Mormons and the Blessing of Families
Mormons stress the importance of families as seen in their comments about the Gospel That Blesses Families. This is one of the areas in which Mormons are strong. Even if people have theological questions about Mormonism or archaeological doubts about the events described in the Book of Mormon, many people are still attracted to the strong family values of Mormonism.
Of course, I strongly agree that families are important and that being a Christian should influence how one is a father, mother, son or daughter. However, Mormons overemphasize the role of families in God’s plan. To Mormons, this is not just an ethical issue but a theological issue. Mormons believe that God created billions of spirits and that good Mormons must have large families to give these spirits bodies. There is no biblical support for this.
It should also be noted that John the Baptist was not married, Jesus was not married, Paul was not married, Peter was married but we know more about his mother-in-law than we know about his wife. Family was not a major part of the most important people in the New Testament. If family was so central, you would think that it would play a greater role in these people’s lives. Of course Jesus and Paul have important teachings on how to have a good family and we must heed these words. But Jesus presents singleness as a viable option and Paul presents singleness as a preferred state to marriage and children. All of these things must be kept in mind when looking at the place of families in Mormonism.
Actually, it’s popular in certain quarters of Mormonism to argue that Jesus was actually married.
At any rate, we do argue that if he wasn’t then, he is now, or will be.
Thanks for your comments. That is interesting to hear. I appreciate any insight on what Mormons believe. We are all here to learn.
I’ve been having a bit of a discussion over at the blog LDS-Evangelical Conversations about Mormon marriage and it’s importance in the LDS afterlife. You can read the discussion (which get’s a bit low-brow at times) here:
http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/ravi-zacharias-at-the-mormon-tabernacle/
I made a comment there that I think might be useful here, so here’s the cut-and-paste:
Marriage in its mortal renditions is merely a sacrament of the unity God enjoys.
So, I think to try and characterize the Mormon view of the afterlife as limited by mortal ordinances that merely foreshadow an eternal reality is misguided.
[Do Evangelicals] view the afterlife of unity in Jesus as merely sitting around munching bread and drinking wine?
Well, of course not. That is mere a symbol, a sacrament that is meant to point the believer to the higher truth of what unity in Christ really means.
Marriage is the same way. The mortal practice thereof cannot possibly encompass what true perichoresis with God in Christ means. Husband and wife are invited, in Mormon theology, to share with each other (however imperfectly) the same unity God enjoys. It’s a symbol. And a reality. But don’t think it’s comprehensive. We only see through a glass darkly at this stage.
Thanks for this. Like I said, I am always open to learn. Out of curiosity, how do Mormons interpret Paul’s teaching that it better for people not to marry and even for husbands and wives to act as if they were not married?
For myself, I just take it as “Paul’s opinion.” But I’m hardly a majority view within the LDS Church.
I have some resources I could point you to, but out of clarification, are you talking about 1 Cor. 7:1-2?
I was thinking more 1 Cor. 7:25-35.
I see. What I personally find interesting about this passage is how Paul presents his declarations. In verse 10 of chapter 7, we see him bracketing verses 10 and 11 as commands of God. Then in verse 12, he specifically notes that the rest will be his own opinion. Finally, in verse 26, he indicates that his advice has a sort of temporary character about it – in light of the “present crisis.”
Thus, these passages take on a sort of “advice of the moment” feel. Kind of like how I’d advise someone against selling real estate right now in light of the mortgage crisis. But that’s hardly a categorical statement against real estate transactions.
I agree that Paul’s teaching is not binding (I have a wife and 5 kids) and that he said this because he thought Jesus was about to return. But let us think about this. If it is true that there are many spirits out there waiting for bodies and that God wants us to provide as many babies as possible to give these bodies, and if Paul thought the end was near, would it not make sense for Paul to urge people to have as many babies as possible and as soon as possible? I am not try to be difficult, I am just trying to work through the implications of this doctrine.
Well, if he thought Jesus was returning, it would logically follow that the baby-making work would be wrapping up anyway.
I agree with you that the emphasis on family, as a theological item, isn’t really found in the Old or New Testaments (unless you count inheritance from God as his children). It’s almost solely a function of modern LDS scripture and authoritative statements in our religion.
When you get down to the details, LDS theology of the family really is a bit vague. Family is held as an eternal reality. But beyond that, we are very scarce on detail and speculation abounds.
Thanks for the information on this. I enjoy talking to actual followers rather than reading critical books.
I have another question if you don’t mind. How do members of the LDS see the eternal fate of Christians who trust in Jesus and try to live a good life but don’t belong to the LDS?
The LDS have a tiered view of the afterlife. It’s not just heaven or hell.
Well… sort of. Let me explain.
Mormon theology draws a distinction between the temporary place we go after death, and where we ultimately end up after the final judgment.
So you’ll actually find a lot of Mormon scripture (especially in the Book of Mormon) speaking of heaven vs. hell as if that’s all there is. But this only speaks to the temporary destination we go to after death. When we die, we go to “the spirit world.” According to remarks made by Brigham Young, this spirit world exists right here on earth. Parallel to us, but unseen by us.
Those who inhabit this state of waiting can be said to be in a state of “paradise” or “hell” according to their own internal state. However, our scriptures make it clear that this state of either joy or torment is mostly one of our own making. The righteous live in hopeful anticipation of the judgment, while the wicked live in dread of the same event, wracked by their own consciences. We also hold that missionary work takes place among those in this state.
Now, what happens when the wait is over, and we have the final judgment?
There are four destinations: 1) Celestial Kingdom, 2) Terrestrial Kingdom, 3) Telestial Kingdom, and 4) Outer Darkness.
Let’s start with Outer Darkness. This is reserved for a very limited class of people and is the Mormon equivalent of eternal hell. The only way to qualify for ending up here is to have full knowledge of God – a full and sure witness – and then to deny him.
Almost nobody qualifies for this, because few people ever gain enough knowledge of God to deny him knowingly. Cain is the prototype example of one of these people (known as “Sons of Perdition”). Judas is also cited as an example – though even he may not have had enough knowledge. Some LDS authorities have opined that the class is larger than I have described it. This is an area of speculation.
Let’s move on to the kingdoms. Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial. These are all kingdoms of glory. They are all desirable places – in and of themselves. Celestial is the highest and most glorious. Then Terrestrial, and then Telestial. Symbolically they are represented by the Sun, Moon, and Stars respectively (you can see such symbolism on some of our temples).
Let’s start at the bottom – Telestial.
This is a kingdom of glory. It is presided over by the third member of the Godhead – the Holy Ghost. Those who inhabit this state enjoy the presence of that person. This state is for those who lived wickedly in life and did not repent when given the chance. Liars, adulterers, murderers, idolaters, etc. The worst of humanity in some ways. Yet, through God’s mercy, they are still allowed a good place in the hereafter.
Next Terrestrial.
This kingdom of glory exceeds the glory of the Telestial and is presided over by the person of Jesus Christ (the Holy Ghost can be present here as well). It is often said that this level of heaven resembles the Protestant view of the afterlife. That may or may not be accurate. This place is for those who were good and honorable men and women in life, but who rejected the message of the Restored Gospel and its authoritative ordinances (as offered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).
Finally, the highest level – Celestial.
This kingdom of glory is presided over by God the Father himself. It is the only place you can live in his presence. Christ and the Holy Ghost are present here as well. This place is for those who were righteous – or made so via the Atonement AND who accepted the full ordinances of exaltation offered by the Restored Gospel of the LDS Church. Basically, you have to become a Mormon – either in mortality, or in the Spirit World – in order to enter this kingdom. Familial relationships are enjoyed for eternity in this kingdom.
Now, even the Celestial Kingdom has its own divisions.
For example, the only way to rise to the top of the Celestial Kingdom, is to do so as husband and wife. For us “God” is both male and female (although awkwardly, we rarely ever speak of Heavenly Mother). You cannot become a (lower-case) god alone. Those who are not in this state cannot achieve full exaltation, and inherit all God has. They remain as angels in heaven, subject to those who have received this theosis.
Hopefully, that gives you an outline.
So, we’re kind of like universalists, but at the same time, not.
Thanks for all this. I really like getting this info from an insider. One question on this and another back to the family idea.
1) Regarding the idea of God and gods. I have heard the statement: “As we are God once was, as God is we will one day be.” Do you believe that God the Father was once a human being living on another planet who was faithful to another God? And will the most faithful of Mormons be gods just in the sense of spiritual power or will they be gods of other planets, receiving the worship of other people and thus equal to who we call God the Father? If someone asked you how many gods are there, how would you answer? Excuse my ignorance, but must of what evangelicals hear about Mormons comes from some pretty angry critics and I would rather have it from the perspective of an insider.
2) Back to families. I had another thought. How do Mormons interpret Matthew 22:30 where Jesus seems to teach that at the resurrection all people will live the single life?
Some Mormons hold to the chain-of-gods model.
But more recently, some Mormon scholars have been making the case that God the Father always was fully divine. They claim that the “god once was” part of that quote merely refers to God the Father experiencing mortality the way that Jesus did.
So take your pick, I guess. I could go either way, but I think the chain of gods model is kind of cool.
As to what being a god entails…
Well, it’s not like the cartoonish depictions out there. We don’t fly off to some unsettled chunk of the galaxy and get our own private planet.
What God rules over is “worlds without end” according to our scriptures. And he promises us “all the Father hath.” So saying “you get a planet” is to vastly trivialize the matter. We inherit worlds without end ourselves.
I should also note that there is very little that is polytheistic about our beliefs from a practical standpoint. Mormon theology posits theosis as being obtained by a perfect unity in God the Father. You must be perfectly united with him such that his will is the same as your own will. His image will be upon us such that to meet us will be to meet him. A perfect unity of mind, will, and love.
So it really isn’t a “local system-lord” theology (to borrow a term from Stargate). No competing Gods. One will and purpose guiding the universe in perfection. No matter how many beings you add to it.
In fact, you might say that Mormonism simply borrows the logic of the traditional Trinity and uses it to add additional beings.
I appreciate your willingness to hear out the Mormon side. I am very much aware that most other online discussion of my religion is charged with anger and resentment.
Now, about Jesus’ statements…
I hope you’ll pardon me, but I’m going to punt on this one and refer you to an LDS apologetics website for a detailed discussion on how Mormonism answers Matt 22:30:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Marriage/As_a_requirement_for_exaltation/Jesus_said_%22neither_marry_nor_given_in_marriage%22
Thanks for all this information. It is good to get it from your perspective. I was wondering, is there something like a Mormon systematic theology or an official book that sets out the current state of Mormon beliefs. I would love to get my hands on something like that. Any recommendations would be appreciated.
Well, you’ve got to be careful about the search for such sources. There are different sources for Mormon doctrine, and they each have their own relative value to each other. For example, just because a prophet says something doesn’t make it doctrinal and binding.
I explore these problems and the different sources for Mormon theology and doctrine in the following blog post I wrote for an Evangelical friend of mine:
http://ldstalk.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/navigating-living-waters-helping-our-evangelical-friends-make-sense-of-mormon-doctrine/
If you want a single reference source, I might suggest ordering a Holy Bible from LDS distribution services (it will have LDS footnotes, including portions of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible at the bottom of the pages) and a combined Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. You will want this for reference, and it’s not that expensive.
Aside from that, I might recommend the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. It’s a concerted effort by LDS scholars to create a conservative and comprehensive treatment of LDS doctrine. It’s not authoritative (like the scriptures I suggest above). But it should prove a useful reference.
Thanks for this. I do have the LDS Bible but the Encyclopedia sounds interesting. Thanks for your suggestions.
The other candidate you’ll hear a lot is “Mormon Doctrine” by Bruce R. McConkie, who was an LDS apostle.
But the book is heavily slanted by his own personal opinions about doctrine and cannot always be relied upon to accurately present the LDS view. Some of the things he wrote are outright disputed by some in the Church and he was forced to retract a few controversial statements. The book is currently being phased out of production.
So I can’t say I’d recommend his book.
Yes, I came across McConkie’s book. Thanks for the heads up. Where is the cheapest online site to get these books?
You got me. I only ever use Amazon for this kind of stuff. Deseret Book is an LDS Church-affiliated bookstore and might have it.
Thanks. Got another question for you. How does the LDS feel about the Community of Christ? Would you put them on par with other Christians or consider them good Mormons?
Most members of the LDS Church would probably shrug their shoulders and say they don’t know. A smaller percentage would say they aren’t “Mormons.” An even smaller percentage would say that they are “Mormons.”
The way I see it, the LDS Church doesn’t have a monopoly on the word “Mormon” even if they do have it trademarked. So I don’t mind calling them Mormons.
This is great having someone answer questions so honestly. I really appreciate it. If you get sick of answering my questions, just let me know. I have two more:
1) What do Mormons do with it being revealed that polygamy was the way and then later being revealed that polygamy had to be stopped. I am sure you are sick of hearing about polygamy but to me polygamy is not the issue, but the complete change in attitude, both supposedly be revelation. I have trouble getting me head around that one.
2) Where are we at with archaeology and the Book of Mormon? As far as I know there is no archaeological evidence for the events in the Book of Mormon. Is that a problem or is it just a matter of faith?
On polygamy…
First off, you’ll hear some claim it was taught as a requirement for salvation. This isn’t really accurate.
1. Brigham Young and other early leaders were known for having a “bark” that was worse than their bite. So you’ll get a lot of rhetoric from Brigham Young that was more extreme than his actual stances, when push came to shove. I understand this, because I’m the same way myself.
2. Of the statements on the subject we do have from Brigham Young, they are ambiguous about whether you really had to have more than one wife to get into the Celestial Kingdom. His statements can just as easily be read as saying that you need only support the idea of polygamy, not necessarily practice it. Such statements were usually framed in context of “this is what the Lord has instituted, and if you oppose it, you will be in opposition to God.”
3. It’s an established fact that the majority of the Mormon marriages in late 1800s Utah (when polygamy was at its height) were monogamous. Polygamous marriages were the decided minority. Of the polygamous marriages, they had an average of two wives. Polygamous relationships like those of my great, great, great, great grandfather Aaron Johnson with over a dozen brides were really, really uncommon and obviously limited only to those men who were rich enough, and competent enough, to take care of a lot of households. It just doesn’t add up to suggest that Brigham Young thought that the majority of his followers were going to be kept out of the Celestial Kingdom for not having more than one wife. Especially since we have no record of him ever being troubled by the mostly monogamous population or ever taking steps to correct the situation.
Now, about why the practice ended.
Basically, we were beaten into submission in one of the most intense organized campaigns of religious persecution in American history. The Mormon “empire” that Brigham Young was building was in the way of US westward expansion. Polygamy became a convenient club.
Laws of evidence were relaxed. Even being seen visiting a widow with food supplies could be reason enough to land a Mormon man in jail and convict him of polygamy. The usual rule of evidence permitting wives to deny testifying against their husbands was stopped. Existing standards of evidence were so vague that they basically left it up to the judge whether or not you were guilty, with no objective measures. Jury trials were abolished.
Families were torn up and men were prohibited from assisting or feeding their own children. Many children were effectively declared bastards by the US government and denied inheritance rights. Hundreds of men were jailed. Church assets were seized. We were on the brink of bankruptcy and financial ruin.
It literally came down to “give up polygamy, or cease to exist as a Church, and watch as the US government takes all your buildings.”
We were going to lose everything.
Even so, early Mormons held out for a remarkably long period of time before finally bowing to the inevitable. When the practice of polygamy was ended, leaders declared that God wanted it ended in order to save the Church from ruin. There were basically more important missions that the LDS Church would be unable to fulfill if persecution continued.
But note, only the PRACTICE of polygamy was suspended. Not the doctrine itself. It was never removed from our scriptures. And even today, people are still sealed to more than one spouse POSTHUMOUSLY. So it’s still going on. It’s just no longer a mortal practice.
For instance, if a guy marries a girl he loves in his 20s, and she dies a few years into the marriage, then he remarries about 10 years later and lives out the rest of his life with her… he is allowed to be sealed to BOTH women. That’s just an example.
We also have instances of women being sealed to more than one man, but this is only allowed after even the woman is dead. So it’s not exactly equal. But it’s interesting, nonetheless.
The current LDS position on polygamy is highly ambiguous. We vehemently declare our intention to obey the law, and anyone caught in the mortal practice of polygamy is promptly excommunicated. Today the mortal practice is limited to “apostate” breakaway groups – like the FLDS (who were on the news last year in Texas).
But the doctrine was never repudiated and could easily make a comeback if American society were ever to come to grips with polygamy and create a workable legal and social context for its responsible practice. But such a context does not really exist today, and polygamy has been brutalized by over a century operating in secrecy. I think if the practice had been allowed openly in Utah, we would have a much more humane and enlightened practice of it today. But due to the secrecy and isolation forced upon those who wished to continue practicing it, it has become an area ripe for abuse – as we saw with the FLDS.
Modern LDS leadership is not currently all that thrilled with the idea of bringing it back – it would be a huge task for us – fraught with pitfalls and challenges. Not to mention that the attitudes of modern Mormons have shifted more in line with modern American notions of romance. Ask a random sampling of girls in their teens and twenties (or maybe any age sampling) what they think of polygamy, and you’ll get overwhelmingly negative reactions. As a people, we’ve bought into Hollywood’s formulas for romance and self-fulfillment as much as anyone.
Suffice it to say, I don’t expect the LDS Church to lead the charge on getting polygamy back. That reform will probably come from some other sector of society, and the LDS Church will follow suit only when they are sure “the coast is clear.”
The first thing to realize about archaeology and the Book of Mormon is that we’re dealing with a completely different situation than with the Bible.
The Book of Mormon took place in the Western Hemisphere. We know very, very little about this part of the world. Little archeological evidence has survived the societal upheavals that wracked the New World.
For instance, the Jesuits accompanying the Spanish Conquistadors zealously destroyed just about every document that looked even suspiciously religious when they conquered the Aztec and Maya societies. And the Conquistadors themselves melted down just about every item of precious metal they could get their hands on into ingots for transport back to Spain.
Not only this, but the intensely humid climate of Central and South America makes archeological preservation a very difficult thing. Most of our relics from the Bible story were preserved in arid Middle Eastern climates. Perfect for document preservation. No such documents could have survived in the most likely American settings for the Book of Mormon.
Furthermore, archaeologists will freely admit that our understanding of New World languages is rudimentary at best. We simply don’t have enough context to draw conclusions.
For all we know, we could have Central American archaeologists looking at Book of Mormon cities right now and not knowing it.
It’s also important to keep Book of Mormon claims in context. Analysis of the actual text shows that the described Nephite and Lamanite societies couldn’t have covered an area much larger than modern-day Guatemala. Theories abound for the location of the Book of Mormon. But very few scholars today argue for an inter-continental empire. The most popular candidate is the Yucatan Peninsula in modern day Mexico – the location of extensive Aztec-Mayan ruins. Timeline-wise, culture-wise, and geography-wise, a good case can be made.
In addition to this, Mormon scholars have been doing extensive work tracking Lehi’s journey fleeing Jerusalem across the Arabian Peninsula. They have uncovered evidence that seems compelling enough. Here are a couple short YouTube videos that should give you an idea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw7fW19Sk1A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mihAVO1R-GA&feature=related
And here’s a short clip on New World geography:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBsCxfOLZCc&feature=related
I think I added too many links to that last comment, and it went into moderation. Sorry.
Thanks for all this. I watched the last video but have not had a chance to watch the others. My first thought in hearing about the limited geographical area is wondering how the Lamanites could be the primary ancestors of the native North Americans from the Arctic to South America? And how does this fit with archaeological evidence of some of these civilizations predating the events of the Book of Mormon?
“Primary ancestors” is language nowhere found in LDS scripture.
That language comes from the completely non-canonical Introduction on that old version of the Book of Mormon.
The wording has since been changed to “among the ancestors.”
This tends to make many of our critics fairly angry, because it makes it harder for them to refute the book. The entire DNA argument that has been so fashionable in those circles for the past couple years is almost completely premised on the Book of Mormon describing an inter-continental empire.
The DNA critiques only work if you are assuming such a large empire. If you limit it geographically however, the DNA argument becomes worse than useless to our critics. Which is probably why they were so outraged when LDS scholars pointed out that we’ve been arguing a limited geography model for over half a century now. They thought they had finally found the silver bullet to kill the book that they’d been unable to come up with for almost 200 years. And then it turns out to be a blank.
Well, we’re all purified by adversity.
Sorry if I’m sounding a bit sarcastic. It’s not really directed at you so much as certain others I’ve had dealings with…
Sure, I understand that. But I am still struggling with this. Am I correct in understanding that on a practical level that Mormons see native Americans as descendants of the Lamanites? In practice, a Mormon would not treat a native American as being just possibly descended and even more possibly a descendant of some east Asian migration? Am I off base here? Also, how do you reconcile that the physical curse placed upon them just happens to make them look like the other native Americans that migrated from elsewhere? I am not trying to be antagonistic, I am just trying to follow the logic. I really do appreciate your helpful attitude and I hope my readers are learning as much as I am.
The limited geography model posits a small colonization with Lehi’s party that was quickly swallowing up by the surrounding – already existing – population. Thus erasing any possibility of tracing Lehi’s existence genetically.
My own personal feeling is that the “curse” spoken of by Nephi was simply due to his own observations and prejudices.
I would wager that the darkened skin simply came about from Nephi’s evil brothers mingling with the local indigenous population. Thus the darkness happened naturally. Such intermarriage would have been forbidden by the Mosaic Law, which Nephi would have held in honor, but Laman and Lemuel and company might easily have esteemed lightly. When the children of their group turned “dark”, Nephi could very easily have taken it as a sign of God’s judgment and called it a curse.
But later in the book there are numerous passages that seem to suggest that both Lamanite and Nephite populations had mixed thoroughly enough as to be indistinguishable from each other by mere skin color. A lot can happen in 700 years. And the Book of Mormon repeatedly emphasizes that it is a SPIRITUAL history and does not much trouble with the history, politics, society, or economics unless they impact on that spiritual narrative.
But even if Lehi’s party was just a small group getting genetically swallowed up by a larger population (of primarily Asiatic origin), that does not prevent Lehi being among the ancestors for much of the present-day Native American population.
It’s just the way population genetics works.
Two questions:
1) Do you think that represents Joseph Smith’s understanding of what took place in the Americas?
2) What practical role does the Book of Mormon play in the LDS. From my reading of it, there is not a whole lot of theology in it. Is it just used as a sign or is it used the way Christians use the Bible?
Joseph Smith’s views of where the Book of Mormon took place evolved over time, and were still evolving when he died.
We’ve currently got some Mormons promoting book and DVD sales making the rounds claiming they’ve got Joseph Smith’s own stamp of approval on a North American setting for the Book of Mormon, and anyone who says otherwise is “rejecting Joseph.”
Here is an index of known Joseph Smith quotes on the matter:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Statements/Joseph_Smith
It shows how vague and evolving his statements were. We have little basis for concluding that Joseph ever nailed down the location. He seemed almost enthusiastically open to whatever new developments science and archaeology was able to unearth.
You can find more articles on the subject at that website if you type in “geography” into the search box.
As for theology….
I’d say the Book of Mormon has a similar amount of theology in it to the Bible. But I think in the case of both books, “theology” is more of a method we use to understand the content of the books rather than something that is explicitly contained in the books.
The Book of Mormon actually does not contain a lot of doctrine that you cannot already find in the Bible. So if you are asking whether it is meant to establish all the unique truths of the Mormon message, I would say no. It does, as you suggest, serve more as a witness of how God will reveal new testaments to us of his message and glory. It also proves that God cares for more people than just those located in Palestine, and he always has. Mormon belief expects yet more witnesses – more books of scripture – to be unearthed in the future witnessing God’s dealings with his people in other parts of the world.
But for the UNIQUE aspects of Mormonism… I always tell people they’ll have to look elsewhere for that.
As for whether we use the Book of Mormon the same way “Christians” use the Bible…. You’ll have to define Christians for me. Because they are a pretty diverse lot, and different Christians use the Bible if very different ways.
With regard to Joseph Smith’s opinions, I guess I was speaking not so much of location at whether the Lamanites are just one part of the genetic makeup of native Americans or if he considered them to be the same.
One of the other questions I have had about the Book of Mormon is this: why is it when Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, why are the biblical quotes exactly from KJV? Did he see that they were biblical quotes and pull out his KJV or was the KJV preserved in the plates?
Also, what are the current thoughts on the Book of Abraham? I have heard lots about this text.
KJV language seems more a translation method issue than an issue of original content. King James English was the common religious language of 1800s America, so that’s what Joseph used when translating. All translators are human, and all use human preferences when translating.
As to the specific KJV verses cited, two options:
1. The criticisms of our critics are not valid that the KJV verse is evidence of Joseph cut-and-pasting from his Bible for various reasons. FAIR has some resources on this, but I can’t remember what they are.
2. Joseph simply rendered the verse in a familiar form when he translated it. The basic content was ancient, but the wording Joseph (or even God) chose to convey it was KJV.
Either result works for me.
As for the Book of Abraham, my view of it is that the content is of divine origin, no matter how we got it. So this talk of Joseph not agreeing with Egyptologists is quite beside the point for me. Whether you believe Joseph rendered an accurate translation of the papyrus in his possession or not, you still have to explain how Joseph Smith absolutely nailed the Abraham story so well, that it has been repeatedly verified by ancient Jewish apocryphal documents that have only arisen after Joseph’s death. Even if you think Joseph totally screwed up translating the papyrus, and that those documents had nothing about Abraham at all, you still have to ask – well, how DID he nail everything so accurately in all other respects?
The content of the Book of Abraham matches up very well with recent advances in knowledge about the Abrahamic story. Advances that nobody in Joseph’s time period knew about – much less backwoods Joseph Smith.
So the Egyptology issues are kind of a red-herring in my mind.
That said, I think people confuse the issue on the Egyptology question. The LDS Church does not claim that the papyrus in Joseph’s possession was touched by the very hand of Abraham. Almost all Mormon scholars argue for a document compiled by a Jewish or Canaanite scribe in the Egyptian language, hundreds of years later.
The main attack on the Book of Abraham is that Egyptologists have looked at the pictographs surviving from Joseph Smith’s rolls of papyrus and concluded that an Egyptian reading of those pictographs does not match-up with Joseph’s explanations at all.
Hugh Nibley did some work asserting that actually the pictographs do yield an Egyptian interpretation consistent with Joseph’s themes, but I don’t want to get into that since it’s not my favored explanation (Nibley’s claims here are somewhat controversial).
My favored explanation comes from Mormon scholar Kevin Barney who asserts that looking for an EGYPTIAN meaning in the pictographs is the wrong approach to begin with.
The author was most likely a Canaanite, not an Egyptian. And he was writing hundreds of years after the time of Abraham’s story. Barney asserts that this Canaanite scribe simply used Egyptian pictographs and Egyptian writing to tell a Canaanite story.
So he used the pictographs in a manner similar to how we use stock internet photos. We’ll take a photo and plaster it on whatever website or advertisement we want – no matter what the photo was originally meant for. I did something similar when having my business website designed. I took the photos of others (for a price – copyright and all that…) and implemented them in my own context and gave them my own meaning.
Barney asserts that this Canaanite scribe did the same thing here. In this case, he took pictographs depicting Egyptian funeral procedures, and used them instead to outline the Hebrew notion of the cosmos.
In short, the issue of Joseph’s translation of the Book of Abraham is wholly disputed and controversial. Neither side is in position to land a knockout blow.
And the issue is ultimately irrelevant to the validity of the Book of Abraham anyway.
It is great to talk to someone who has thought these things out. Could you talked to me about reformed Egyptian? What kind of language is it and is there any non-Mormon evidence?
I’m gonna kind of punt on this one and refer you to an article on the topic:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Reformed_Egyptian
One of the highlights from it though:
“Moroni makes it clear that “reformed Egyptian” is the name which the Nephites have given to a script based upon Egyptian characters, and modified over the course of a thousand years (See Mormon 9:32). So, it is no surprise that Egyptians or Jews have no script called “reformed Egyptian,” as this was a Nephite term.”
And this:
“There are, however, several variant Egyptian scripts which are “reformed” or altered from their earlier form. Hugh Nibley and others have pointed out that the change from Egyptian hieroglyphics, to hieratic, to demotic is a good description of Egyptian being “reformed.” By 600 BC, hieratic was used primarily for religious texts, while demotic was used for daily use.”
I have appreciated your quick responses.
I was wondering if you could give me some insight on the differences between the Mormon idea of the Godhead and the traditional understanding of the Trinity.
Mormons, as you know acknowledge the possibility of many divine beings. But that does not mean that these other beings are an object of worship for Mormons.
As a Mormon you are allowed to believe in an infinite chain of gods going backwards in time. But you are also allowed to believe that God the Father has always been God eternally and had none before him.
No matter which view you hew to, worship is properly directed at only three beings: Father, Son and Spirit – same as the traditional notion of the Trinity.
The reason other divine beings are not worshiped personally is because we do not have a relationship with those beings – except indirectly as they all participate in the divinity and unity of perfection.
This is a key point – Mormons do not worship a being primarily for his attributes (as I suppose some traditional Christian theologians advocate). We worship him because of our personal relationship of trust with him – because “he first loved us.” Sure, the attributes are an important part of that relationship, but it is the relationship that sets the bounds of worship.
God the Father may have a father, but that doesn’t mean I worship that being. I have no covenant and no direct bond with that being. So the object of my worship is God the Father alone through his Son Jesus Christ and by the witness of the Holy Ghost.
The Trinity.
So in this sense, Mormons are trinitarians. Most Mormons will tell you they aren’t “trinitarian.” But that’s only because most Mormons equate the theological term “Trinity” with the heresy of modalism (which we vehemently reject). It’s a lack of sophistication with the theological terminology.
Now, some Mormons can accurately be described as “tre-theist” – which is to say – they believe in three distinct beings who happen to play for the same team. This is also a heresy, according to traditional Christian thought. But many Mormons nonetheless hew to it. We take very seriously the Biblical verses stating Christ’s distinct identity from the Father. We combine this with Joseph Smith’s early vision of God the Father accompanied by a definitely-separate Jesus Christ.
I think this may be a bit of a mistake for Mormons. Tri-theism is to take the division too far in my mind. The Book of Mormon itself is adamant about the complete and total unity of Father, Son, and Spirit. I think current Mormon culture ignores these verses too readily.
Which is why I think the total, utter, and complete unity of mind, will, and love enjoyed by the Trinity (perichoresis) must be emphasized in Mormon teaching. These are not merely three beings playing for the same team. These are three beings so perfectly united that to know the mind and will of one is to know the mind and will of all.
And really, this kind of unity is central to Mormon theology. It is the same unity that God calls us to partake in. So when we say that Mormons believe we are becoming gods – I think it is in this sense. We believe we shall partake in the same unity that Christ enjoys with the Father – through Christ’s Atonement. It is a unity that we are called upon to replicate (however feebly) in our earthly attempts to build Zion. Temple marriage of husband and wife is also meant to symbolize the man and woman entering into a symbolic imitation of the divine love and unity shared by the Trinity.
Theosis in Mormonism is achieved by this perichoresis – this “divine dance” of love. Thus I find the unity of the Trinity to be a crucial and indispensable theological centerpiece of Mormon thought.
I myself find a strain of Christian theological thought helpful in articulating this Mormon position – “Social Trinitarianism.” I self-identify myself as social trinitarian. I feel it meshes very well with Mormon scripture and the overall arc of Mormon theological thought.
What the LDS do reject however, is the notion that Father, Son and Spirit share the same “substance.”
We honestly have no idea what Christian theologians mean by “substance” in the first place, and what we do understand of it sounds like just a roundabout way of declaring modalism.
Mormons cannot be said to be polytheist because we have no relationship of worship with the other possible divine beings in existence.
At worst, we are henotheists – those who believe in many divine beings, but worship only one pre-eminent being. But this isn’t really accurate either.
We are “trinitarian” in that we believe in three divine beings who are connected in some way.
We are adamantly not modalists.
We are possibly tri-theists.
We consider ourselves monotheist, in that we worship a single unity.
But I personally think social trinitarian offers the best fit.