Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Our Mormon Brothers? Part 8 (The Council Of The Gods)
Reformed Evangelist ^ | July 2nd, 2007 | James White

Posted on 11/23/2007 9:14:46 AM PST by Gamecock

At this point Smith goes into a fascinating discussion of Genesis 1:1 and how this passage supports his theology,[1] but we move past this to remain focused upon ascertaining the what of his theology more than the how at this point.

Oh, ye lawyers, ye doctors, and ye priests, who have persecuted me, I want to let you know that the Holy Ghost knows something as well as you do. The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time.[2] . . . In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. When we begin to learn this way, we begin to learn the only true God, and what kind of a being we have got to worship. Having a knowledge of God, we begin to know how to approach him, and how to ask so as to receive an answer. When we understand the character of God, and how to come to him, he begins to unfold the heavens to us, and to tell us all about it.

Every LDS person who embraces these words as true must realize how they sound to the ears of an orthodox Christian. God calling a council of the Gods? Concocting a plan to create the world and people it? Such words are so far removed from historic Christian belief that many struggle to react properly to them. We must remember that it is claimed by Mormons today that this is also what was believed by the Apostles of Jesus Christ, such as Paul, John, and Peter. Yet, their testimony to these things has been muted by time and by the corruption of the Scriptures.

Man’s Spirit Eternal and Uncreated

Smith then goes on to lay the foundation of the LDS denial of creatio ex nihilo, creation out of nothing, the historic Christian belief that God did not create the universe out of pre-existing matter, but solely by His creative power and will.

Now, I ask all who hear me, why the learned men who are preaching salvation, say that God created the heavens and the earth out of nothing? The reason is, that they are unlearned in the things of God, and have not the gift of the Holy Ghost; they account it blasphemy in any one to contradict their idea. If you tell them that God made the world out of something, they will call you a fool. But I am learned, and know more than all the world put together. The Holy Ghost does, anyhow, and He is within me, and comprehends more than all the world: and I will associate myself with Him.

How does Smith deal with the assertion that God created the heavens and the earth, as well as man himself?

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing; and they will answer, Doesnt the Bible say He created the world? And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. Now, the word create came from the baurau which does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaoschaotic matter, which is element, and inwhich dwells all the glory. Element had an existence from the time he had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and re-organized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning, and can have no end.

Here Joseph Smith clearly teaches the eternality of matter, and the idea that God does not create but instead organizes. It should be noted, then, that while Smith has said that God has not eternally been God, matter has eternally existed. Hence, matter pre-exists God in that God has not always been God!

At this point, then, Smith moves to the spirit of man. Note well what he says:

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says God made man out of the earth and put into him Adams spirit, and so became a living body.

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal[3] with God himself. . . . I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it had a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had not beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. . . . But if I amright, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Mark well the assertion, God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. This flows from the idea that the intelligence of spirits is immortal and without beginning, and that God Himself is to be numbered amongst the intelligences that areco-eternal with Him. This is what Smith means when he says God . . . could not create himself. The equation is complete, in that God and man are one species, one kind, along the divine continuum, separated by time and exaltation, but not by being.

The Principles of Eternal Life

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.

This is good doctrine. It tastes good. I can taste the principles of eternal life, and so can you. They are given to me by the revelations of Jesus Christ; and I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life as they are given to me, you taste them,and I know that you believe them. You say honey is sweet, and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life. I know it is good; and when I tell you of these things which were given my by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive them as sweet, and rejoice more and more.

With these words we close our examination of Smiths King Follett Discourse. One might wish to re-read the citations, or even read the entirety of the discourse as found in numerous LDS sources, to fully grasp the breadth of the doctrines that are so plainly announced here. This sermon fleshes out the passages we examined in the LDS Scriptures, and will shed much light on the many other passages we have yet to examine. But to close out this section, we note a vital truth: for Mormonism, this concept of God –including exaltation, progression, and the plurality of gods – is intimately associated with the gospel itself. Smith speaks of the principles of eternal life, and when Mormon leaders so speak, they are referring to the concepts found in the King Follett Discourse. An understanding of this fact has tremendous ramifications with reference to our over-all inquiry regarding the nature of Mormon teaching and the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity.

————————————————

[1] See the review of Smith’s effort by Sean Hahn, Joseph Smith the Translator here.

[2] At this point Smith goes into a discussion of how the German translation is more accurate than the English because it has Jacob rather than James at places. Seemingly Smith did not know German well enough to realize that Jacobus in German is the equivalent of James in English.

[3] A quick glance at almost any recognized lexical source for the Hebrew language will show that Smith is in error. The term can be used in many ways, but in the Qal form it is used only of Gods activity, and hence carries great theological import. McComiskey, in the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 1:127 notes that bara “differs from yasar ‘to fashion’ in that the latter primarily emphasizes the shaping of an object while bara emphasizes the initiation of the object.” Later in his article he writes,

The limitation of this word to divine activity indicates that the area of meaning deliniated by the root falls outside the sphere of human ability. Since the word never occurs with the object of the material, and since the primary emphasis of the word is on the newness of the created object, the word lends itself well to the concept of creation ex nihilo, although that concept is not necessarily inherent within the meaning of the word.

Hence, Smith’s assertion that bara means to organize is highly misleading at best, and downright erroneous at worst.



TOPICS: History; Theology
KEYWORDS: manygods; mormon
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: P-Marlowe
My cats are happy that you will not name all the religious Christian groups you do not believe are right.

I have asked this of many of the radical “missionaries to the mormons” and all I get is more runaround and then more about why I am wrong by your groups thoughts.

41 posted on 11/26/2007 11:09:37 PM PST by fproy2222 (If you want to know the truth, study both sides. To the most original source.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fproy2222
I have asked this of many of the radical “missionaries to the mormons” and all I get is more runaround and then more about why I am wrong by your groups thoughts.

Well, I guess that proves you're right.

Did Christ die for YOUR sins or for Adam's sins?

Educate me.

42 posted on 11/26/2007 11:26:52 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Did Christ die for YOUR sins or for Adam’s sins?

Educate me.

+++++++++++++++++

will be glad to if you were not using questions to me as a strawman to keep from answering the question I have had to repeat to you time and time again.

Again, and probably not the last time because I have faith that you will continue to be like you have been,

Please list the denominations you believe to be wrong because they do not understand the words of God in the Bible like you do.

43 posted on 11/27/2007 11:53:37 AM PST by fproy2222 (If you want to know the truth, study both sides. To the most original source.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fproy2222
will be glad to if you were not using questions to me as a strawman to keep from answering the question I have had to repeat to you time and time again. Again, and probably not the last time because I have faith that you will continue to be like you have been, Please list the denominations you believe to be wrong because they do not understand the words of God in the Bible like you do.

Ok, you want a list. Here's a list:

   1.  Alamo Christian Foundation
   2. Anthroposophical Society
   3. Astara
   4. Children of God
   5. Christadelphianism
   6. Christian Family Fellowship
   7. Christian Identity Movement
   8. Christian Science
   9. Church of Armageddon
  10. Divine Light Mission
  11. Eckankar
  12. Est
  13. Foundation of Human Understanding (Roy Masters)
  14. Jehovah's Witnesses
  15. Krishna
  16. Life Spring
  17. Mormonism
  18. Oneness Pentecostal
  19. Rosicrucianism
  20. Scientology
  21. Self Realization Fellowship
  22. Silva Mind Control
  23. Swedenborgianism
  24. The Farm
  25. The Unification Church
  26. The Way International
  27. Theosophy
  28. Two by Two's
  29. Transcendental Meditation
  30. Unitarian Universalist
  31. Unity School of Christianity
  32. Urantia

Now did Jesus due for YOUR sins or the Sins of Adam?

And what is this stuff about "sealing the atonement" on the cross? Did you make that up, or is this official Mormon doctrine?

Educate me.

44 posted on 11/27/2007 12:00:39 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fproy2222

Correction

Now did Jesus DIE for YOUR sins or the Sins of Adam?

And what is this stuff about “sealing the atonement” on the cross?

Did you make that up, or is this official Mormon doctrine?

Educate me.


45 posted on 11/27/2007 12:04:27 PM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Ok, you want a list. Here’s a list:

+++++++++++

Thank you, Now please answer this.

I do not know about all the Christian churches you did not put on the list, and yet, I find that there is a big difference between the teachings of the ones I know. There must be one or more teachings that follow through all of them that makes them proper, even though the rest of the teachings differ.

Please tell me what that teaching is. Thank you.

46 posted on 11/28/2007 12:04:31 AM PST by fproy2222 (If you want to know the truth, study both sides. To the most original source.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Now did Jesus DIE for YOUR sins or the Sins of Adam?

+++ Yes to both.


------ And what is this stuff about “sealing the atonement” on the cross?

Did you make that up, or is this official Mormon doctrine?

+++ Maybe not canonized doctrine, but well excepted.

“...the reference [in 1 Peter] to sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ recalls the fact that the Old Covenant was sealed by the sprinkling of blood. Jesus’ atonement was the New Covenant, which superseded the Old. ...”
Donald W. Parry, ed., Temples of the Ancient World: Ritual and Symbolism [Salt Lake City and Provo: Deseret Book Co., Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1994], 497.)

47 posted on 11/28/2007 12:43:04 AM PST by fproy2222 (If you want to know the truth, study both sides. To the most original source.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: fproy2222
There must be one or more teachings that follow through all of them that makes them proper, even though the rest of the teachings differ.

No. There is one underlying theme that runs through all of them which is IMPROPER. They all worship a different God than the one revealed in scripture.

For instance, the God revealed in scripture said the following:

Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:6-8 KJV)

Now tell me how that squares with the Mormon idea of a "Council of the Gods" as noted in the article above?

48 posted on 11/28/2007 6:00:08 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Ok, you want a list. Here’s a list:
+++++++++++

Thank you, Now please answer this.

I do not know about all the Christian churches you did not put on the list, and yet, I find that there is a big difference between the teachings of the ones I know. There must be one or more teachings that follow through all of them that makes them proper, even though the rest of the teachings differ.

Please tell me what that teaching is. Thank you.


I must have worded it bad, I was trying to find out about the proper churches you did not put on the list.

49 posted on 11/29/2007 12:13:19 AM PST by fproy2222 (If you want to know the truth, study both sides. To the most original source.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: fproy2222
I do not know about all the Christian churches you did not put on the list, and yet, I find that there is a big difference between the teachings of the ones I know. There must be one or more teachings that follow through all of them that makes them proper, even though the rest of the teachings differ. Please tell me what that teaching is. Thank you.

I believe that they all teach that the Earth is round and that it revolves around the Sun. They all teach that George Washington was the First President. They all teach that the Pope is Catholic and that bears _ _ _ _ in the woods.

50 posted on 11/29/2007 5:31:00 AM PST by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #51 Removed by Moderator

Comment #52 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson