simple, yet profound terms. To this historian of peri-ce period Judeo-Christian, texts, it is an incredible summary of this vast area of historical science : [/FONT]
[FONT="]"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the “weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.[/FONT][FONT="] - Joseph Smith "[/FONT]
[FONT="]
On the surface, the quote is so expansive that it is "too big a concept to handle". However, as I’ve broken Smiths statement down into smaller components and looked at it, it is completely consistent with the most ancient teachings regarding God, the Fathers, overall plan for man, in which the atonement is the central mechanism for making the plan work. For example :
1) "...God...finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory..." (Joseph Smith)
Though it ran counter to the prevalent Christian views of his age, Joseph Smith’s restoration of and return to the principle of the pre-mortal existence of the spirits of mankind and its attendant details, harkens back to the earliest testimonies and descriptions of the ancient scriptures and texts that describe the innumerable number of spirits existing in the beginning and what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". 1 En 14:23; In other parts of Enochs vision he testifies : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:1-2)" God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth in the future according to these ancient Old Testament scriptures (Enoch IS in the eastern Old Testament). The restoration of and return to this early doctrine has deep and profound implications for Christian thought.
2) "...because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself..." (Joseph Smith)
The LDS return to the concept that God the Father created all things in concert with a great cosmic plan that originated and exists for the benefit of the spirits of mankind, speaks to the nature of God and his character and his motives and to our place within a logical and reasonable plan. This is different than Christian models that theorize God created man because God “was lonely” or because God “wanted other beings to worship him”. Joseph Smith’s model also parallels the early Judeo-Christian worldviews. In Smith’s model, God is not doing this for his own benefit, but for the benefit of mankind. “[/FONT]For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39).
[FONT="]The ancient Jews taught that God had instituted a divine plan. This concept is interwoven into concepts that are stated repeatedly, such as "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)
The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these ancient descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement in the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed). [/FONT]
[FONT="]....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Though ALL spirits existed in the beginning, they were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In this context Ignatius explains that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father.. (Ignatius :6:1). The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations). [/FONT]
[FONT="]Diogenes reaffirms the LDS models restoration of this ancient doctrine in Diogenes teaching us : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)
Ancient pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most of the spirits were joyous at having this opportunity to progress. For example the question God places to Job was not merely a rhetorical instruction, but a reminder of Jobs personal pre-creation theology. [/FONT]
[FONT="]"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7[/FONT][FONT="]) [/FONT]
[FONT="]Enoch says that he saw : " the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones. ‘ Inside this ancient model, most of the spirits wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect. Consistent with further restored details of the Fathers plan, it is in reference to such a pre-creation council of spirits that Enoch testifies : [/FONT]
[FONT="]" At that hour, that the Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will becomes a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles...All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify; bless and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones...in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they may have life." (1 Enoch 48:1-7)[/FONT]
[FONT="]I might remind you that the pre-creation council model paralleling Smiths claim has only become the accepted model among scholars of the early documents within the last half century (after the discovery of many of the early Judeo-Christian libraries). It was quite antithetical to the Christian theory of his own day.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Long before Diogenes bore his New Testament Era testimony, Old Testament Era Enoch had bore the SAME visionary testimony: In Enoch’s vision, he see’s pre-creation Jesus with the Father and asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan: [/FONT]
[FONT="]POST THREE OF SIX FOLLOWS[/FONT]
[FONT="]AN OVERVIEW OF SOME EARLY TRADITIONS AS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I AM DESCRIBING[/FONT]
[FONT="]Idea[/FONT][FONT="], who is an LDS RF member, once quoted Joseph Smiths’ summarization of God’s plan surrounding the atonement in the most simple, yet profound terms. To this historian of peri-ce period Judeo-Christian, texts, it is an incredible summary of this vast area of historical science : [/FONT]
[FONT="]"The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the “weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.[/FONT][FONT="] - Joseph Smith "[/FONT]
[FONT="]
On the surface, the quote is so expansive that it is "too big a concept to handle". However, as I’ve broken Smiths statement down into smaller components and looked at it, it is completely consistent with the most ancient teachings regarding God, the Fathers, overall plan for man, in which the atonement is the central mechanism for making the plan work. For example :
1) "...God...finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory..." (Joseph Smith)
Though it ran counter to the prevalent Christian views of his age, Joseph Smith’s restoration of and return to the principle of the pre-mortal existence of the spirits of mankind and its attendant details, harkens back to the earliest testimonies and descriptions of the ancient scriptures and texts that describe the innumerable number of spirits existing in the beginning and what God intended to do with these innumerable spirits. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Regarding his vision of pre-creation heaven, Enoch records : "No one could come near unto him from among those that surrounded the tens of millions (that stood) before him". 1 En 14:23; In other parts of Enochs vision he testifies : "I saw a hundred thousand times a hundred thousand, ten million times ten million, an innumerable and uncountable (multitude) who stand before the glory of the Lord of the Spirits. (1 Enoch 40:1-2)" God was in the midst of spirits of all the spirits who ever lived or will live on this earth in the future according to these ancient Old Testament scriptures (Enoch IS in the eastern Old Testament). The restoration of and return to this early doctrine has deep and profound implications for Christian thought.
2) "...because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself..." (Joseph Smith)
The LDS return to the concept that God the Father created all things in concert with a great cosmic plan that originated and exists for the benefit of the spirits of mankind, speaks to the nature of God and his character and his motives and to our place within a logical and reasonable plan. This is different than Christian models that theorize God created man because God “was lonely” or because God “wanted other beings to worship him”. Joseph Smith’s model also parallels the early Judeo-Christian worldviews. In Smith’s model, God is not doing this for his own benefit, but for the benefit of mankind. “[/FONT]For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39).
[FONT="]The ancient Jews taught that God had instituted a divine plan. This concept is interwoven into concepts that are stated repeatedly, such as "Before all things came to be, he [God] has ordered all their designs" (Dead Sea Scrolls 4Q255-264)
The Prophet Enoch describes the earliest stages of this plan before it was known among the heavenly host : "for not even to my angels have I explained my secrets, nor related to them their origin, nor my endless and inconceivable creation which I conceived." (2nd Enoch 24:3) In these ancient descriptions of his Plan, God the Father seems to take great care in both the planning of and in ensuring the deep involvement in the Heavenly Hosts (for whose benefit the plan existed). [/FONT]
[FONT="]....I (the Father), in the midst of the light (glory), moved around in the invisible things, like one of them, as the sun moves around from east to west and from west to east. But the sun has rest; yet I did not find rest, because everything was not yet created. And I thought up the idea of establishing a foundation, to create a visible creation." (2nd Enoch 24:4)[/FONT]
[FONT="]Though ALL spirits existed in the beginning, they were in no way equals (just as we are not equal now). Among them were the more intelligent and gifted; those who were more full of grace and truth than others. In this context Ignatius explains that among those spirits was "Jesus...who before the ages was with the father.. (Ignatius :6:1). The ancient records show the Father and Jesus, from early on, possessed a great similarity and unity. Jesus was given greater authority and administrated much of the Father’s plan from early on (God’s "right hand" was one of the Pre-Creation Jesus’ appellations). [/FONT]
[FONT="]Diogenes reaffirms the LDS models restoration of this ancient doctrine in Diogenes teaching us : "And when he revealed it (his plan) through his beloved Child and made known the things prepared from the beginning, he gave us to share in his benefits and to see and understand things which none of ever would have expected.. So then, having already planned everything in his mind together with his child... (Diog 301:8-11)
Ancient pre-creation council histories demonstrates that most of the spirits were joyous at having this opportunity to progress. For example the question God places to Job was not merely a rhetorical instruction, but a reminder of Jobs personal pre-creation theology. [/FONT]
[FONT="]"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (Job 38:4-7[/FONT][FONT="]) [/FONT]
[FONT="]Enoch says that he saw : " the fountain of righteousness,...surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink (of the water) and become filled with wisdom. (Then) their dwelling places become with the holy, righteous, and elect ones. ‘ Inside this ancient model, most of the spirits wanted to drink from that same wisdom and take their place with others who were holy, righteous and elect. Consistent with further restored details of the Fathers plan, it is in reference to such a pre-creation council of spirits that Enoch testifies : [/FONT]
[FONT="]" At that hour, that the Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of the spirits, the Before-Time; even before the creation of the sun and moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of the Spirits. He will becomes a staff for the righteous ones in order that they may lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles...All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify; bless and sing the name of the Lord of the Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones...in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they may have life." (1 Enoch 48:1-7)[/FONT]
[FONT="]I might remind you that the pre-creation council model paralleling Smiths claim has only become the accepted model among scholars of the early documents within the last half century (after the discovery of many of the early Judeo-Christian libraries). It was quite antithetical to the Christian theory of his own day.[/FONT]
[FONT="]
Long before Diogenes bore his New Testament Era testimony, Old Testament Era Enoch had bore the SAME visionary testimony: In Enoch’s vision, he see’s pre-creation Jesus with the Father and asks who this individual (Jesus) is and what role he has in the Father's Plan: [/FONT]
[FONT="]POST THREE OF SIX FOLLOWS[/FONT]
Last edited: