Rethinking the Biblical Narrative: Introduction

78 comments for “Rethinking the Biblical Narrative: Introduction”

1. I am just not seeing really anything of where Plato has really anything to do with our eligion. The Book of Mormon foesnt contain plato ideas.

2. Mormonism is full of Platonic ideas, Kibs. I’m guessing this isn’t something you’re very familiar with. I’ll repeat: the whole plan of salvation is Platonic. etc.

3. Stephen, I think you’re putting the cart before the horse by going into biblical narratives next.

   What’s your epistemology? If Joseph Smith got his ideas from Plato, where did Plato get them? Was Plato a prophet of God who received truth by revelation? Does God call prophets and reveal his plan to them? Or does he leave us to figure things out on our own with a few hints from inspiration and Plato just did a far better job of it than most?

   What’s the relationship between Plato and Christ? Is the atonement also in Plato and mainstream scholars have simply missed it all this time? (I’m no Plato expert, as you know. But I had three different classes try to teach me what they considered to be the core of Plato’s thinking, they all pretty much agreed, and none of them taught anything they or I recognized as the atonement.)

   “Look at all these parallels!” is interesting, but it doesn’t prove anything, whether it comes from you or from Hugh Nibley. But I’m not even sure what you’re trying to prove or what you consider proof. Let’s start there.

4. RLD, I’ll point to some scholarship along the way.

   I do believe Plato was inspired (in the late 70s, the First Presidency said God inspired Plato and Socrates), and Socrates claimed to be a seer, “but not a very good one, but good enough for [his] purposes.” I’ll lay out more of a framework in my next post. This is all a big topic.

   And you, are correct that Plato does not have atonement. Scholars argue that atonement isn’t in the gospels either, and I’m arguing in my book of Joseph Smith that he dropped atonement sometime around DC 93. No mention of atonement after that, and I’m arguing that DC 93 undercut atonement arguments. Yes, I know that’s controversial, but I think the evidence is pretty clear. DC 93 uses wording quite similar to Quaker reformer Elias Hicks in his rejection of atonement. Lots of Quakers were in JS’s vicinity, including Martin Harris’s family.

   Elias Hicks was part of a larger heritage of Christian Platonic mysticism that JS drew on. A long heritage. The idea was to try to follow Christ’s example, more than to be “saved” by Christ’s death. The Book of Mormon actually uses the same logic of Hicks and others, thus seeming to undermine it’s own arguments for atonement.

   But for this series, I’m going to focus less on my own scholarship on Joseph Smith and more on stuff I’ve read about the ancient world.

5. Stephen. The whole plan of salvation is not platonic. You are speaking fantasy at best. Ive read things from Plato and see really nothing. What glasses are you looking through? Like give me and exactamente quite, paragraph, etc from Plato himself describing the plan of salvation.

6. I go over that in chapter 6 of my dissertation and have given another summary in my comments on a prior post.

   Here it is again. Plato has two dialogues in particular that discuss the plan of salvation: the Timaeus, and the Phaedrus. The Timaeus is very close to Abraham 3 where God explains to preexistent spirits how they will be sent to earth to be tested. I argue that it appears to me that JS used Plato’s Timaeus for his translation of Abraham 3, again, see my dissertation.

   In the Phaedrus, preexistent souls fall to earth and can return by living well and by loving in the proper way. Proper love can lead to eternal marriage. Plato’s Symposium talks more about eternal marriage.

   In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates describes the afterlife including 4 afterlife states, quite similar to DC 76.

   So adding all that up, you got the plan of salvation: preexistence, a council in heaven, a divine plan, mortality as part of the plan, sent to earth to be test, proper marriage and eternal marriage being key parts, and finally 4 afterlife states like DC 76.

   There ya go.

7. I appreciate your candor, Stephen. I was afraid you were beating around the bush because you figured that if you came out and said what you really think about prophets, ancient and modern, you’d lose most of your audience. Clearly not, since saying what you really think about the atonement of Christ will most likely do that far more effectively.

   I’m willing to admit we don’t understand the atonement as well as we think we do. I’m open to the possibility that penal substitution isn’t really how it works at all. (If that’s all you mean, feel free to clarify.) But however it works, it’s the lynchpin of God’s plan. Plato may have been inspired, like many other thinkers (I believe that First Presidency statement also mentioned Buddha, Confucious, and Muhammad), and may have gotten many elements of the plan of salvation right. But without the atonement of Christ, none of it can be brought to pass. Without the atonement of Christ, my personal experience of living the gospel and being changed by it could not have been brought to pass. That’s just not up for debate to me.

8. I do understand how important atonement is to contemporary Mormon theology, but again, I’m arguing in my book it was not something that Joseph Smith believed. Considering that scholars argue that it wasn’t something that Jesus taught either is another instance of Joseph Smith’s theology lining up with contemporary scholarship.

9. D&C 93: 1833
   Article of Faith #3, Joseph Smith: 1842

   “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”

   I presume you already have an explanation for this, Stephen, (more trickery?) and I confess I probably won’t be able to consider your response with an open mind. I’m mostly posting it because there may be people reading this discussion who don’t realize there’s obvious evidence against your claim Joseph Smith did not believe in the atonement of Christ after D&C 93.

10. Yes, JS presented a more orthodox theology in the Book of Mormon and articles of faith. Simply put, the articles of faith actually say very little about Mormon doctrine. Terryl Givens notes that article of faith 3 is pretty much the only time JS mentioned atonement in the Nauvoo period. So I went back and checked and DC 76 is the last time his revelations mention atonement.

    So again, the articles of faith was a more orthodox presentation that say very little about Mormon theology. They were about presenting Mormon theology in a more palatable way to the general public.

11. Stephen.
    I must be on some other planet or universe from you because I read stuff you link from Plato and see no correlation to the plan of salvation. Maybe you could like actually quote his actual words, cause Im not seeing anything.

    I cant believe what Im hearing on atonement. Am I hearing this correctly thst Jesus didnt teach atonement?

12. Stephen, I’m glad to see you shifting towards spelling out what you do believe. I think the interesting part of the question is how to maintain a functional belief system while treating the Book of Mormon as a purely 19th century text. As usual I probably won’t agree with you, but it looks like that angle’s already been covered. So I may as well mention that some of the earliest Christian artwork doesn’t treat Christ as an atoning victim or as a conqueror of sin, but as the perfect man that believers should emulate. So while Christ without the Atonement seems wrong to me, it’s not without historical precedent.

13. Letter to the Church, February 1834 —

    “ Impressed with the truth of these facts, what can be the feelings of those who have been made partakers of the heavenly gift, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come?5 Who but those who can see the awful precipice upon which the world of mankind stand in this generation, can labor in the vineyard of the Lord6 with a feeling sense of their deplorable situation? Who but those who have duly considered the condesention of the Father of our spirits, in providing a sacrifice for his creatures, a plan of redemption, a power of atonement, a scheme of salvation, having as one of its great objects, to bring men back into the presence of the King of heaven, crown them in the celestial glory, and make them heirs with his Son to that inheritance which is incorruptible, undefiled, and which fadeth not away—can realize the importance of a perfect walk before all men, and a diligence in calling upon all men to partake of these blessings? How indescribably glorious are these tidings to mankind!”

    https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-the-church-circa-february-1834/1

14. Letter to the Church, March 1834 —

    “ But notwithstanding this trangression, by which man had cut himself off from an immediate intercourse with his Maker without a Mediator, it appears that the great and glorious plan of his redemption was previously meditated; the sacrifice prepared; the atonement wrought out in the mind and purpose of God, even in the person of the Son, through whom man was now to look for acceptance, and through whose merits he was now taught that he alone could find redemption, since the word had been pronounced, Unto dust thou shalt return!6
    But that man was not sufficient of himself to erect a system, or plan with power sufficient to free him from a destruction which awaited him, is evident from the fact, that God, as before remarked, prepared a sacrifice in the gift of his own Son which should be sent in due time, in his own wisdom, to prepare a way, or open a door through which man might enter into his presence, from whence he had been cast for disobedience.— From time to time these glad tidings were sounded in the ears of men in different ages of the world down to the time of his coming. By faith in this atonement or plan of redemption, Abel offered to God a sacrifice that was accepted, which was the firstlings of the flock. Cain offered of the fruit of the ground, and was not accepted, because he could not do it in faith: he could have no faith, or could not exercise faith contrary to the plan of heaven. It must be the shedding of the blood of the Only Begotten to atone for man; for this was the plan of redemption; and without the shedding of blood was no remission; and as the sacrifice was instituted for a type, by which man was to discern the great Sacrifice which God had prepared; to offer a sacrifice contrary to that, no faith could be exercised, because redemption was not purchased in that way, nor the power of atonement instituted after that order; consequently, Cain could have no faith: and whatsoever is not of faith is sin. But Abel offered an acceptable sacrifice, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God himself testifying of his gifts.7 Certainly, the shedding of the blood of a beast could be beneficial to no man, except it was done in imitation, or as a type, or explanation of what was to be offered through the gift of God himself; and this performance done with an eye looking forward in faith on the power of that great Sacrifice for a remission of sins.”

    https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/letter-to-the-church-circa-march-1834/2?highlight=Atonement

15. I think it is too strong a statement that Joseph Smith stopped believing in atonement after D&C 93 (received in May 1833). In a few minutes of thinking, I came up with the following post-93 references, and surely there are others. Perhaps you are making a more nuanced or subtle point which I am not grasping.

    In the Kirtland temple theophany (April 1836), Jesus introduces himself by saying “I am the first and the last. I am he who liveth. I am he who was slain. I am your Advocate with the Father.” This seems to be clear atonement language.

    William Clayton’s record of Joseph’s March 9, 1841 sermon: “Everlasting covenant was made between three personages before the organization of this earth and relates to their dispensation of things to men on the earth. These personages according to Abraham’s record are called God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Witness or Testator.” Clearly “God the second, the Redeemer” is Jesus. I don’t know how to interpret Jesus as being “the Redeemer” without atonement.

    Joseph preached the Sermon at the Grove on the morning of June 16, 1844, almost at the very end of his life. The Thomas Bullock report has Joseph say “J[esus] C[hrist] who hath by his own blood made us K[ings] & P[riests] to God.” Again, clear atonement language with the reference to Jesus’s “own blood.”

16. Forgive me for invoking Russell M. Nelson, but one of his more useful phrases has been “Salvation is an individual matter; exaltation is a family matter.” Salvation, in this sense, is laid out in Articles of Faith 2-4. Atonement is central to that process. (For the record, I am in the “restitution substitution” camp.) If Joseph Smith deemphasized atonement after 1834, it doesn’t mean that he stopped believing it. It only means he felt it more urgent to expound on the “exaltation is a family matter” process.

    The Mormon individual salvation process is only marginally different from mainstream Christianity’s version. Don’t skip the repentance part. Wait until a person is accountable before baptizing them. That sort of thing. One can waste a whole lot of time arguing over those details, as other Christian denominations have done for 2,000 years. (I’m overstating things here, but I’m trying to lay out what Joseph’s thought process might have been.) Or you can introduce the exaltation process to the world. Baptism for the dead. Eternal marriage. “As God is, man may become.” Mainstream Christianity has nothing to compete with those ideas. But none of that implies disbelief in the atonement. They’re just exciting new ideas that got Joseph’s juices flowing and after 1833, he decided to put his energy into expounding on them rather than on the salvation process.

17. Yes, I see that I’m off to a bad start with this possible series. It was not my intent to make this a fight about JS’s views on atonement, but I am arguing in my book that I do not believe that JS believed in atonement. I do see the references to atonement as rhetorical.

    Here’s the larger framework of how I see JS’s theological structure. JS knew most of the Nauvoo doctrine at the time he produced the Book of Mormon and hints at many of the themes in the Book of Mormon (again, I go over that in the presentation I linked to). Yet, the Book of Mormon frequently states that it teaches the theological basics and that more will be revealed to those who believe it.

    Again see the presentation I linked to. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-O23TivaY&t=301s

    The Book of Mormon’s theology is essentially Arminianism (the Protestant theology that the Methodists and Freewill Baptists, etc. taught). JS believed that Arminianism was a good foundation (he hated Calvinism that Arminianism was opposed to) to lead people to be ready for the higher Platonic theology (the Nauvoo doctrine).

    He was very likely influenced by books that combined both Arminianism and Christian Platonism, books that certainly influenced his father: Ethan Allen’s REASON THE ONLY ORACLE OF MAN (1784) and Henry Alline’s two books, TWO MITES (1781, and THE ANTI-TRADITIONIST (1783). Tons of both Book of Mormon AND Nauvoo theology are in all of those books.

    So a foundation to prepare for a higher truth, and the Smiths also had a number of examples of the problems preaching against atonement could cause. Ethan Allen had many of his books burned (by a publisher who lived very near the Smiths), Tom Paine was repeatedly denounced, and the Quakers broke into full schism c. 1825 over Elias Hicks’s teaching on Jesus and atonement (Palmyra had a Quaker meeting.

    And yet DC 93 not only presents salvation without the atonement, but uses Elias Hicks’s ideas and wording. Thus JS clearly agreed with Hicks but wanted to keep it obscure (thus the mystical wording of DC 93). Perhaps that flurry of references to atonement in those 1834 letters was an attempt to obscure his adoption of Hicks even more.

    DC 93 undercuts the logic of Amulek’s speech in Alma 34. And Amulek speech does two things. First, it uses Henry Alline’s ideas FOR atonement, while at the same time it frames the idea in Tom Paine’s language arguing AGAINST atonement. Thus I don’t think that JS EVER believed in atonement but felt that it was part of the Arminian basics that he would use to lay the foundation to teach the more advanced Platonic doctrine he taught in Nauvoo. Again, the Book of Mormon lays out the pattern of basics first and then higher doctrine later.

18. I’ll break up my responses as there’s a lot to cover.

    Jonathan, yes, I recall one of the presenters at the conference on the apostasy that we presented at pointed out that in early Christianity “atonement” was presented as Christ’s whole life and not his death as a sacrifice. I’m not a biblical scholar, but I have read scholars claiming that atonement isn’t taught in the gospels.

    Here’s a quote from a scholar I like, talking about the gospel of Mark.

    “In the Gospel of Mark …. however, the gospel of the cross is proclaimed in a distinctive manner, with little interest in sacrifice and blood atonement and more interest in the cross and the life of discipleship. When in Mark 10:45 Jesus states that even the son of man or child of humankind — that is, Jesus himself— “did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life (psychen) as a ransom (lytrori) for many,” he is speaking in the context of discipleship as a life of service and a life for others. Later church theologians would read the doctrine of the atonement by Christ the redeemer in this passage, but Mark has nothing quite like that in mind. According to Mark, if Jesus lives a life of service and gives his life for others, so should his followers.” Marvin Meyer, Secret Gospels: Essays on Thomas and the Secret Gospel of Mark (Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity, 2003), 9.

    This was a larger trend among Christian mystics that influenced JS that got revived in the middle ages with Meister Eckhart. Eckhart’s mysticism gets passed on to early modern radicals, especially the Family of Love, who teach what I’m calling “divine imitation” (let me know if you can think of a better term).

    The idea is that we’re not save by Christ’s sacrifice but by following Christ’s example, like Meyer describes Mark. We too must take up the cross and be like Christ. Salvation through following Christ and not through his sacrificial death is how DC 93 presents things.

    The Family of Love got followers in England who later influenced the Quakers. The Quakers backed off divine imitation after their radical early years, but William Penn still was put in jail over some teachings that survived. Elias Hicks wanted to revive the “old time Quaker teachings” leading to the Hicksite Quaker schism c. 1825.

    Elaine Pagels in her book BEYOND BELIEF that divine imitation is was a first century teaching of the gospel of Thomas and persisted among some Gnostics, before really being crushed by Nicaea.

19. Here are some things that may be helpful guides, Kibs. Again, in chapter 6 of my dissertation titled “The Fulness of the Gospel: Christian Platonism and the Origins of Mormonism” I go over how closely Abraham 3 matches the extant translation of Plato’s Timaeus. You should be able to find that online.

    Here’s some passages where Plato talks about deification and eternal marriage. https://juvenileinstructor.org/plato-on-deification-and-eternal-marriage/

    Here’s a passage from Plato’s Phaedo in Andre Dacier’s (1701) WORKS OF PLATO OF ABRIDGED about 4 different afterlife states.

    “Those who are found to have liv’d neither entirely a criminal nor absolutely an innocent Life, are sent to the Archeron. There they imbark in Boats, and are transported to the Archerusian Lake, where they dwell, and suffer Punishment proportionable to their Crimes; till at last being purg’d and cleansed from their Sins, and set at Liberty, they receive the Recompence of their good Actions.
    “Those whose Sins are uncurable, and have been guilty of Sarcilege and Murder, or such other Crimes, are by a just and fatal Destiny, thrown headlong into Tartarus, where they are kept Prisoners for ever.
    “But those who are found guilty of curable (Venial) Sins, tho very great ones, such as offering Violence to their Father or Mother in a Passion, or killing a Man and repenting for it all their life time; must of necessity be likewise cast into Tartarus … “till they have satisfied the injur’d Persons.”
    “But those who distinguish’d themselves by a holy Life, are releas’d from these earthly Places, these horrible Prisons; and are received above into that pure Earth, where they dwell; and those of ‘em who are sufficiently purg’d by Philosophy, live for ever without their Body; [side note, “Heathens” wrong about that] and are receiv’d into yet more admirable and delicious Mansions, which I cannot easily describe, neither do the narrow Limits of my Time allow me to launch into the Subject.”

    So four different afterlife state like DC 76. Some details differ and JS also seemed to have filled in details with Jane Lead’s visions of the afterlife.

20. I greatly appreciate your posts. They may not line up perfectly with what I believe. But I want to believe that there is room. I believe that we make many assumptions that are not questioned, and therefore are not well defended. Your beliefs help me and help us work out what is essential, what is important, what we (or I) must believe to make life meaningful. Thank you.

21. Thanks, Stephen.

    It’s these Book of Mormon doctrinal issues where I think the story of Zoram that I posted in a previous post really apply.

    “And he spake unto me concerning the elders of the Jews, he knowing that his master, Laban, had been out by night among them. And I spake unto him as if it had been Laban…. And he, supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me. And he spake unto me many times concerning the elders of the Jews, as I went forth unto my brethren, who were without the walls.” 1 Nephi 4:22-27.

    Zoram not only thinks that Nephi is Laban, but also thinks that Nephi is taking is to “the elders of the Jews” or “brethren of the church.” In other words, Zoram thinks that he is following Laban to the local religious leaders, but Nephi is taking Zoram somewhere completely different. Nephi eventually gets Zoram to follow them into the wilderness to the promised land and the Nephites will have a rather different theology than the local Jerusalem orthodoxy will.

    Again, the people of Jerusalem plan to kill Lehi for preaching Jesus, a belief central to Nephite religion. In other words, Lehi and Nephi had very different religious ideas than the orthodoxy that Zoram thought Nephi was taking him to.

    I see JS doing something similar with the Book of Mormon. It presents more orthodox Protestant doctrine (though it chooses Arminianism over Calvinism because JS hated Calvinism). But in reality, JS, like Nephi, wanted to lead his followers to a higher doctrine. The Nauvoo theology in line with Christian Platonism.

    To do so, JS needed to avoid spooking his followers too much and instead reveal the higher truth carefully and cautiously. JS knew that if his followers got spooked like Zoram and realized they were being taken somewhere they did not expect, they would likely “run away” like Zoram tried to. Many of JS’s followers did drop out over new doctrinal issues, but many hung around.

22. Man, didn’t know Joseph Smith was a Straussian.

23. At the very least, this conversation primes the pump the bring reformation to Atonement theology. I simply cannot understand any form of penal substitutionary or satisfaction ideas as they don’t at all match of with my lived experience. These ideas also treat “The Atonement” as a mere transaction that mended some cosmic rift and repaired God’s view of the children he created. To reduce Atonement to a transaction is to essentially relegate his incarnation irrelevant.

24. Stephen,
    I honestly still fail to see the connection. The words of Plato are so far removed from the language and phraseology of the scriptures that Joseph both translated and wrote while in the spirit.
    You have brought up this bit about the Atonement and I am curious- do you personally believe in the Atonement of Jesus Christ or not?

25. Kibs, again, see chapter 6 of my dissertation and you’ll see lots of examples of similar wording with the Book of Abraham and JS’s Nauvoo speeches. Check out Chapter 4 for Jane Lead’s similar wording to DC 76.

    Again, atonement was not meant to be the purpose of this particular post, so what I’ll do is write a separate post on that topic and we can discuss and be on the topic of the OP.

26. Stephen,
    Even though there are similarities to some degree in no way establishes that one was solely or even partially born from the other.
    I also noted in your dissertation that section 19, speaking of the punishment is for those specified after the millennium and not before. Also, section 29 is understood in light of this and section 76 only makes sense with understanding the endowment which in turn, validate the duality of section 29 thus proving that God was indeed revealing truth, but Joseph’s own ideas concerning heaven were not necessarily in line or at least not understood.
    In light of all revelation given, the endowment validates not only the D&C but also the Book of Mormon plan of salvation, specifically, the dichotomy between the saved and the damned and that it in nowsy is universality but exclusionary. To me it proves that although man can have opinions, God is in charge and reveals truth.

27. Stephen, I think the approach you’re laying out here is likely to doom your project. It’s forcing you to make the argument that all of Joseph Smith’s mentions of the atonement, from the Book of Mormon to the Nauvoo period, were only camouflage, while his real message was something not easily detectable except now, 200 years later. And that argument will just get overwhelmed by evidence of atonement in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith’s later work. There are better options, such as seeing Joseph Smith’s project as gathering up shards of truth wherever they can be found (I think that’s Givens). You don’t have to burn down the rest of the forest to identify an interesting new tree in it.

    Zoram is doing a lot of work in your argument – you mentioned the story earlier as an internal justification for Joseph Smith to produce a work of fiction, and here it’s serving as internal justification for deceptive camouflage teachings. That seems like a lot more than the slim evidence can support, and I don’t think this reading is correct anyway. The story treats the contents of the brass plates as incredibly valuable, and the point of the story is to justify Nephi’s ownership of them. Your interpretation would need Zoram to be some kind of key figure or a stand-in for the audience as a whole, and I don’t think Zoram fits that role. Zoram takes an oath to go with Nephi into the wilderness, but only after Nephi speaks as himself – he doesn’t deceive Zoram in making that covenant. After that, Zoram almost disappears as a character, and his name gets recycled later in the Book of Mormon. (I have my own thoughts on what Zoram is doing in 1 Nephi and my own likely doomed project in an upcoming post.)

28. Kibs, I think we’re getting off the topic. I’ll just state again that I do believe that Joseph Smith was inspired, and I’ll point about that the plan of salvation being in Plato’s writings is a verifiable fact.

    Jonathan, I’ve been at this 15 years and the evidence looks pretty clear to me. Again, the way JS clearly uses sources like Ethan Allen, Elias Hicks, and Paine on the topic of atonement paints a pretty clear picture when you lay out the wording. That’s not what I’m doing here in this post, however.

    But yes, Nephi does deceive Zoram for the greater good. Which is worth noting, I think.

29. And I’ll just point out that other scholars have noted what looks like a move away from atonement: Brooke and Turner. Givens noted it too but has an apologetic explanation I don’t agree with.

    And I’ll also note that there’s a number of other theological differences between the Book of Mormon and JS’s later theology that many have noted, especially strict heaven and hell, as well as the claims that say that Jesus is the Father and the Son. To me these all fit with presenting a greater orthodoxy for the Book of Mormon, that JS often quickly overturned.

30. The saved/damned duality is persistent throughout all of the D&C. Of interest, whenever the Lord speaks or is quoted in scripture, in all dispensation, it is always a strict heaven or hell, saved or damned doctrine. So whether or not Joseph was trying to advance something else, the doctrine of either heaven, or, hell remains a constant from the Lord. To me this is proof that Joseph was good at writing what the Lord was revealing and that the scriptures aren’t some fabrication from the musings of Joseph’s contemporaries or those who came before. Even Leads doctrine on salvation doesn’t really line up with scripture where it matters most.

    I’m super curious however on your thoughts on Atonement because that subject I very dear to me and something I have studied a lot. I’m coming to the conclusion that literally all things testify not only of Christ but to his Atonement also. So many signs, so many witnesses. And the Book of Mormon is just chalk full of Atonement soteriology that it is mind baffling to think any person could fabricate or write such a work on their own.

31. I’ve found that when LDS people speak of the atonement, they very rarely have put significant thought into what the word/concept means, and almost never have looked at the larger history of how Christianity has defined and understood it.

    Which is all to say, I’d love to read how you define what the atonement is.

    And to end with a side comment, I have a hard time believing that the scriptures as a whole speak with a unified voice, or are generally consistent (which is to be expected from a document that is written and translated over thousands of years by humans from vastly diverse cultures). So seeing divergence from the BoM to the D&C doesn’t seem like as hot as take as others here are making it.

32. Stephen, “Joseph Smith shifting emphasis towards a theme that was already present in the Book of Mormon” (from your last comment) seems like a much more workable approach.

33. Divergence on the role of or emphasis on the atonement is not a hot take.

    “ I do understand how important atonement is to contemporary Mormon theology, but again, I’m arguing in my book it was not something that Joseph Smith believed” is squarely in the hot take department, a hot take that Stephen fortunately seems to be walking back.

34. Stephen: I’d like to compliment and thank you for your impressive scholarship, research and presentation. It is so incredibly refreshing to study, learn and be enlightened by new information and “connections”. Personally, I’m exhausted by – and notably bored by – simple retrenchment into “this is way it’s always been – and for Heaven’s sake – don’t say anything outside the lines.

    Please keep up the good work. God Bless and Godspeed.

35. Thanks for this Stephen. I look forward to the follow-up posts.

36. Thanks, Aaron, Griz, and Bart. I wasn’t planning on posting about JS and atonement theology, but maybe I’ll put something up at some point.

    Jonathan and Anon, I wrote up my chapter on all this a bit ago and still think I’ll stick with the same conclusions I’ve mentioned here based on the evidence I found.

    Let me explain a little further. As mentioned, I do see differences between Book of Mormon and Nauvoo theology, which has been pretty obvious. But I also found it intriguing that JS made some big theological changes pretty quickly, and I was particularly intrigued by DC 19. It makes a bit change and comes out BEFORE the Book of Mormon is even in print.

    I say quite a bit about that, but to me that and other themes are indications of what I argued in previous comments: that the Book of Mormon contains some theological positions that JS never really believed but that he put in there to make the Book of Mormon more palatable to the Protestants he hoped to convert. (I argue that his statements about Jesus are the Father and the Son are part of that trend).

    The atonement was a big puzzle that I worked on and puzzled over for a long time. Again, I’ve concluded that DC 93 taught a theology in line with the mystical tradition JS drew on, best expounded by Elias Hicks (and some others). It’s a theology without atonement. Hicks is quite critical of atonement.

    So that got me wondering about previous statements on atonement and I noticed that though the Book of Mormon says atonement is important in a number of places, the only time the Book of Mormon EXPLAINS atonement is Alma 34.

    1) It uses Henry Alline’s logic about the ontological difference between Christ and humans.

    2) DC 93 rejects that ontological difference arguing for ontological similarity between Christ and humans: whatever Christ did human can do if they are righteous. This is a BIG theme in Jane Lead (she even used the term “Christs” plural at one point). And it’s a big theme in that mystical tradition Elias Hicks was part of.

    3) In my book, I call this theme, “radical similarity.” JS teaches it not only with Christ, but in the KFD, even argues for radical similarity with God the Father (which was a pretty radical idea. Almost no one went that far!)

    4) So the “radical similarity” between Christ and humans in DC 93 would undercut Amulek’s logic. Again, Amulek said that a human cannot substitute his life for another. It would requite a different kind of being (like Henry Alline said). But again, DC 93 argues for radical similarity.

    5) The argument that it would be unjust for a human to substitute his life for a murderer, like Amulek says, is EXACTLY the same argument that Thomas Paine makes AGAINST atonement in AGE OF REASON.

    6) So adding all that up, really makes me think that JS NEVER believed in atonement, but simply put it in to sound orthodox, planning to reveal the “higher” truth later. He started to do so in DC 93, but did so in an obscure way. Again, he seemed to want to walk it back with his 1834 letters.

    7) Ultimately, JS seemed to do what our leaders have done over the last century. When they want to move away from a doctrine they do not like, but want to avoid sounding like they are overturning statements from past leaders, what our leader usually do, is simply stop talking about the offending doctrine, rather than overtly denouncing it. Again, to me that appears to essentially be what JS decided to do with atonement, just drop it (with very few exceptions).

    8) JS’s Father-Son statements about Jesus in the BoM kind of sound like how Paine mocked the idea of Trinitarianism in the AGE OF REASON. I don’t think that JS viewed Jesus in those Father-Son terms, but I instead argue that JS thought that such language sounded like orthodox Trinitarianism. So he said that about Jesus to try to sound orthodox

    As Dan Vogel pointed out, the language actually kind of sounds like “modalism” or the belief that the Father and Son are the same person. Modalism technically ISN’T Trinitarianism and was considered a heresy by the orthodoxy. But orthodoxy Trinitarianism is weird and confusing so it would make sense that JS didn’t fully understand it and thus made the mistake, I argue.

37. Stephen,
    To help the rest of us better understand, do you believe in the Atonement of Jesus Christ?
    A simple yes or no answer would do.
    Thanks.

38. I will post more about atonement on another post.

39. No yes or no eh? It just helps us better understand your overall position. In my mind I’m guessing you don’t believe in the Atonement. Am I wrong?

40. Your question is way off the topic of the post. We can discuss that when I post on that topic. Until then, I’ll need to start thinking about moderating your comments.

41. Stephen,
    Relax, we all being friendly. You just keep bringing it up. I just thought it would be helpful to the conversation. No need to censor posts.

42. If you start with the proposition “Joseph Smith really believed X” and add “Any time Joseph Smith said something that contradicts X he was lying” then your original proposition becomes pretty much unfalsifiable. Combine that with searching through large numbers of texts for parallels with Joseph Smith’s teachings, a process that’s subjective and prone to false positives, and you’ve got a major risk of falling down a rabbit hole.

    It would take very strong evidence to convince me Joseph Smith really did not believe in the atonement of Christ, and far stronger to convince me the atonement, whether we understand it or not, is not in fact real and central to God’s plan. These methods do not seem to be capable of producing that level of evidence.

    If religious studies in general were capable of generating strong enough evidence to consistently change peoples’ minds away from their priors–including those of the scholars involved–there wouldn’t be so much disagreement. As Joseph Smith might put it, the professors of religion of the various schools of thought understand the primary sources so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the scholarship. Look to religious studies for insights (you’ll find some great ones), not proof of anything.

43. My apologies, Kibs. That’s a bit of a complicated topic, so I would like to handle it on it’s own post. Again, atonement wasn’t the point of this post.

    RLD, I’m okay with you not being convinced by anything I say here. In my attempts to follow good historians methods, I came to the conclusions that I’ve summarized here. It’s a big, detailed topic, with many pages of analysis.

44. D&C 93 doesn’t deny the Atonement or render it unnecessary. On the contrary, being “begotten through [Christ]” is a condition for receiving the glory of the Father and becoming the Church of the Firstborn (verse 22.) Twice the section refers to Christ’s role as Redeemer (verses 9 and 38) and the section as a whole insists that the glory of God (light and truth) can only be received through obedience to commandment, which cannot be accomplished without redemption (see verse 38). Redemption, and Christ as Redeemer, is unquestionably baked into the D&C 93 cake, so it can in no way deny the Atonement unless you mean to suggest that “atonement” and “redemption” are different.

    I can’t help but wonder if you are using “atonement” to refer to “penal substitution” as opposed to the broader category of “redemption.” Good arguments (imo) have been put forward to the effect that our soteriology is not in fact one of penal substitution, but that’s not a denial of Atonement, more like a denial of a specific theory of Atonement.

    In terms of “radical similarity,” D&C 93 doesn’t say that what Christ can do, man can do. On the contrary, man still needs redemption to achieve fullness whereas Christ did not. The gulf between man and Christ is not collapsed; Amulek is not contradicted.

45. I’ll take responsibility for turning this into a discussion of the atonement, though that wasn’t my intent. Stephen deserves a chance to lay out his thinking on the topic properly, and I wouldn’t object if he shut down the discussion here until he can do that.

    I’m not sorry though: I think it’s better to start with fundamentals before moving on to peripheral issues like Bible or Book of Mormon historicity. What I’m really hoping Stephen will give us is his version of the first lesson in Preach My Gospel.

46. Interesting, thanks for sharing. The arguments outlined in your 8 points above really require a specific definition for atonement, before one can evaluate what the BoM, JS, or anyone else thinks about it. It sounds like penal substitution is what you are mostly referring to. But the BoM itself contains or hints at more than one model of atonement. Also if you clarify which model we’re talking about and use that term rather than just “atonement,” it might help some readers be less scandalized.

47. The Atonement is big in the Book of Mormon and upon which all of their scriptures were based upon. We know the Atonement is the one fundamental eternal truth on which everything in God’s creation rests upon. Without the Atonement everything is pointless. It’s really important to get Atonement beliefs right.

48. Hoosier, I disagree and will go over this in more detail in my next post (I think). Radical similarity between Christ (and even the Father) and humans was central to JS’s Nauvoo speeches, and, I argue, DC 93 also.

    DC 93 presents the path of redemption as following the path that Christ followed himself. That was big in the mystical tradition that informed JS’s sources.

    JS’s sources (the one’s I mentioned) rejected the claim that humans were made righteous through the “imputed righteousness” of Christ’s suffering and death. They argued that humans were made righteous through their own righteous acts and following the example of Christ.

    RLD, I’m nowhere near being able to lay out “a first Lesson of Preach My Gospel” that I think JS was trying to teach. That said, I do hope that these posts will help me move in that direction. Who knows? Maybe I’ll try such a thing at some point.

49. Sadly (as time goes on) I perceive that many members of “the Church” are choosing to be frightened by imaginary ghosts and monsters under the bed; as relating to any new research, information and understandings that are being produced by some of today’s scholars. I think it’s kinda/sorta sad really to see so many respond with petulant fear and childish emotion; when even the kindest criticism (or mild scrutiny) is brought to bear on centuries old traditions and mythologies.

    In the 70’s I was told in no uncertain terms that “my generation was the chosen one…and that we would usher in the Second Coming (Saturday’s Warrior anyone?) but….that didn’t come to pass and so now the current generation has received the mantle of “chosen”….and the tall tales roll on.

    At some point, we really should set aside some of the magical thinking that pervades our culture.

50. Stephen, very interesting post. Two questions:

    1. Plato is the ur-source for Christian dualism–i.e., the human soul or spirit is radically, fundamentally, different in kind, from the body. But Mormonism is radically materialistic–spirit is just a refined kind of matter, intelligence is not created, God is embodied, the creation was not ex nihilo but an organization of already matter, physical reproduction modeled on spiritual reproduction, etc.

    So is the Platonic influence a kind of cafeteria Platonism, some but not all? That would seem to weaken your thesis by suggesting that you’re cherry-picking Plato.

    2. How do the Neo-Platonists (Plotinus, et al. + Augustine) figure in? They arose in the mid-3rd C AD fairly early after the rise of the Christian Church in the mid/late-1st C. Their ideas were dominant until Aquinas, and remained important through the late medieval era. Since they’re the ones who adapted Athens to Jerusalem, Plato to Christianity, shouldn’t there be evidence of your thesis there, among those thinkers?

    I’m thinking here that Platonic philosophy was well known in the Greco-Roman world in which Jesus and Paul preached, so presumably, as good missionaries, they would have connected the gospel to Plato, where connections could be made. (Paul especially; Jesus was sent only to the Jews, who were pretty insulated from Greek philosophy (but see John 1), but not Paul.). Even assuming that these Platonic truths (if that’s what they were) were lost with the apostasy, one would expect there to be evidence of Platonic influence on the true gospel, remnants among the Neo-Platnoists and Augustine, into late antiquity, no? Is there any evidence of this?

51. No doubt opinions can vary, Griz.

    Freddo, JS’s sources presented the “ancient theology” as much more materialistic. It tended to cobble together Atomism and Stoicism (that were more materialistic) into one whole with Plato. JS taught ideas on materialism very similar to how his sources referred to Atomism (the earth being created out of prior planets) and Stoicism (all spirit is matter).

    Furthermore, the extant translation of Plato’s Phaedrus says that God has a body in wording similar to the KFD.

    Dartmouth Professor John Smith (who taught there from 1777 to 1809) attributed full-on corporeality of God to the ancient theology. He taught at Dartmouth when the Smith’s lived very nearby. Others in the hill country, like Ethan Allen, also taught Platonic ideas that end up in Mormonism. Joseph Sr. would have certainly known of Ethan Allen, and John Smith’s claims about the ancient theology also end up in Mormonism.

    So ideas about the ancient theology were a living tradition with lots of ideas that show up in Mormonism, especially among thinkers who lived very near the Smiths in the the hill country (ie Vermont and New Hampshire). And what was available to the Smiths often presented the ancient theology as quite materialistic similar to Mormonism.

    On point two, I’ll discuss some fun ideas in my next post.

52. A lot of the problems I see with today’s scholars seem to stem from seeing everything from a secular position.
    To here some of these theories on here would make Joseph Smith to be a master scholar not only by 1820’s standards but also by our standards today. The theories being brought up would have taken Joseph a lifetime of study to know and understand different philosophical points from a vast array of his contemporaries and those historically and then create such a vast and complex program that it’s just incredulously impossible.

53. Thanks Stephen.

    Sounds like Platonism without . . . Plato. (A comment on the sources, not you.)

54. Kibs, it looks to me like Joseph Sr. is the one who put most of the information together. Sr. spent a number of years as a school teacher and had access to a lot of these ideas in Vermont/New Hampshire.

    Jr. did some studying while working for Josiah Stowell in 1826. The sources he most likely read would not have taken a lifetime. Only a few months.

    Freddo, it depends on how one defines Plato. Modern scholars do have a particular bent, but I’m of the opinion that the elements we’d call “the plan of salvation” that are in Plato are more central than his metaphysical immateriality.

55. Strphen,
    That’s really quite a stretch. I’m afraid it just falls apart under scrutiny. There’s just no solid evidence of what you theorize about. Your theory is more plausible fiction than your claim that the Book of Mormon is ficticious. How does that work? Claim something to be fiction from proofs that are fiction themselves. That’s how we see it. Like, I’m trying to be fair, there just isn’t anything solid you’ve put forth. I wouldn’t even call it scholarly work, it’s just fiction. How could you prove it otherwise?

56. I don’t see any way around the fact that even in D&C 93, man must be redeemed whereas Christ does not. D&C 93 itself teaches that Christ is the Redeemer and mankind must be redeemed from the Fall. If your characterization of Smith’s alleged sources is correct, is that not a point AGAINST influence?

    I really don’t find persuasive the assertion that we can divine Joseph Smith’s true meaning by referencing a separate set of texts whilst at the same time filtering out things he himself said as mere camouflage. Isn’t the similarity of ideas the evidence for the influence of the alleged sources in the first place? This methodology seems circular, but perhaps I have misunderstood it – if so, I will await your next post for correction.

57. You’re not being clear, Kibs.

    Again, disagree, Hoosier. The references to redemption in DC 93 are very vague and it says nothing about atonement. The revelation makes it clear that the righteous can and need to undergo the same process that Jesus does, which is the same theme of JS’s Nauvoo speeches. Again, I’ll go over more details in my next post.

58. Stephen,
    I will try to be clear, what I am asking is if Joseph Sr. was the braincells of this how come there isn’t any reputable history stating such? I mean I can’t find anything on it. I’ve lived my whole life and Im starting to be old and haven’t ever heard of anything you claim. You are good at putting forth supposition, I will give you that but where is the actual proof? Where are the actual witnesses and reputable testimonies?

59. I agree with Hoosier on section 93. Atonement may not be the central thesis of the section but it is implied in passing. It speaks of man being redeemed from the fall. And we cannot think of redemption as something that happens apart from the Savior’s atonement–at least I couldn’t imagine Joseph Smith attributing it to any other mechanism but the atonement.

    Plus the notion of being born through Christ can be viewed (IMO) as the very process that causes him to suffer on our behalf–labor pains if you will. I’m of the opinion that he suffers as he draws us into close proximity to himself. We must receive of his influence in order to be transformed–but inasmuch as we are covered with the barbs of sin, as it were, it causes the Savior excruciating pain when he embraces us.

60. Kibs, yes, when one engages in new research, the point is to NOT simply rehash everything that’s already been said, but to propose some new ideas.

    We’re probably starting to go in circles here, Jack, but I’ll just add that the fall is another ambiguous theme in JS’s theology.

    So just to reiterate, DC 93 stresses that Christ lacked “the fulness” at first, like other other humans and needed to gain it “grace for grace” like other humans, thus stressing “radical equality.” Again, more in coming posts.

61. But just to add a little nuance, I do say there’s some ambiguity on the topic in the chapter where I discuss this. I argue that the Book of Mormon and early revelations seem to want to move away from atonement through Christ’s death, but do seem to present the redemptive power of Christ’s blood in the garden. But I argue even that becomes more tenuous leading up to DC 93.

62. Stephen,
    New ideas are great only if you have solid evidence. I see it this way- Because you do not believe in the historicity of ancient scripture you must present ideas or possibilities about their existence and how they came about. Am I wrong?

63. I believe the evidence for the Book of Mormon to be of ancient origin is by far greater than any, (if there is such) evidence that they were a fabrication of the Smith family. You haven’t really put forth any tangible evidence yet. Its all supposition.

64. I think I’ll submit a paper proposal to MHA on what I see as Joseph Sr.’s role. I’ll let you know if it gets accepted, Kibs.

65. Stephen,
    I know you must know how difficult it is to get something of true scholarly review and be accepted. You seem to be an accomplished historian and writer and must know this. I’ve been in process of writing a paper myself on the soteriology as understood by our church. I believe it’s truly groundbreaking but I’ve also found, from discussing it with church members and leaders that you have to have such vast and logical swaying evidences. Ive been putting them together and it hasn’t been easy and my topic of concern is nothing like this one you’ve chosen.
    I always ask myself using courtroom type of standards if something is reputable or can stand up under high scrutiny. I guess my mind is trained to see holes in things now and I see a myriad of holes, where they matter most, in your ideas. Let me give you an anecdotal story.
    Many decades ago I was interested in sound theory and me and my brother came up with a speaker system using a tuned chamber effect. I drew out elaborate pictures of it and everything. About 2 years later Bose came out with this exact sound system which at yhat time was seen as groundbreaking.
    Now, suppose someone, a couple hundred years later came across my drawings. Some would see it as a connection that Bose got from me or me from them. All this tells me is that truth can arise and does, from unrelated sources all the time without any connections. In court you would have to show actual evidence of those connections.
    BTW, none of the phraseology of Jane Lead is found in Mormonism. That’s a pretty hard thing to get over. Yet, much protestant phraseology is found in mormonism. Why is that? Because protestants made a lot of influence upon early church leaders. Phraseology is an important evidence. The Book of Mormon used protestant type phraseology whereas no Jane Lead phraseology is found in mormonism.

66. Quite a bit of Lead’s wording is in Mormonism, actually, Kibs. Again, let’s please stick to the topic.

67. Stephen,
    Fair enough. So I will ask, what phraseology from Plato made it’s way into ancient theology in the NT and then as you state, Joseph Smith used it to structure this higher law you refer to? Because there isnt anything actually historical with witnesses, etc, the only connection is in phraseology, it’s either there or it isn’t there.

68. Lots and lots, but I’ll give you this for starters. Just prior to describing the 4 afterlife states in the Phaedo that I quoted above that matches the structures of DC 76, Socrates says, “when the Dead arrive at the Place whither their Demon leads them, they are all tried and judged, both those that liv’d a holy and just Life, and those who wallow’d in Injustice and Impiety.”

    What’s interesting about that, is that in JS changes John 5:29 to say, “And shall come forth; they who have done good, in the resurrection of the just; and they who have done evil, in the resurrection of the unjust.” But that’s not what the KJV of John 5:29 actually says. The KJV says, “And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

    In other words, JS specifically CHANGED John 5:29, to make is sound like the Plato passage that actually matched the four afterlife states of DC 76.

    Now, you’ve made it clear, Kibs, that you will not accept any evidence from me whatsoever, so, no I’m not going to keep playing this game until I’ve put up hundreds of pages of my research while you keep say, “Yes, those things are EXACTLY the same, but I reject it because I don’t like it.”

    This is getting really old, Kibs, Buy the future book or come to my presentations if you want to hear more. You obviously aren’t doing a very thorough job of reading Lead’s works, and I don’t think it’s my job to do it for you. Again, buy the future book or come to my presentations.

    More in future posts.

69. I’m pretty much with Stephen on this. It was Joseph Smith Sr. who generated many ideas for young Joseph; including his dream about the Tree of Life, Iron Rod (or Rope) etc. Also, in my mind, clearly Joseph Smith Jr. consolidated his writings about the “Three Degrees of Glory” as a result of the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg…and on, and on it goes.

    The one thing I’ll give Joseph Smith is that he seemed to have a great capacity for synthesizing ideas from all over the place; and then making them his own. I no longer “chalk up” all of these things to revelation or divine intervention; just good, old fashioned human ingenuity.

70. Stephen,
    Will be honest, I have read and researched a lot of Jane Leads prophecies, writings since I have started discussions with you on other posts and to be honest, she had a lot of good things to say, but I still see nothing that ties phraseology together. Again, phraseology is really important.

    John 5:29 is interesting to me personally in my own work because a lot of my own paper I’m writing deals with section 76 and verses 16-17. Maybe what I have learned could help you in your work too.
    What I have come to understand is that both John 5:28-29 and D&C 76:16-17 is correct. Neither one is incorrect but just a different way of saying something. What is interesting is that section 76 is truly far from what we have supposed it to be and it is all discerned in understanding verses 16-17 correctly.
    Verses 16-17 present a strict duality or dichotomy between only two groups, not four. Understand that only the “just” are saved eternally. These are they who bear good fruit meaning those who bring forth works of salvation such as faith, repentance, baptism, etc. The “unjust” are sons of perdition and not saved because they bring forth evil fruit, their tree is corrupt.
    The presentation of the celestial (vs. 50-70) are all those in the resurrection of the just and are the only ones saved. Nowhere else in the section is it mentioned anyone else comes forth in the first resurrection (resurrection unto eternal life/the just). The last resurrection, or resurrection of damnation/ the unjust, is reserved for the ungodly because they are evil and according to Christ, these trees are hewn down and cast into the fire. They suffer the second death in the lake of fire and brimstone.
    The telestial and terrestrial are not worlds of glory after the millennium. Of interest here, understanding these kingdoms/worlds has more to do with progressing through and are but temporary stages of this earth’s progression. This aligns more with Jane Leads soteriology of progression through phases until one is saved in the kingdom of heaven. Where she is wrong though is the strict ultr universalist belief that even the devil and his angels will be saved, eventually.
    Now this is all interesting to me because the endowment wasn’t given until much later than section 76 and section 76 can only be understood in light of the endowment. (Think of the endowment as the correct way of translation of section 76). Salvation is only achieved by coming through the veil (through Christ’s Atonement, his flesh and blood) and back into God’s presence in the kingdom of heaven.
    This is interesting because section 76, as we currently understand it, and as Josrph Smith understood it, isn’t correct. But what it does show or prove is that line upon line, the BoM and NT doctrine of Chrust is correct with either being saved into the kingdom of heaven or damned to the eternal hell.

    Section 19, 29 and 101 tie in here respectively because 19 was revealed first, then 29, then 76. Section 101. Section 19 reveals the type of punishment coming on the unjust/sons of perdition after the millennium, not before. (Most get this timing factor wrong). Section 29 points again to this duality and suffering of the damned in the lake of fire and brimstone. Section 101 in reference to the parable of the wheat and the tares shows that the duality between the just and the unjust is strict where the just are the celestial heirs and only ones saved while the tares are burned with unquenchable fire (See d&c 76:44 for similar phraseology on the type of suffering for sons of perdition)

    Now, that all said, if Joseph truly was bringing forth the higher doctrine, which I believe he was, this all is it, yet not even he himself understood it at the time. Thus, it’s not him bringing it about but rather it is God bringing it about. The endowment which represents the current doctrine of Christ’s revealed soteriology are centered on the Atonement and being saved in only one place, having traveled through worlds of glory to get there.

71. Thanks, Griz. I’m arguing that Joseph Sr. felt a religious calling in line with founding Mormonism but believed that his special son (named after him) was the one truly called to bring it about.

    I do see the Lehi-Nephi relationship as illustrative of many aspects of Joseph Sr. and Jr.’s relationship. Lehi is the original prophetic leader, and most of Nephi’s early visionary experiences are confirming the ones that Lehi had. The tree of life is a good example (again, a vision that Lucy said that Joseph Sr. had).

    So I do see Joseph Sr. having encountered Lead’s writings and coming to believe that is was Joseph Jr.’s calling to implement Lead’s visions. I also see Joseph Sr. putting together a number of other elements, including those in line with the concept of the ancient theology.

    Kibs, to repeat. JS changed John 5:29 to match the wording of Socrates’s description of the afterlife. Likewise, no other writer is more similar to Mormonism than Jane Lead. You can find about 75% of Mormonism’s distinctive ideas in her writings. No other writer comes anywhere near that amount. The closeness between Lead and Mormonism is a verifiable fact. So clearly your not putting much effort into your perusings of Lead’s writings.

72. Stephen,
    In doing research for decades I’ve come to find that there has to be a connection in phraseology to have influence and the connections needed. Foe example, I will quote Lead here, note the phraseology

    ” It is known and experienced that as we daily feed upon a crucified Christ, it devours and gradually works away the Life of Sin and all the evil effects of it. Let the wise understand and find out this mystery, and discern and taste the Lord’s mystical body.”

    Now let us look at what Christ says in the Book of Mormon

    “5 And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples: Behold there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread and bless it and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name. 6 And this shall ye always observe to do, even as I have done, even as I have broken bread and blessed it and given it unto you.”

    These two are somewhat related. But the point is that there isn’t any of the same phraseology.

    The phraseology of Christ is the same in the NT and BoM. That’s because they are the same author.

    Lead may indeed have been inspired but for Joseph Smith Sr. to have known Leads work to the point of continuing it, you would find similar phraseology. But you don’t.

73. Yes, you do Kibs. All you are demonstrating is that you haven’t read her writings in any in-depth way. One sentence doesn’t prove anything. Lead has lots and lots of sentences unrelated to Mormonism.

    Here’s a better one: “Then did she hold out a Golden Book with three Seals upon it, saying, Herein lieth hidden the deep Wonders of Jehovah’s Wisdom, which hath been sealed up, that none could, or ever shall break up.”

    Lead wrote 19 books. Again, lots of the sentences are unrelated to Mormonism. You’re off the topic, Kibs and I need to ask you to stop.

74. Sorry to get off specific topic.
    I guess you just may not understand my point. That’s fine.
    I am curious to see you posts in the future on Atonement. That’s really the crux of everything to hinge upon.

75. Stephen,

    One more thought and then I’ll try to leave it alone–until your next post, that is. :D

    I love how the Savior’s ascent into a fulness–in section 93–is mapped out as a pattern for all of us to follow. Even so, there are elements in the revelation that set him apart from us as well. These two verses in particular are very telling:

    9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

    10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

    And so while I agree that section 93 may be read with an eye for situating the Savior in the same playing field as all of God’s children My sense is that there are doctrinal elements from the Book of Mormon and elsewhere that are baked into to the text–elements that convey the idea of his *condescension* to place himself on an equal footing with us.

    But even so, there is no question that–unlike us–he is the Redeemer, the Creator, and the Spirit of Truth. And all of these designations bespeak his being uniquely positioned to carry off the atonement on our behalf.

76. Kibs states:

    “When I read the Book of Mormon it conveys to my mind the magnitude of two massive and great civilizations that spanned a very long time. I ask myself is it plausible that not one but two massive civilizations existed in the Americas of the which mainstream science can’t even see and understand it?

    From a critical thinking standpoint I have come to the conclusions that yes, it is not only plausible but highly probable.”

    The B of M certainly does tell the tale of two massive, great, consequential civilizations in the Americas. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy does much the same thing; with (IMO) even greater complexity, lanquage and story design.

    Of course, there is absolute no historical evidence of The Lord of the Rings; and no one is surprised. In 2024, with all of the technological advancements of human kind – there remains no tangible historical evidence of the peoples described in the B of M; not a sword, a coin, monuments, chariots, writings (outside of the B of M), etc. And yet, we see all kinds of physical evidence of many other civilizations (older than the Nephites and Laminites) – with new discoveries all of the time.

    Kip: how does an obviously very intelligent, well versed, articulate person as yourself…..reconcile this reality?

    Personally, I don’t think the possible reality of the B of M being allegorical diminishes it’s spiritual impact; in fact, being honest about it’s lack of historicity feels more honest and wholesome than creating theories – “steeped in mystery, smoke, mirrors and mysticism”

77. Grizzerbear,
    I wouldn’t really expect to find so e of the things you mentioned.
    Coins for instance. Joseph Smith knee what a coin was, they had them in his day and in use. Of interest, no mention of “coin” is in the BoM text. So whatever method or system of money they had, we have no real clue as to what it would have been, looked like, etc.
    Chariots are only mentioned twice in the BoM over a span of around a 100 years. We have no idea what a nephite/lamanite chariot looked like. The almost exclusive method of travel, even by the captains of armies was by foot, and later on they had an extensive road dystem. Maybe we should be looking for sandals and roads rather than chariots.
    I wouldn’t expect to find much if any writings from the Nephites as the Nephites were the record keepers and the Lamanites sought the destruction of their records and thus why they were hid. The lamanites were bent on erasing every part of Nephite culture. Besides, we have no real clue what their writing system would have looked like. The mayans did write and there is ample evidence of theirs. Through my own studies I attribute most of the Mayan and Olmec civilizations with the Jaredites and not the Nephites.

    There is ample plausible evidence of ancient civilizations who were highly advanced in the Americas. One would have to prove they don’t fit the BoM peoples. That’s about impossible.

    An allegorical Book of Mormon has so many problems that it falls flat on its face. Either the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be or everything LDS is a fraud and God is a fraud too.

78. Thank you for your response, Kibs. Honestly, I quite respect anyone who simply declares a belief via Faith; it’s honest, heartfelt – and “is what it is”.

    As for me, I’m grateful that I no longer tie a belief in God to a belief in the historicity of the B of M. I’ve come to believe that God is so much greater than any book; or any organization for that matter.

    Godbless and Godspeed to you.

Comments are closed.