Formal Mormon Theology

[Moksha]

Whoever is an expert in LDS theology and history, I have a question. When was the Mormon Plan of Salvation originated, and was it a Church committee that came up with it? It seems to have the feel of a group creation.***

Seems to me it was created between 1905 and 1956, but that is solely my guess; however, I have learned to trust my make-believe as well as that from any apologists. But I would dearly love to hear from an accurate historian.




*** Kwaku thought it was from a Council of Gods in the Pre-existence, including God, Jesus, Satan, Joseph Smith, Manitou, Buddha (acting as the Devas of the Seventh Realm), Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, Zeus, Odin, and Muhammad. Perhaps Mary Baker Eddy took notes and served cookies.

[Physics Guy]

I think the better way would be to honor Mr Smith as the founder of religious movement and as a great thinker and sure call that a prophet but that would also mean I consider Hermes a prophet among others.

Was L. Ron Hubbard a prophet, too, then? Was Helena Blavatsky? I’m reluctant to accept a definition of “prophet” that makes them prophets.

I think the basic problem here is that, whatever “prophet” is supposed to mean, its connotation is still “something really impressive”. So we can water down “prophet”, in order to justify calling Smith or whomever a prophet without our having to mount any strong case for their prophethood because “prophet” is now a low bar to clear and our candidate is easily over it. There’s always going to be a sort of connotative buoyancy to the “prophet” title, though. It’s going to keep floating back up, in our thoughts, towards the high status it traditionally held.

So I think the only realistic option is to keep the criterion for “prophet” as something pretty impressive. This means having to make a hard case for Joseph Smith, and not just rubber-stamping him into the prophet club because he obviously checks the box of having launched a religion. That can’t be the only box he needs, because we have other words for people who started a movement but whom we don’t count as prophets: terms like “cult leader” or “charlatan”.

If another box on the checklist for prophethood is “great thinker” and Smith is supposed to check this one as well, then what are some of Smith’s great thoughts?

[I Have Questions]

Sorry, just for clarity, which version of the First Vision are we talking about? The initial memory, or the one that came years later when Joseph was losing momentum and needed a miraculous story to bolster his reputation?

For reference - none of the vision stories amount to Joseph being called as a Prophet.

He was told that he had a work to do and that the gospel would be restored through him. He was referred to as "the prophet" before 1830 but it might be helpful to remember that this wasn't the title bestowed upon him as his official title. It was, "President of the High Priesthood". The First Vision was the focal point that initiated events in which he was referred to as "the prophet".

“If you start a church with a prophet in it everybody will be against you,” Smith’s friend W.W. Phelps wrote ruefully in 1835. People had been calling Joseph Smith a prophet since before he organized his church in April of 1830, and the revelation that he presented to the group of people there that day claimed the title. “Behold there Shall a Record be kept among you & in it thou shalt be called a seer & Translater & Prop[h]et,” it said. They voted to accept this statement as the word of God.

But soon Smith reached for another title too. In November 1831, he dictated a revelation that now comprises the latter half of the current section 107 in the Doctrine and Covenants. Several passages near the beginning of that revelation (now versus 64-66) delineate that office.

“Wherefore, it must needs be that one be appointed of the High Priesthood to preside over the priesthood, and he shall be called President of the High Priesthood of the Church; or, in other words, the Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church.”
https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/the-p ... the-priest

Regards,
MG

So let me get this straight. People called Joseph "the Prophet" before he claimed to have had a vision. During the vision he claimed to have had (any version of it) he wasn't referred to as "the Prophet", nor appointed as a "Prophet". After the vision he claimed to have had, during which nobody referred to him as "the Prophet" and during which nobody appointed him as a "Prophet', people continued to refer to him as "the Prophet".

And that amounts to evidence that he was called as a Prophet? Are you joking?

[Ego]

Whoever is an expert in LDS theology and history, I have a question. When was the Mormon Plan of Salvation originated, and was it a Church committee that came up with it? It seems to have the feel of a group creation.***

Seems to me it was created between 1905 and 1956, but that is solely my guess; however, I have learned to trust my make-believe as well as that from any apologists. But I would dearly love to hear from an accurate historian.




*** Kwaku thought it was from a Council of Gods in the Pre-existence, including God, Jesus, Satan, Joseph Smith, Manitou, Buddha (acting as the Devas of the Seventh Realm), Krishna, Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva, Zeus, Odin, and Muhammad. Perhaps Mary Baker Eddy took notes and served cookies.

I don’t know enough of the history to answer your question but I did have two other thought about your comment.
First, Kwaku seems ignorant of the roots of these religions he is trying to synergize. ‘Devas’ and ‘Zeus’ are words coming from the same proto-indo-European word ‘Deywos’ which was their Sky (or heavenly) Father. So there are conflicting Heavenly Fathers sitting in his council.
Second, this model of the plan of salvation has always felt convoluted to me, not something I’d expect God to produce as a diagram. I think the symbolic and mythic imagery of the circle is much better. You start at the top with God, you go away from Him to the bottom, then everyone at least for final judgement will return to Him at the top. Some will stay there some not. It always seemed intuitive to me that the premortal realm was the celestial kingdom where God lived, that’s what the songs and scriptures imply unless you want to make up some strange thing about how we ‘lived with God’ but He didn’t actually live there He just visited. Anyways if it is one and the same then the diagram is wrong and really we should depict it as a circuit.

[Ego]

I think the better way would be to honor Mr Smith as the founder of religious movement and as a great thinker and sure call that a prophet but that would also mean I consider Hermes a prophet among others.

Was L. Ron Hubbard a prophet, too, then? Was Helena Blavatsky? I’m reluctant to accept a definition of “prophet” that makes them prophets.

I think the basic problem here is that, whatever “prophet” is supposed to mean, its connotation is still “something really impressive”. So we can water down “prophet”, in order to justify calling Smith or whomever a prophet without our having to mount any strong case for their prophethood because “prophet” is now a low bar to clear and our candidate is easily over it. There’s always going to be a sort of connotative buoyancy to the “prophet” title, though. It’s going to keep floating back up, in our thoughts, towards the high status it traditionally held.

So I think the only realistic option is to keep the criterion for “prophet” as something pretty impressive. This means having to make a hard case for Joseph Smith, and not just rubber-stamping him into the prophet club because he obviously checks the box of having launched a religion. That can’t be the only box he needs, because we have other words for people who started a movement but whom we don’t count as prophets: terms like “cult leader” or “charlatan”.

If another box on the checklist for prophethood is “great thinker” and Smith is supposed to check this one as well, then what are some of Smith’s great thoughts?

I can’t really argue with the fact that calling him a prophet implies many unsavory characters (like him) would be. My argument is rooted in the fact that when I speak to my Buddhist, Daoist, or Hindu friends, the label of prophet is way less loaded of a term than in Mormonism. This is my steel man that Mormons could use if they ever cared to break out of their exclusionist bubble. In a way I want to say that the harm a person causes shouldn’t affect the validity of their words but I know many wouldn’t see it that way.
Near as I can tell, Mr. Smith’s idea that people had a premortal existence wasn’t a view held by anyone since the time of Origen the theologian. So does his offenses against the dignity of women and free speech invalidate his theology? That’s the question for me.