Posted on 08/10/2002 5:45:29 PM PDT by JMJ333
**Note: it is difficult to outline any summary of Balthasar's thought, especially given the sheer magnitude of the Trilogy (15 volumes, each of which is over--often well over--300 pages!), not to mention the many other works which serve to elucidate and expand the central themes of the Trilogy itself thus the following is a rather selective survey of the Balthasarian corpus some themes are entirely passed over and others receive only scant attention .
Let’s return, then, to the basic problem of being which Balthasar sees as fundamental to human thought and philosophy. In particular let’s consider the problem of the One and Many which he sees as solved only in the revelation of the Triune God in the person of Christ in whom the concrete and the universal are joined.
The Problem of Being
Balthasar outlines three basic approaches that non-Christian philosophies have taken to the problem of being. First, there is pagan polytheism. Balthasar sees polytheism as essentially mythical. Myth functions to bring the transcendent into contact with our concrete world, representing, therefore, the immanence of the divine within the world or of the general within the particular. But in doing this the transcendent is reduced to the finite and becomes subject to human manipulation through magic.
Christ alone is the true myth, affirming that God may indeed be known in and through the world (true immanence) and yet is also truly transcendent and utterly distinct from any created thing. The formulation of Chalcedon affirms this and furthermore t hat Christ is no mere particular but a unique totality expressed concretely.
Second, there is mystical monism. Balthasar sees the reaction against polytheism in systems which posit the existence of a Unity, a transcendent "One." A version of monism is that of Buddhism and eastern thought which see this world as esse ntially maya, an illusion, leading to suffering due the failure to fulfill illusory desire. Only by setting aside such false desire and this illusory world do we arrive at the real, at nirvana—that is, nothingness. Balthasar notes that thi s is unsatisfactory since it cannot account for the origin of the illusion or why it causes us to suffer or why we suffer if suffering itself is an illusion. Moreover, its way of "salvation" is merely a kind of spiritual euthanasia.
The other version of the One is that of neo-Platonism which follows the via negativa, ascending to God by setting aside this world and its categories. This too is unsatisfactory since in the movement of the Many into the One, we are left withou t explanation of why the Many have arisen. Also it denies its own starting point in this world in order to solve the problem of this world. We are left, therefore, with a reality that is ultimately impersonal.
Third, there is Hegelian dialectics. This too is problematic since it denies the true transcendence of God since God needs the universe in order to express Himself as truly God. If that is the case, however. then God is not God. Furthermore, in Hegelianism the individual is sublimated within the Absolute and any individuality that is possible is only by a relation to the Other, but a relation in which the Other is reduced to a means of self-realization rather than an end in itself. Finally, Hegel is cheap on human suffering and death, turning them into a mere speculative necessity for some kind of negativity within the self-realization of Absolute Spirit.
Thus the choices we are left with are atheism (in its Buddhist, Platonic, or Hegelian versions) or Christ. All of the atheisms are essentially world denying, seeking for a solution a transcendent Nothing. Even Marxism places salvation in an ever post poned future. But in Christ the various antinomies of non-Christian thought are resolved.
Christ is both the eternal Logos and the eternally elected Man. He is God in human flesh. And this reality finds its origin in the life of the Trinity in whom Father, Son, and Spirit have eternally existed. Thus Otherness and difference are not exclu ded from ultimate reality. Since the Father has eternally been with the Son, Otherness has positive value and is the condition of possibility for the creation of a world which is not merely a falling away from the One or an accident of primordial violence, but is truly real in itself. Nor is the world a necessary self-realization of God’s own Absolute Being, for the infinite "space" of love between the Father and Son is already filled by the Spirit and it is into this "space" that the world is inserted.
So it is this Triune God, revealed in Christ, that is the solution to the problem of being—being which is beautiful, good, and true.
A Preliminary Overview
With these points in mind we can turn to Balthasar’s main aesthetic contention—God is supreme Beauty, who dwells in inaccessible light and has revealed Himself, become visible, in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ. It is of the essence of Christian faith to fix our eyes upon Jesus and in Him see the glory of the Father. Balthasar points to 1 John 1:1-2:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life, the Life made manifest and which we have seen and to which we bear witness and declare to you that eternal Life which was with the Father and was manifested to us…
Of course, this is for us, to a certain degree, metaphorical "sight" since the theological organ of perception is faith, not sight, and faith comes by hearing.
Along with Balthasar’s love of music and musical metaphors, this explains his emphasis on hearing the Word of God and perceiving His glory by the "eyes of faith." Faith, after all, involves surrender and hearing is the perceptual mode of surrender. S ight, on the other hand, involves dominance and distance. He writes:
The eye is the organ with which the world is possessed and dominated… Through the eye the world is our world, in which we are not lost; rather, it is subordinate to us as an immeasurable dwelling space with which we are familiar. The other side of this material function denotes distance, separateness…Hearing is a wholly different, almost opposite mode of the revelation of reality…It is not objects we hear—in the dark, when it is not possible to see—but their utterances and communications. Theref ore it is not we ourselves who determine on our part what is heard and place it before us as an object in order to turn our attention to it when it pleases us. That which is heard comes upon us without our being informed of its coming in advance. It lays hold of us without our being asked…The basic relationship between the one who hears and that which is heard is thus one of defenselessness on the one side and of communication on the other…The hearer belongs to the other and obeys him.
According Balthasar, despite the biblical emphasis on glory seen by the eyes of faith, the aesthetic dimension of theology has been gradually purged from western theology, both Protestant and Catholic. His seven-volume Herrlichkeit is an attemp t to compensate for that loss.
The first volume, Seeing the Form, defines the general scope, method, and purpose of the volumes and includes a general discussion of what Balthasar calls the "form" or "Gestalt" of the Lord Christ. Volumes two and three (which I will la rgely pass over here since they are nearly impossible to summarize) are the unfolding of historical examples of this aesthetic form as it is explicated by the early medievals (volume two: Studies in Theological Style: Clerical Styles) and by modern poets and lay thinkers (Lay Styles; a few of whom are not "lay" at all, but did lie outside of the mainstream of the Church). Included are folks such as Augustine, Pseudo-Dionysius, Anselm, Bonaventure (in volume two) and Dante, John of the Cross , Pascal, Hopkins, and others (in volume three). Volumes four and five undertake to examine the larger metaphysical context in which the form of Christ appeared (volume four: The Realm of Metaphysics in Antiquity) and in which it now cannot appear (volume five: The Realm of Metaphysics in the Modern Age). Some of his insights here have already been sketched in my earlier comments. Volumes six and seven deal with the theology of the Old and New Covenants, respectively, examining such issue s as their interrelation, how the New fulfills the Old, the glory of God in Old Covenant theophanies and the glory of Christ’s sufferings in the New Covenant.
Form and Faith
The fundamental idea of the aesthetics is relatively simple: in the Incarnation the very form (Gestalt) of God was definitively revealed providing a measure by which every other form is to be measured. This revelation, contrary to the practical elaboration of it in modern theology, is not merely a pointer to so mething beyond itself, but rather a manifestation of the form of Beauty itself in Christ.
But Balthasar’s aesthetics is not the subjectivism of 18th century aesthetic theory with its focus on the acts of perceiving that project one’s own interiority upon the object, leading to a beauty perceived within the self. Rather Balthasar ’s focus is on glory of the object itself apprehended by faith. For Balthasar the illumination that produces faith is itself an aesthetic act. The very object of faith itself—Jesus Christ—draws the beholder providing its own interior light. God Himself is the light by which we apprehend Him by faith.
Thus faith cannot be theorized in a narrowly intellectualistic or propositional fashion, simply as a "believing that" or as the acceptance of a set of facts. More so it involves a receptivity to the object of faith whereby one is so impressed b y it that faith necessarily ensues in obedience. Here Mary is the model in her "fiat" to God’s word—an active receptivity analogous to the receptivity of the womb.
This, in turn, raises questions as to the relation between faith and reason. Balthasar uses marital imagery, proposing that reason—womb-like—gives itself to faith to be made fruitful, not arguing itself into faith but allowing faith to come to fulfill ment within it. He rejects an apologetic approach that either, on one hand, appeals to the objectivity of historical events as pointers to divine realities or, on the other, maintains a fideistic approach that begins with human subjectivity. He writes:
For [apologetics] the heart of the matter should be the question: "How does God’s revelation confront man in history? How is it perceived?" But under the influence of a modern rationalistic concept of science, the question shifted ever more from its pr oper center to the margin, to be restated in this manner: "Here we encounter a man who claims to be God, and who, on the basis of this claim, demands that we should believe many truths he utters which cannot be verified by reason. What basis acceptable to reason can we give to his authoritative claims?" Anyone asking the question in this way has really already forfeited an answer, because he is at once enmeshed in an insoluble dilemma…Christ cannot be considered one "sign" among others…the dimmest idea of what a form is should serve as a warming against such leveling.
Jesus is the objective manifestation of God but reason, on its own, cannot see this, according to Baltahsar. God’s grace is necessary and by it reason is drawn into faith wherein it can see what is objectively there to be seen—that is, the revelation of God. Seeing and believing are complementary.
To put it another way, reason is necessary to seeing, but for the revelation to be truly seen, the revelation itself must enlighten the viewer to itself by grace. So faith is not merely subjective since it is not the believer who makes a leap, but ins tead it is the object of faith that draws the believer to Himself by His form of beauty.
According to Balthasar the experience of faith and the assurance or certainty of salvation (especially as that was posed by Luther) are closely related. While faith is something that is experienced, it is not the experience of faith itself in an intro spective and experiential fashion that gives assurance. Rather by faith we know Christ and the power of His resurrection and press on to the goal—it is in the receptive movement of faith towards its object that assurance is possessed, but this is a moveme nt that turns away from the self, towards Christ, and is grasped by Him.
Another emphasis of Balthasar is the materiality of Christian faith. It is not a pure mysticism or non-physical thing since God is revealed in the cosmos and, ultimately, in the Incarnation. He even maintains that in the eschaton the Beatific Vision will be mediated through the humanity of Christ. Moreover, while our awareness of God in the creation has been marred by sin, in Christ it is possible to begin to restore the materiality of God’s presence. This is seen foremost in the actions of the sacr aments by which Christ makes Himself present, in a sexuality that is transformed from egoistic self-gratification into self-offering love, and in the self-sacrificial love for the neighbor in deeds of service.
It follows from Balthasar’s emphasis on the materiality of faith that the mystical contemplation of God (the awareness of His presence) is inextricably tied to a life of activity. It must leave behind any world-denying Platonistic notions in favor a G od who is active in history culminating in the paschal mystery of Christ. So Bultmann’s demythologization is a gnostic attempt separate faith from history which ends up positing a transcendence that reintroduces the very mythological assumptions that the Incarnation had put to rest.
Balthasar goes on to examine the specific form that the beautiful revelation of God takes in Christ. Jesus demands faith in Himself as the historical form of the eternal God, who in His divinity has universal significance and who, in His humanity, is conditioned by historical contingency. Nevertheless, Christ is the express image of the Father, revealing the very form of the Trinitarian life of God in contrast to all religions which posit God as a formless One.
The work of Christ, says Balthasar, is the living exegesis of the Father since Christ’s existence as Son consists in His obedience at every moment actualizing the immediate will of the Father. Moreover, Christ draws us into this work by union with Him . He writes:
By his prayer and his suffering the Son brings his disciples—and through them, all mankind—into the interior space of the Trinity.
This form of God, though within time and history, is the utterly unique measure of relationship between God and man. Yet merely empirical and purportedly neutral scientific methods, with their suspension of judgment, cannot see this form for what it i s. That is only possible with the eyes of faith and an openness to the obedience the form demands from faith.
Old and New Covenant
In the final two volumes of the aesthetics Balthasar examines the definitive revelation of beauty—the glory of God revealed in Christ—as that is authoritatively given to us in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. The work of God as Creator is fulfilled in the work of God as Redeemer and so it is the creation itself which becomes of the means of God’s redemptive revelation. Human language, thought, actions, and the like are the very forms of God’s sel f-expression to us and so the form of revelation and the act of revelation are not to be separated.
According to Balthasar the Hebrew Scriptures in themselves are a puzzle, a promise pointing to a future that has not yet arrived. It is only in the light of the revelation in Christ that the OT makes sense. He writes:
The essential point is that Israel as a whole and existentially is an image and figure which cannot interpret itself.
The Old Testament poses the following problem: on one hand, God, who is faithful to His Word, the very Word by which the world was made, has called a people to Himself by mighty acts manifesting His glory. On the other hand, how can God remain faithfu l to His word in light of His glorious holiness when His people keep breaking the covenant He has established?
This Old Testament covenantal dynamic is seen in the increasing participation of Israel in the sphere of divine holiness (e.g., consider the 70 elders in the Pentateuch in contrast to Zechariah’s vision of the outpoured Spirit). At the same time, howe ver, the mighty acts of God, the evidence of the presence of His glory, become increasingly less prominent and more concealed (e.g., consider the deliverance of Israel in the Exodus as opposed to that which God worked through Esther). God presents Himsel f as ever more incomprehensible, yet, paradoxically, Israel is never surer of her God than when she seems to be forsaken by Him in exile.
The Old Testament leaves off with a fragmentary picture without any form by which the fragments may be brought together. Only with the revelation of Christ is a form given by which the Old Testament may be understood. Balthasar writes:
The individual forms which Israel established in the course of her history converge together upon a point that remains open and that cannot be calculated ahead of time on their basis of their convergence or their mutual relationship, especially since t hey stand in opposition to one another so often.
The revelation of Christ, therefore, is a manifestation of God’s glory that can embrace even the seemingly contradictory fragments of the Old Testament and this glory was ultimately revealed in Christ’s obedience even unto death on a Cross, in the ingl orious form of a slave. The power of God was manifest in powerlessness. This revelation is totally unexpected, beyond what could possibly be imagined.
First, however, is Christ’s claim for Himself not as One who merely points to a way to God but who is Himself the Way. Jesus brings people to crisis by His authority, by forcing the issue of the people’s acceptance or rejection of Him. His pre sence and questions make others transparent to themselves for this is the presence of One who is transparent to Himself. Jesus is therefore announcing Himself as God’s definitive Word.
In contrast to His authority, however, Jesus is also the one who became poor for our sakes and this theme of poverty can be seen in relation to three areas: prayer, the Holy Spirit, and faith. In regard to prayer we see Jesus offering Himself up to th e Father in Gethsemane. But in the "Our Father" that is given to us to pray we also have a similar model of humility before God and complete reliance upon Him (consider the petitions).
Jesus is also supremely gifted with the Spirit by whom He was conceived, who descended upon His in baptism, and so on. Yet Jesus not so much possesses the Spirit, but rather yields completely to the Spirit to be possessed by Him—from being driv en into the desert of temptation to finally offering Himself to God upon the cross through the eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14). By this total surrender to the Spirit He is able to give that same Spirit to us.
Balthasar, interestingly, also presents Jesus as a Man of faith—one who surrenders Himself to God in trusting perseverance, not by His own initiative, but in response to the prior faithfulness of the Father who, in grace, had chosen Him. Thereby Jesus is the "pioneer and perfecter of faith" (Heb 12:2), fulfilling the faith of Abraham even to the faithful obedience of the Cross, where, forsaken of God, He could only live by faith and not by sight. Jesus, therefore, is not merely a model of faith, but by our Baptism we are engrafted into the very faithfulness of Christ—Jesus believes in us so that we too believe and, in the work of faith, like Him, surrender ourselves to the Father.
Above all, however, it is the Johannine vision of Christ that most intrigues Balthasar: "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father" (John 1:14). But fo r John, the cross and the glorification of Christ are inseparable realities—coming from the Father, the Son’s whole life is one of glorifying the Father through obedience moving relentlessly toward his "hour" of glorification in powerlessness upon the Cross.
It is in the formless, the deformity (Ungestalt), of the Cross that the very form of God’s glory (Ubergestalt) is revealed as the boundless, self-giving love that characterizes the very life of the Trinity. This form of glory unseats all worldly aesthetics and all classical notions of beauty as proportion and harmony, making way for a new theological understanding of beauty in the Trinitarian dynamic of cruciform love seen by the eyes of faith. And that is the fundamental point that Bal thasar expresses in his aesthetics.
But don't you dare question the theology or criticize the leaders of the LDS Chruch or you are an Anti-Mormon bigot.
Is that the rules of the Game WM?
This whole issue got started when restornu, an LDS poster, posted a whole boatload of racist statements by some of the past leaders of the LDS Church. What am I supposed to do, ignore it? No, I challenged her on it. I thought that is what we do here at FR. I did not resort to any personal attack. I asked a lot of questions, which in light of the stuff that restornu posted, needed to be asked. If that will get me banned, then so be it. Frankly if the moderator will review the posts, he will find that I was called a liar, a sladerer and an apostate by the LDS people. Did I respond in kind? No, I might have questioned some of the things that the LDS leaders have said and stated my own opinion, but I did not resort to any personal attacks on any of the posters.
I would implore the Moderator to review all the posts before pulling this thread. I believe that this thread is most informative from both a theological as well as a historical standpoint. This type of dialouge ought not to be censored.
In your #441 you give the moderator a huge reading assignment, then play the bigotry card (compare #438 and #439), and the censorship card. In my opinion, that is not a good way to address the moderator.
We were allies, maybe uneasy allies, on the Calvinist threads months ago, addressing their misbehavior and trying to understand where it came from. I made my points with them, and when the problems with a certain FReeper's emotional abuse seemed to be getting the attention they needed, I went to other threads and gave non-FR activities more of the time they deserve, but of course the Calvinists always show up and try to dominate the discussion, trying to make each thread a Calvinist anti-Arminian or anti-Catholic or anti-LDS thread. It took me a long time, until this thread in fact, to lump you in with the aggressive Calvinists. Here on this thread I can't tell the difference between the bashing-by-Marlowe and the bashing-by-Calvinists.
This thread was a Catholic thread. JMJ333 started it, and then flagged me to it with a claim that Latter-Day Saints deny the Triune God. I responded, and to her credit, she moderated her statement to one of differences rather than denial of God. Then you guys flocked in, changed the subject, and hijacked the thread. Somebody, perhaps drstevej, is tracking my posts. See #34, where he posted and flagged you. It is the Calvinists that are coming after me, not the other way around, although I should pay them a visit now and then so they won't claim they drove me off.
Suppose you were a conservative female or Jew or African-American on a thread bashing conservative women leaders or Jewish leaders or Black leaders on a forum that tolerated that, like the bashing on this thread seems to be tolerated by the management here. How would you get it to stop?
There is no place for this kind of behavior in heaven. How is it that you think this kind of behavior will lead anyone to the truth about anything?
For us, it is like trying to describe a peaceful meadow in the midst of a raging storm, or like talking about spiritual things to natural men. You guys are like a storm that never blows over, so we will deal with the situation with the means we have available to us. But know this: the Master will come again, and He will in effect say, "Peace, be still", and there will be no place for the behavior that you and the aggressive Calvinists love, and trust, and rely on so much.
Steve, you are mischaracterizing my efforts to get you to stop your bashing on the now-pulled thread. I decided this time, rather than take an approach that you could spin and mischaracterize, that I would take it publicly to the moderator.
I will repeat what I said then: You owe all of us so great an apology that it doesn't even register on the apology chart (to paraphrase an old Bill Cosby monologue).
quite the opposite actually - he is known a the "compassionate calvinist" -
Additionally, he raises a valid point that the LDS freepers engage in a concerted effort to shut down a thread when the topic is not in thier favor, as has been my experience.
I urge you (the moderator) not to participate in that manner as drstevej's & p- marlowe's comments are pertinent and in the spirit of the forum
Jesus forgive me for supporting a calvinist LOL
Having said that, I cannot recall a time (and don't believe it exists) when DrSteveJ violated any of those FR rules. In fact, he is quite gentlemanly in his posts and will seldom even make a pointed remark.
P-Marlowe, restornu, and WhiteMountain have similar credentials. PM has not violated the FR rules. He is an EX-MORMON and, therefore, can bring up theological points that might make mormons uncomfortable. But that is fair game. Everyone's theology should be open to question, or nobody's should be.
I encourage you to restore the pulled thread EXCEPT for any posts that are racist, violent, etc. Restor
I encourage you to restore the pulled thread EXCEPT for any posts that are racist, violent, etc.
dittos- I will also ask why it just didnt get relegated to the "smokey back room"?
Let the fur fly!
Disagreements over doctrine are not smokey back room topics. Else the entire Relgion Forum is relegated to the Smokey Back Room.
There is no bad language used on this thread. The level of debate on this thread is parallel to other FR religious threads. The difference is White Mountain's attempt to get a losing argument deleted by accusing others of conduct that is over the top when he. on the other hand, violates without apology rules against slandering another Freeper.
To the Administrator, I suggest that White Mountain wants any discussion of Mormonism that does not accept it's claims to be expunged, regardless of the evidence to the contrary.
LDS reverals on Polygamy (Declaration #1 in n 1890) and lift of the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood (Declaration #2 in 1978) make the issue of the prior treatment of women and blacks by the LDS church and its leaders germaine and appropriate.
I merely quote your leaders. The ammunition for this debate was provided by ressornu who posted about 10 pages of quotes from your "leaders." If your leaders didn't want to be criticized for these comments then they shouldn't have published their thoughts. And if you don't want to be criticized for what you think, then you shouldn't post your thoughts on FR.
Frankly WM I think you are a bit of a hypocrite. You feel free to criticize Calvinism and to attack those who post their beliefs on the subject. You nod in agreement when the discussion turns to Calvin's personal flaws, not the least of which was his complicity in the death of Servetus. Yet you cry foul whenever someone qeustions the leaders of your church.
Hey for Billy Graham, the Pope, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and every other church leader who makes public pronouncements it is open season on FR. But no one better say a single bad thing about one of the leaders of the LDS Church or challenge the basis for their doctrines or you are an Anti-Mormon bigot.
If the LDS Chruch is true, then one would think that it could stand up to its critics. If the LDS Church is true, then you should have all the answers>
When I was a young LDS I was taught that none of the other "Chrsitian" churches had the answers and that the LDS Chruch was the ONLY chruch that had all the answers to all the questions. I believed that. Perhaps that is why I was able to see light and realize that the LDS Church dind NOT have all the answers. In fact, as this thread shows, the LDS have more questions than answers.
I was literally shocked to my core when I discovered some of the statements of the leaders of the LDS Chruch which have been posted here. Well I think a little light shining on what these people had to say is in order. If you can defend it, then that is great. If you can't defend it, then tell us it is indefensible.
If you don't want to listen to criticism of your church, then perhaps you should stop chiming in on the Calvinism threads. The true Arminians can get along just fine without your input. You constantly post your LDS "Scriptures" on the Calvinism and Catholic threads and then give your testimony that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that the Book of mormon is true, etc. Well, if you are going to post these opinions, then those who read your statements ought to be free to call them into question.
So if you have any real answers to the questions that I and others have posed. If you have any response to the information that has been posted, I'd like to see it. But don't just leave a "testimony bomb" on the thread and expect that people are not going to challenge it. If you think Joseph Smith is a true prophet, then prove it. If you think the book of Mormon is true, then prove it. If you think that the Book of Moses is true, then show us the manuscripts that Jospeh Smith used for that translation and let us judge it objectively.
Is that too much to ask?
Ping to that Marlowe.
WM you constantly injected your anti Calvinsit opinion into Arminian/Calvinist threads. You were for the most part just treated as another poster with an opinion. The Calvinists did not request that you be banned or your posts pulled
On this thread Arminians and Calvinists have posted from the same viewpoint..
I do not think that eithor has been crude or rude or abusive..they simply do not agree with your doctrine. You were flagged seveal times for your input in the discussion.
Your attempt to have this thread pulled speaks volumes .....
Ahhh Jesus smiles and says Peace Peace when there is no peace:>)
Rev as has been said very often..we contend strongly over 5-10% doctrinal differences...but for the most part we share a fundamental belief..
LOL There you go, giving everyone ammunition.
agreed & amen
we fight like cats and dogs, but at the end of the day - we punch the same timeclock
I think they treat Joseph as a "fallen prophet" to some extent, by virtue of the fact that they don't accept Joseph's plural marriage teachings. They don't even call themselves the "reorganized" CoJCoLDS any more, if I understand correctly.
The first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835 at Kirtland, Ohio, nine years before the death of Joseph Smith. The second edition was published at Nauvoo, Illinois by John Taylor in September of 1844, about 2 months after Joseph’s death. All of the passages which are quoted from the Doctrine and Covenants in this essay were found in both of these editions. To the contrary, there were no passages in either of these two editions which affirmed the belief in the theory of eternal progression or multiple gods. All of the questionable material which has been attributed to Joseph Smith on these subjects did not appear in any edition of the Doctrine and Covenants until the Utah Mormon edition of 1876, over 32 years after Joseph’s death.
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.