There is one important question that should be addressed: What, if anything, should any Latter-day Saint make of all this new information?
Years ago, Chauncey Riddle, a religion instructor at Brigham Young University, dismissed this author’s view of prophecy based in ancient catastrophes, as set forth The Prophecy Trilogy, describing the endeavor as “an intellectual exercise, having little to do with one’s salvation.”
Relevant to salvation?
This raises the question of relevance. However correct this information may be, does it really have any bearing upon the outcome of this mortal trial? What value does it have in the greater scheme of things? Does any of this truly apply to one’s salvation and exaltation?
For most Saints, the answer to the question of relevance would be an unqualified “No.” Like Riddle, most Mormons feel that prophecy and gospel imagery have little to do with the primary aims of a righteous life that conforms to gospel teachings. This attitude is reflected in church literature in general and fosters the dismissive approach most Saints have toward a study of this kind. The emphasis is placed entirely on the spiritual aspects rather than the temporal, material or intellectual elements.
The Saints’ stumbling block
In this they err greatly. It’s the reason that prophecy is an enigma, the reason modern temple symbolism and ritual seem foreign, scriptural symbolism is puzzling and elusive, the imagery of prophetic visions is baffling and there are “mysteries” in the gospel that should not be so much as entertained, much less investigated.
While revelation through prophets and seers in our time might provide much of the information we need for our salvation and exaltation, it does not answer all questions. Much of what we need to know is contained in texts written hundreds or thousands of years ago. Hence, we have the constant exhortation to read the scriptures from our general authorities.
Different cultures, different times
The scriptures, ancient and modern, largely deal with events and experiences of individuals who lived in cultures and conditions far removed from our own in time and far different than our own. Even events recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants contain those same elements of obscurity for those of us who didn’t live two centuries ago when the church was being established, say nothing of texts penned over one, two or more millennia ago.
So, how can we expect to gain all we need to know for our salvation and exaltation by reading the scriptures when the worldview of those who wrote them was so very much different than our own?
Searching outside the scriptures
As a practical matter, reading the scriptures and the talks of general authorities, however valuable for gathering information, cannot answer all questions. The analysis of textual content, however helpful and useful, cannot explain all we read. We must go outside the scriptures in order to fully understand all we read there. We must view the wider picture, the context.
Hence, the Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that the Saints were to “… seek ye diligently …, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.” (Doctrine & Covenants 88:118.)
This counsel directs us to seek out extra-scriptural information. Paradoxically, it seems that we must look outside the scriptures in order to fully understand them. What T.S. Eliot wrote applies very well here. “And the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.” That is, until we look outside the scriptures for historical background, contemporary accounts, settings, conditions and cultural information, our knowledge of them will be incomplete. Only when we “explore” enough to see them with new eyes will the scriptures become fully meaningful.
Revelation alone can do the same thing. In fact, it can overcome ignorance far better than study and much more quickly. But since we “all have not faith” sufficient to obtain revelation for all our questions, the Lord told us, through Joseph Smith, to do the research.
Moreover, Joseph Smith also explained that God never gave a revelation without also providing the keys to understand that revelation. This implies that there is no mystery in the scriptures, nothing that we cannot understand, given the proper information.
Knowledge is key
Of course, getting that information, gaining knowledge is one of our primary directives. “And if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come.” (Doctrine & Covenants 130:19.)
So, the answer to the questions posed at the outset of this article is simply this: If any part of the gospel message is omitted or not incorporated in our study, then our understanding is incomplete. If we do not understand prophecy, then our knowledge is incomplete. We cannot, then, also understand the language of the prophets, the symbolism of our temples, the meaning of things seen in visions recorded by the prophets, the Pearl of Great Price facsimiles, the Lord’s explanation of the heavens given to Abraham or the many statements of Joseph Smith on these subjects.
Prophecy: a key to salvation
Thus, this knowledge has everything to do with our salvation and exaltation. Understanding the nature of our world and the history that brought it to its present condition is vital to our comprehension of the gospel. Without it, we’re only getting half the message of the scriptures, the temple ceremonies or the words of the prophets.
Faith: the first principle
Take faith, for example. Since it is the first principle of the gospel, it follows that we must understand it best in order to practice our religion as it should be practiced. Understanding faith, therefore, is vital to our salvation. Of course, it also goes without saying that understanding priesthood power is vital since it is the one thing that sets the restored church apart from all the rest.
To the Saint who studies Exodus and the works of Moses with a view to the planetary catastrophe that unfolds in that saga, it becomes apparent exactly how faith and priesthood power function in our relationship with God. We see Moses as a man armed with no special powers — his priesthood not withstanding — save the foreknowledge that God gave him of impending events. His faith was not in what he wished or hoped to be true, as we typically define faith, but in what he knew to be true. The record shows that God revealed to Moses beforehand all that was to occur and what Moses was to do in each circumstance. His faith is manifest in his willingness to do as God commanded, to proclaim to everyone, even Pharaoh, what was going to happen, no matter how outrageous the claim or difficult his duty. In fact the one time Moses got in trouble was when he acted without God’s direction, making a decision on his own to strike the rock to bring forth water for the Israelites.
What’s more, we learn that Moses had no power to perform the ‘miracles’ of the Exodus; they were natural, albeit catastrophic, events — completely out of his control, one way or the other. He could not cause them any more than he could stop them. He did not part the Red Sea nor cause manna to appear. That was God’s doing; it was all God’s doing. Moses’ only role was to warn and guide the Israelites as God had directed him in order that they might avoid the worst of the devastation. In that role, he provided salvation, but he was not its author. He was only a messenger, a mouthpiece.
Correct perspective is vital
Without that perspective, we might be tempted to believe that a prophet has extraordinary latitude and power to control the elements. We might be tempted to think that holding the priesthood somehow entitles us to similarly extraordinary powers. Thus, this knowledge helps us preserve a correct perspective of our function as priesthood holders.
Without that perspective, we might believe that if we simply conjure up enough faith to believe strongly enough, then what we want to happen will come true. We consistently talk about faith in flawed terms, saying things like, “If we had enough faith, we could move mountains.” Once again, the information that comes to us via a more complete understanding of ancient events provides us with a clearer vision of faith, what it is and how it works.
Studying the gospel without the perspective that this reading offers gives us only half the message. It’s the equivalent of driving a car with one eye closed or trying to walk with only one leg instead of two.
Vital to our salvation, exaltation
Therefore, the inescapable conclusion is that the study of this alternative view ancient history, prophecy and the scriptures is vital to our salvation and exaltation. Without it, we stand a good chance of falling short of our goal. Understanding the subjects associated with past catastrophes and the symbolism they engendered can vastly improve the likelihood that we will leave this life, as God revealed to Joseph, with “so much the advantage in the world to come.”
Sounds like salvation and exaltation to my ears.
Chauncey Riddle couldn’t have been more wrong, and Latter-day Saints shouldn’t make the same mistake.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2005
Showing posts with label temporal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label temporal. Show all posts
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Symbolism and Creation, Part 3
There is one more bit of overlooked housecleaning that must be done before we can move forward to a discussion of Kolob, and that has to do with the source of our Bible’s creation account itself.
Most Latter-day Saints who read Genesis come away with the idea that God revealed something to Adam, Enoch, Abraham or Moses that mankind would have no other way of knowing. That is, God alone was present at the creation; man came later. So, if man were to have any knowledge at all of what went on before Adam and Eve were placed on the earth, that information would have had, of necessity, to come through revelation.
So, in effect, we believe we are reading revelation when we read Genesis. But, that may not be so.
All the major, ancient cultures also have creation accounts. There are some profound differences with the biblical creation account, but there are some striking commonalities.
How can that be? How do we account for those similarities? Did God call prophets in each of those cases and reveal the creation to them? Or, maybe we can attribute the similarities to diffusion — the process by which cultural traditions are transmitted from one culture to another. After all, most of these same cultures also have a ‘flood’ tradition, much like the biblical Noachian deluge.
The answer is quite simple: They are all eyewitness accounts — including the biblical account — of the one, singular event the ancients called “the creation.”
Mankind was a spectator when the events recorded in the creation account occurred. Those events subsequently, and quite naturally, became a part of the lore of every ancient culture, each putting their own peculiar twist on the same, basic pageant they saw played out in Earth’s heavens. This is the impression one receives from reading those accounts with a catastrophist’s eye, rather than a religionist’s eye.
How can I make such an outrageous claim? The evidence is in the ancient records and cultural traditions of people from all around the world, as I noted above. But the Genesis account, itself, betrays this notion.
We have already alluded to the fact that most of the Adam and Eve story is couched in symbolism. I would maintain that Adam and Eve were themselves mythical characters that owe their narrative to the actions of planets hovering over the Earth anciently. Just as our solemn “amen,” pronounced at the end of prayer and other appropriate junctures, finds its roots in the name of the Egyptian god Amen (Amun), seen in such names as Amen-hotep, Tut-ank-amun and Ammon, so does the name Adam derive from the Egyptian god Atum, the sun of night and Ra’s alter ego.
The very creation of Adam from “the dust of the earth” is, according to our definition, symbolic, and therefore a metaphor. Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib — the rib being a type or symbol of the lighted planetary crescent — is painfully symbolic.
Note that I am not saying that there was no Adam or Eve. Two individuals most certainly did come to this world to become the seed of humanity planted in this vineyard. Their specific story, however, is not told in Genesis.
These creation accounts, and many others like them, start to make sense only when seen as mythical or traditional accounts rather than truth dispensed through revelation. That’s probably why Brigham Young called the biblical account “a child’s tale.”
The Adam and Eve account was never meant to be a logical, accurate description of what happened in the beginning of the human race. It was a parable designed to teach us something about ourselves and our relationship with God. That’s it. It was never intended to carry the burden of accurate history we impose upon it with our misconceptions.
This, of course, demands that God participate in the use of this same symbolism, and there is no doubt that he does so. Look at the revelations given to Joseph in modern times that are loaded with traditional symbolism. This is one of the advantages the restoration gave to the Saints, if they care to employ it. Given the prophet’s perspective, we can rather easily discern what is symbolism and what is verity.
So, whenever God revealed the creation story, he did so in the symbolic tradition of those he spoke to. In other words, he was only confirming to them what their cultural traditions already taught, using those stories to teach a few gospel truths.
Thus, we now see Genesis as a traditional account from the Hebrew perspective, designed to carry a few subtle, revealed messages.
Ironically, we can also see prophecy as a use of the same literary device. But, that’s another whole topic for another time.
So, what about the rest of the biblical creation account? How much of it can we trust to be accurate? Well, a little comparison of the biblical creation with the other creation accounts reveals some remarkable details that seem to be rather accurate, though littered with metaphor and symbolism. When the biblical creation account is considered along with the other creation accounts, we gain a rather remarkable picture of what our ancestors saw at the dawn of time.
But first, we must return to the Kolob = Saturn equation before moving forward.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2008
Most Latter-day Saints who read Genesis come away with the idea that God revealed something to Adam, Enoch, Abraham or Moses that mankind would have no other way of knowing. That is, God alone was present at the creation; man came later. So, if man were to have any knowledge at all of what went on before Adam and Eve were placed on the earth, that information would have had, of necessity, to come through revelation.
So, in effect, we believe we are reading revelation when we read Genesis. But, that may not be so.
All the major, ancient cultures also have creation accounts. There are some profound differences with the biblical creation account, but there are some striking commonalities.
How can that be? How do we account for those similarities? Did God call prophets in each of those cases and reveal the creation to them? Or, maybe we can attribute the similarities to diffusion — the process by which cultural traditions are transmitted from one culture to another. After all, most of these same cultures also have a ‘flood’ tradition, much like the biblical Noachian deluge.
The answer is quite simple: They are all eyewitness accounts — including the biblical account — of the one, singular event the ancients called “the creation.”
Mankind was a spectator when the events recorded in the creation account occurred. Those events subsequently, and quite naturally, became a part of the lore of every ancient culture, each putting their own peculiar twist on the same, basic pageant they saw played out in Earth’s heavens. This is the impression one receives from reading those accounts with a catastrophist’s eye, rather than a religionist’s eye.
How can I make such an outrageous claim? The evidence is in the ancient records and cultural traditions of people from all around the world, as I noted above. But the Genesis account, itself, betrays this notion.
We have already alluded to the fact that most of the Adam and Eve story is couched in symbolism. I would maintain that Adam and Eve were themselves mythical characters that owe their narrative to the actions of planets hovering over the Earth anciently. Just as our solemn “amen,” pronounced at the end of prayer and other appropriate junctures, finds its roots in the name of the Egyptian god Amen (Amun), seen in such names as Amen-hotep, Tut-ank-amun and Ammon, so does the name Adam derive from the Egyptian god Atum, the sun of night and Ra’s alter ego.
The very creation of Adam from “the dust of the earth” is, according to our definition, symbolic, and therefore a metaphor. Eve’s creation from Adam’s rib — the rib being a type or symbol of the lighted planetary crescent — is painfully symbolic.
Note that I am not saying that there was no Adam or Eve. Two individuals most certainly did come to this world to become the seed of humanity planted in this vineyard. Their specific story, however, is not told in Genesis.
These creation accounts, and many others like them, start to make sense only when seen as mythical or traditional accounts rather than truth dispensed through revelation. That’s probably why Brigham Young called the biblical account “a child’s tale.”
The Adam and Eve account was never meant to be a logical, accurate description of what happened in the beginning of the human race. It was a parable designed to teach us something about ourselves and our relationship with God. That’s it. It was never intended to carry the burden of accurate history we impose upon it with our misconceptions.
This, of course, demands that God participate in the use of this same symbolism, and there is no doubt that he does so. Look at the revelations given to Joseph in modern times that are loaded with traditional symbolism. This is one of the advantages the restoration gave to the Saints, if they care to employ it. Given the prophet’s perspective, we can rather easily discern what is symbolism and what is verity.
So, whenever God revealed the creation story, he did so in the symbolic tradition of those he spoke to. In other words, he was only confirming to them what their cultural traditions already taught, using those stories to teach a few gospel truths.
Thus, we now see Genesis as a traditional account from the Hebrew perspective, designed to carry a few subtle, revealed messages.
Ironically, we can also see prophecy as a use of the same literary device. But, that’s another whole topic for another time.
So, what about the rest of the biblical creation account? How much of it can we trust to be accurate? Well, a little comparison of the biblical creation with the other creation accounts reveals some remarkable details that seem to be rather accurate, though littered with metaphor and symbolism. When the biblical creation account is considered along with the other creation accounts, we gain a rather remarkable picture of what our ancestors saw at the dawn of time.
But first, we must return to the Kolob = Saturn equation before moving forward.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2008
Symbolism and Creation, Part 2
Perhaps the first thing that the symbolic images in Joseph’s explanations of the facsimiles in the book of Abraham tell us is that he is not revealing some deep mysteries known only to the Egyptians. This is the common perception of the Saints who read these, but it is flawed. What he is telling us is what the Egyptians believed about these symbols.
This is a vital concept that must be mastered in order to see these images properly. Joseph was not revealing gospel truths here. He was simply interpreting these images to the best of his ability. So, what we are confronted with in his explanations are Egyptian concepts, not gospel concepts.
This is implicit in the language he used. For example, of Figure #3, in the hypocephalus, he wrote, “Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority, with a crown of eternal light upon his head.” The words he chose to explain this depiction of Horus seated in his solar boat — “made to represent” — clearly indicates he is interpreting the meaning attributed to it by the Egyptians. The “who” that made this images to represent things were the Egyptians themselves — not God, not Joseph Smith. The phrase can have no other interpretation.
Thus, we learn that even Joseph’s explanations of the facsimiles are nothing but descriptions of the symbolism.
If we extend that principle or point of view to the term Kolob, then we must admit that he is also describing something that the Egyptians believed and used in their iconography. He is not describing some distant place, star or planet far from the Egyptians’ view. It must have been something with which they were very familiar for it to become part of their belief system.
This corroborates the “local principle.” That is, not only did God say he was going to explain to Abraham only those things having to do with our solar system, we can now see that Joseph’s explanations did not extend beyond the beliefs of the Egyptians. Thus, both concepts point to a local perspective, implying that Kolob was/is a local star or planet. In fact, all the icons Joseph explains can be thus designated, as we will see.
This concept is vital to understanding the symbolism of the creation account. Only by understanding the role this symbolism plays in the real events and actors in the ancient celestial drama can we begin to understand the actual astral agents at work in the creation account.
Notice, too, that in calling this “governing” planet Kolob, God was using an Egyptian or Semitic word to name it. Thus, Abraham would have known exactly which planet or star he was looking at. Since Abraham came from an area known for its expertise in astronomy, Ur of Chaldea, he would have known the traditions of that planet, the one the ancients called the “best Sun,” the one the Babylonians called Shamash, (the Old Testament god Chemosh).
God wanted to eliminate any confusion. After all, planets have certain commonalities that make them hard to differentiate unless we know which one we’re looking at. In effect, God said to Abraham, “See this planet? It is the one your people call Kolob. It’s the star your traditions say governed all the others in heaven.”
Next, we will identify the planet Saturn as the Kolob of Abraham and the Egyptians.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2008
This is a vital concept that must be mastered in order to see these images properly. Joseph was not revealing gospel truths here. He was simply interpreting these images to the best of his ability. So, what we are confronted with in his explanations are Egyptian concepts, not gospel concepts.
This is implicit in the language he used. For example, of Figure #3, in the hypocephalus, he wrote, “Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority, with a crown of eternal light upon his head.” The words he chose to explain this depiction of Horus seated in his solar boat — “made to represent” — clearly indicates he is interpreting the meaning attributed to it by the Egyptians. The “who” that made this images to represent things were the Egyptians themselves — not God, not Joseph Smith. The phrase can have no other interpretation.
Thus, we learn that even Joseph’s explanations of the facsimiles are nothing but descriptions of the symbolism.
If we extend that principle or point of view to the term Kolob, then we must admit that he is also describing something that the Egyptians believed and used in their iconography. He is not describing some distant place, star or planet far from the Egyptians’ view. It must have been something with which they were very familiar for it to become part of their belief system.
This corroborates the “local principle.” That is, not only did God say he was going to explain to Abraham only those things having to do with our solar system, we can now see that Joseph’s explanations did not extend beyond the beliefs of the Egyptians. Thus, both concepts point to a local perspective, implying that Kolob was/is a local star or planet. In fact, all the icons Joseph explains can be thus designated, as we will see.
This concept is vital to understanding the symbolism of the creation account. Only by understanding the role this symbolism plays in the real events and actors in the ancient celestial drama can we begin to understand the actual astral agents at work in the creation account.
Notice, too, that in calling this “governing” planet Kolob, God was using an Egyptian or Semitic word to name it. Thus, Abraham would have known exactly which planet or star he was looking at. Since Abraham came from an area known for its expertise in astronomy, Ur of Chaldea, he would have known the traditions of that planet, the one the ancients called the “best Sun,” the one the Babylonians called Shamash, (the Old Testament god Chemosh).
God wanted to eliminate any confusion. After all, planets have certain commonalities that make them hard to differentiate unless we know which one we’re looking at. In effect, God said to Abraham, “See this planet? It is the one your people call Kolob. It’s the star your traditions say governed all the others in heaven.”
Next, we will identify the planet Saturn as the Kolob of Abraham and the Egyptians.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2008
Symbolism and Creation, Part 1
In my view, when we fully grasp the story the ancients recorded for us, we begin to see clearly for the first time what in scripture is symbolic and what is literal. Most often, we find out that our perception had to be flipped nearly 180 degrees. What we saw as symbolic turns out to be largely literal, and what we thought to be literal turns out to be mostly symbolic. From that perspective, we have as much to learn about the gospel from its symbolism as we do from its literalism, another concept that completely eluded us before.
At one time, we spent all our effort trying to understand the literal while almost completely ignoring the symbolic. Yet, given the sheer weight of symbolism in scripture, one has to wonder how we managed to avoid it so completely? It must be meaningful or God and his prophets would not have put it there. Remember, Joseph said that God would give no revelation without also providing the key to understand it. It’s my experience that we’ve had the keys before us since early in the restoration. Our failure was to not recognize them for what they are.
And while all of it is vital to us in our quest to understand the past and the scriptures, the most important element is the “local principle,” as presented by Kip Farr, a researcher and scholar who coined the term. That is, what we read in the scriptures in general, and Abraham in particular, that God has revealed to his prophets about the heavens pertains only to our small corner of the universe: our solar system. Kolob and the other celestial bodies are not found in distant parts of our galaxy, as most Mormons assume. What is recorded there tells the story only of “this creation,” (See Moses) not all the creations of God. This is a vital key. Kolob, was and still is right here in our planetary neighborhood, masquerading as a mere planet in our time. All ancient cultures revered it as the “God Star,” Saturn, though it was given a multitude of names—some descriptive, some titular. Hence, we find the descriptive, Semitic name “Kolob”—which probably means something akin to “Heart Star”—applied to it in the Pearl of Great Price. Even the names the Israelites used lead us to that conclusion. El or Elohim, usually referred to by historians as a Canaanite god because they fail to recognize that many of those “Canaanites” were actually Israelites, was connected to the planet Saturn. In fact, several ancient sources affirmed that the Israelites worshipped the planet Saturn. Even the name “Israel” (yis-ra-el) means something akin to “People of Saturn” or “Saturnians.”
From a gospel perspective, we can explain that circumstance by noting that when the Israelites strayed from the teachings of the prophets, it was to follow the customs and traditions of their neighbors, who were idolaters. But they didn’t have to depend on other cultures for that tendency. The progenitors of the Israelites, the Hebrews and their forefathers before them, experienced the actual events that gave rise to those idolatrous symbols and practices in all ancient cultures. Except for the prophets, to whom the true nature and order of the heavens was revealed as it was to Abraham, the rest of the Hebrews created their own traditions to retain the memory of the original heavens and Earth that once existed and what they saw and experienced in the pivotal time period when all that changed.
Naturally, those traditions paralleled those of their neighbors, who experienced the very same events. The names changed, but the stories, traditions and rituals created to remember those ancient times became part of their culture, and history tells us that they retained those traditions down through time, even though they might have repented of their idolatrous ways. It was perfectly natural that the prophets draw upon that ancient tradition to teach the gospel in their day and age, whenever it might be. Joseph Smith, a thoroughly modern man, still employed those ancient traditions and symbols.
Thus, a widespread, cultural tradition filled with imagery and ritual based on the ancient order of the heavens was preserved, even though later generations hadn’t a clue as to what it all meant. Ancient and modern historians readily identify the Israelites as Saturn worshippers when, in fact, they simply employed Saturn symbolism and ritual to teach gospel principles and out of respect to the cultural traditions of their forefathers.
We, today, in fact, do exactly the same thing. All our holidays (holy days) are celebrations of astral events, most of them Saturnian. Our Christmas celebration is a full-blown example, since everything from Santa Claus to the Christmas tree draw on celestial symbolism born in the original, Saturn-dominated heavens. The quintessential modern temple, in Salt Lake, is replete with Saturn symbolism—including Saturn Stones, which were originally intended to be displayed as a planet with two rings around it at the top of the buttresses on the south wall only so one had to face north, the ancient location of Saturn in the heavens anciently, to see them. Moreover, the Big Dipper on the temple’s west wall is strategically placed so as to point to the pole star, Polaris, the exact location of Saturn in Earth’s ancient skies. (This confirms that modern prophets knew precisely how to employ such symbolism correctly. It’s not mere decoration nor is it haphazardly applied.) Critics have and will continue to insist that Mormonism is a cult, in part because of our prophets’ affinity for using planetary symbolism, a practice most often associated with paganism in the Christian mind. Yet, with all that, we do not consider ourselves Saturn worshippers. It’s just part of our tradition.
Nowhere is this key more pertinent than in the creation story and God’s revelation of the cosmos to Abraham.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2008
At one time, we spent all our effort trying to understand the literal while almost completely ignoring the symbolic. Yet, given the sheer weight of symbolism in scripture, one has to wonder how we managed to avoid it so completely? It must be meaningful or God and his prophets would not have put it there. Remember, Joseph said that God would give no revelation without also providing the key to understand it. It’s my experience that we’ve had the keys before us since early in the restoration. Our failure was to not recognize them for what they are.
And while all of it is vital to us in our quest to understand the past and the scriptures, the most important element is the “local principle,” as presented by Kip Farr, a researcher and scholar who coined the term. That is, what we read in the scriptures in general, and Abraham in particular, that God has revealed to his prophets about the heavens pertains only to our small corner of the universe: our solar system. Kolob and the other celestial bodies are not found in distant parts of our galaxy, as most Mormons assume. What is recorded there tells the story only of “this creation,” (See Moses) not all the creations of God. This is a vital key. Kolob, was and still is right here in our planetary neighborhood, masquerading as a mere planet in our time. All ancient cultures revered it as the “God Star,” Saturn, though it was given a multitude of names—some descriptive, some titular. Hence, we find the descriptive, Semitic name “Kolob”—which probably means something akin to “Heart Star”—applied to it in the Pearl of Great Price. Even the names the Israelites used lead us to that conclusion. El or Elohim, usually referred to by historians as a Canaanite god because they fail to recognize that many of those “Canaanites” were actually Israelites, was connected to the planet Saturn. In fact, several ancient sources affirmed that the Israelites worshipped the planet Saturn. Even the name “Israel” (yis-ra-el) means something akin to “People of Saturn” or “Saturnians.”
From a gospel perspective, we can explain that circumstance by noting that when the Israelites strayed from the teachings of the prophets, it was to follow the customs and traditions of their neighbors, who were idolaters. But they didn’t have to depend on other cultures for that tendency. The progenitors of the Israelites, the Hebrews and their forefathers before them, experienced the actual events that gave rise to those idolatrous symbols and practices in all ancient cultures. Except for the prophets, to whom the true nature and order of the heavens was revealed as it was to Abraham, the rest of the Hebrews created their own traditions to retain the memory of the original heavens and Earth that once existed and what they saw and experienced in the pivotal time period when all that changed.
Naturally, those traditions paralleled those of their neighbors, who experienced the very same events. The names changed, but the stories, traditions and rituals created to remember those ancient times became part of their culture, and history tells us that they retained those traditions down through time, even though they might have repented of their idolatrous ways. It was perfectly natural that the prophets draw upon that ancient tradition to teach the gospel in their day and age, whenever it might be. Joseph Smith, a thoroughly modern man, still employed those ancient traditions and symbols.
Thus, a widespread, cultural tradition filled with imagery and ritual based on the ancient order of the heavens was preserved, even though later generations hadn’t a clue as to what it all meant. Ancient and modern historians readily identify the Israelites as Saturn worshippers when, in fact, they simply employed Saturn symbolism and ritual to teach gospel principles and out of respect to the cultural traditions of their forefathers.
We, today, in fact, do exactly the same thing. All our holidays (holy days) are celebrations of astral events, most of them Saturnian. Our Christmas celebration is a full-blown example, since everything from Santa Claus to the Christmas tree draw on celestial symbolism born in the original, Saturn-dominated heavens. The quintessential modern temple, in Salt Lake, is replete with Saturn symbolism—including Saturn Stones, which were originally intended to be displayed as a planet with two rings around it at the top of the buttresses on the south wall only so one had to face north, the ancient location of Saturn in the heavens anciently, to see them. Moreover, the Big Dipper on the temple’s west wall is strategically placed so as to point to the pole star, Polaris, the exact location of Saturn in Earth’s ancient skies. (This confirms that modern prophets knew precisely how to employ such symbolism correctly. It’s not mere decoration nor is it haphazardly applied.) Critics have and will continue to insist that Mormonism is a cult, in part because of our prophets’ affinity for using planetary symbolism, a practice most often associated with paganism in the Christian mind. Yet, with all that, we do not consider ourselves Saturn worshippers. It’s just part of our tradition.
Nowhere is this key more pertinent than in the creation story and God’s revelation of the cosmos to Abraham.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2008
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Learning From the Scriptures
"Search the scriptures," said the Savior. So, most Latter-day Saints do just that. We search for spiritual truths and counsel that might strengthen our testimonies and help us live better, more righteous lives.
But while those spiritual truths are vital, there is much more to the scriptures that we often overlook — things that we were meant to learn as well as the spiritual truths, things that, when internalized, can immensely enhance and correct our worldview.
Take the story of Joshua’s long day, for example.
"Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed … So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. (Joshua 10:12, 13.)
Joshua’s story is a powerful example of the influence a prophet can wield when acting in the name of God, an astounding example of the use of priesthood power. This is the primary message of the story.
However, there is another side to the story — one generally overlooked. It is a secondary message, as in a parable, that holds a vital truth of its own and can prove most useful in shaping our view of science in general and astronomy in particular. Most importantly, it should teach us something about our Creator and the way he does things.
Since most readers overlook the historical accuracy of such extravagant scriptural accounts, they fail to grasp its more practical implications. In order to see this facet of the Joshua account clearly, we must focus on the implied physical nature of the event: the stopping and starting of Earth’s rotation. Of course, such an implication is unthinkable to most of us. According to all we have been taught, all that we have experienced, the Earth’s rotation cannot be stopped. The eminent astronomer, Carl Sagan, for example, declared it an impossibility.
So, what are we to make of the natural side of Joshua’s account? If the Earth really did not stop turning, as Joshua reported, what do we make of it? Is this account’s accuracy flawed? Are the scientists right, or are the scriptures right?
Happily for Latter-day Saints, there is another, unimpeachable witness in the scriptures that answers these questions definitively. That witness is the Book of Mormon.
Speaking of the power of God, Mormon editorialized, "Thus we see that … if he say unto the earth — Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours — it is done;
"And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun. (Helaman 12:11-15.)
If there was any doubt about Joshua’s account, Mormon’s statement erases it. He makes it crystal clear; there is no equivocation, no hedging. He even goes so far as to clearly define the proper relationship between the movement of the sun and the earth.
Mormon is no geocentrist. He cannot be accused of ignorance in things astronomical. Latter-day Saints cannot question the validity of such a statement, since Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be "the most correct book."
So we have two scriptural witnesses that the earth can and has stopped turning. But there is a third, extra-scriptural witness.
The will of the Lord concerning extra-scriptural books is found in the Doctrine and Covenants.
"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
"… Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine … Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass …. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118,78, 79.)
Thus, the Lord makes clear that studying theory that supports scriptural principle and doctrine is a worthy pursuit, so that we "may be instructed more perfectly."
An excellent example of such extra-scriptural text in support of Joshua’s observations is found in Plato’s Timaeus wherein Plato reveals that a Greek myth about the sun’s movement through the heavens is actually fact rather than fiction.
"There is a story … that once upon a time Phaeton, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth …." (Timaeus)
Plato, whose works surely qualify as among "the best books," makes clear that the Phaeton myth is actually about a time when the sun went out of its normal course.
Now we have three witnesses: two from the scriptures, one from profane or secular history.
Here is where "the rubber meets the road," as one adage puts it. Time to "fish or cut bait," according to another. Do Latter-day Saints continue to believe mainstream scientists who assert that it would be impossible to halt the earth’s rotation and then restart it again, even though the scriptures plainly affirm that it has happened? Or, do we have enough faith to place our confidence in the scriptures by rejecting the view of mainstream science, even though it flies in the face of accepted scientific laws and assumptions?
So, now we have come full circle in this assessment. When we read our scriptures, we are completely prepared to accept any spiritual truth they offer. But, when the words of the prophets attempt to teach us concepts that belong in the realm of natural law or science, we find it difficult to accept. So, how much faith do we really have? How committed are we, in reality, to the words of the Prophets?
This is vital to a thoroughgoing study of the gospel. One cannot say that he or she believes or holds sacred the scriptures if a decision is made to accept only a part of what the scriptures offer while rejecting another part. We cannot embrace the spiritual message of Joshua’s story and be ambivalent about the rest.
More importantly, rejecting the fullness of the prophets’ message closes the door on untold learning and growing possibilities — both scientific and spiritual, because the two are really not in opposition once a few simple truths are established that are typically denied by modern science.
Seeing Joshua’s story as an accurate, eyewitness account, Mormon’s explanation as corroborating and supporting documentation and Plato’s explanation as substantiation from another culture, we stand poised to learn much about the true nature of God’s wondrous creation, the language of the Prophets, ancient history, prophecy and the symbolism of the scriptures.
"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." (Doctrine and Covenants 93:24.) In this context, Joshua’s account is truly a key to the scriptures and a test of our faith.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2002
But while those spiritual truths are vital, there is much more to the scriptures that we often overlook — things that we were meant to learn as well as the spiritual truths, things that, when internalized, can immensely enhance and correct our worldview.
Take the story of Joshua’s long day, for example.
"Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed … So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. (Joshua 10:12, 13.)
Joshua’s story is a powerful example of the influence a prophet can wield when acting in the name of God, an astounding example of the use of priesthood power. This is the primary message of the story.
However, there is another side to the story — one generally overlooked. It is a secondary message, as in a parable, that holds a vital truth of its own and can prove most useful in shaping our view of science in general and astronomy in particular. Most importantly, it should teach us something about our Creator and the way he does things.
Since most readers overlook the historical accuracy of such extravagant scriptural accounts, they fail to grasp its more practical implications. In order to see this facet of the Joshua account clearly, we must focus on the implied physical nature of the event: the stopping and starting of Earth’s rotation. Of course, such an implication is unthinkable to most of us. According to all we have been taught, all that we have experienced, the Earth’s rotation cannot be stopped. The eminent astronomer, Carl Sagan, for example, declared it an impossibility.
So, what are we to make of the natural side of Joshua’s account? If the Earth really did not stop turning, as Joshua reported, what do we make of it? Is this account’s accuracy flawed? Are the scientists right, or are the scriptures right?
Happily for Latter-day Saints, there is another, unimpeachable witness in the scriptures that answers these questions definitively. That witness is the Book of Mormon.
Speaking of the power of God, Mormon editorialized, "Thus we see that … if he say unto the earth — Thou shalt go back, that it lengthen out the day for many hours — it is done;
"And thus, according to his word the earth goeth back, and it appeareth unto man that the sun standeth still; yea, and behold, this is so; for surely it is the earth that moveth and not the sun. (Helaman 12:11-15.)
If there was any doubt about Joshua’s account, Mormon’s statement erases it. He makes it crystal clear; there is no equivocation, no hedging. He even goes so far as to clearly define the proper relationship between the movement of the sun and the earth.
Mormon is no geocentrist. He cannot be accused of ignorance in things astronomical. Latter-day Saints cannot question the validity of such a statement, since Joseph Smith declared the Book of Mormon to be "the most correct book."
So we have two scriptural witnesses that the earth can and has stopped turning. But there is a third, extra-scriptural witness.
The will of the Lord concerning extra-scriptural books is found in the Doctrine and Covenants.
"And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.
"… Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine … Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass …. (Doctrine and Covenants 88:118,78, 79.)
Thus, the Lord makes clear that studying theory that supports scriptural principle and doctrine is a worthy pursuit, so that we "may be instructed more perfectly."
An excellent example of such extra-scriptural text in support of Joshua’s observations is found in Plato’s Timaeus wherein Plato reveals that a Greek myth about the sun’s movement through the heavens is actually fact rather than fiction.
"There is a story … that once upon a time Phaeton, the son of Helios, having yoked the steeds in his father's chariot, because he was not able to drive them in the path of his father, burnt up all that was upon the earth, and was himself destroyed by a thunderbolt. Now this has the form of a myth, but really signifies a declination of the bodies moving in the heavens around the earth, and a great conflagration of things upon the earth …." (Timaeus)
Plato, whose works surely qualify as among "the best books," makes clear that the Phaeton myth is actually about a time when the sun went out of its normal course.
Now we have three witnesses: two from the scriptures, one from profane or secular history.
Here is where "the rubber meets the road," as one adage puts it. Time to "fish or cut bait," according to another. Do Latter-day Saints continue to believe mainstream scientists who assert that it would be impossible to halt the earth’s rotation and then restart it again, even though the scriptures plainly affirm that it has happened? Or, do we have enough faith to place our confidence in the scriptures by rejecting the view of mainstream science, even though it flies in the face of accepted scientific laws and assumptions?
So, now we have come full circle in this assessment. When we read our scriptures, we are completely prepared to accept any spiritual truth they offer. But, when the words of the prophets attempt to teach us concepts that belong in the realm of natural law or science, we find it difficult to accept. So, how much faith do we really have? How committed are we, in reality, to the words of the Prophets?
This is vital to a thoroughgoing study of the gospel. One cannot say that he or she believes or holds sacred the scriptures if a decision is made to accept only a part of what the scriptures offer while rejecting another part. We cannot embrace the spiritual message of Joshua’s story and be ambivalent about the rest.
More importantly, rejecting the fullness of the prophets’ message closes the door on untold learning and growing possibilities — both scientific and spiritual, because the two are really not in opposition once a few simple truths are established that are typically denied by modern science.
Seeing Joshua’s story as an accurate, eyewitness account, Mormon’s explanation as corroborating and supporting documentation and Plato’s explanation as substantiation from another culture, we stand poised to learn much about the true nature of God’s wondrous creation, the language of the Prophets, ancient history, prophecy and the symbolism of the scriptures.
"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come." (Doctrine and Covenants 93:24.) In this context, Joshua’s account is truly a key to the scriptures and a test of our faith.
© Anthony E. Larson, 2002
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Out of the Past
Joseph Smith lived his life with one foot in the present, the other in the past. That is, in order to effect a ‘restoration,’ he had to know what from the past had been lost in order to restore it.
It’s evident from the abundance of information he bequeath the church that he had a profound understanding of the past. In fact, his entire journey as a modern prophet began because he sought for the original, primitive church. The gold plates entrusted to him contained the ancient history of at least two migrations to the New World long before Columbus. The Egyptian papyri, which he explained with self-assured confidence and considerable accuracy at a time when scholars knew little or nothing about their meaning, dealt with an ancient culture with a rich heritage that scholars are still trying to fully fathom.
One could go on for pages, listing his research into and exposure to the past.
So, ancient history played a huge role in the prophet’s life and career. Given that fact, it would be natural to expect that if anything closely approximating what this author affirms about dramatic changes in the heavens and the earth occasioned by past planetary catastrophes, Joseph would have had something to say about it.
In fact, this was the question that prompted one of the early searches this author initiated into ancient history: Did Joseph Smith describe a world in the past that was in any way notably different from the one we know today? The search yielded a wealth of evidence, some of it direct, some of it anecdotal, that, indeed, Joseph knew of and taught about a very different heaven and earth than the one we see today.
For example, speaking of the Tower of Babel story, Apostle Orson F. Whitney said, “… the object of the people who built the Tower of Babel (was) to reach heaven, to attain one of the starry planets, one of the heavenly bodies.
“… I cannot conceive how … a race of people … could cherish the idea that they could actually reach the sun, moon, or one of the stars simply by piling brick upon brick and stone upon stone.
“But the Prophet Joseph Smith, whose job it was to shed light upon the darkness of this generation, is said to have declared that it was not their intention to reach heaven, but to reach Zion, which was then suspended in mid-air between heaven and earth, or at such a height as to render the project feasible. This certainly is more reasonable.”
Orson Pratt, another Apostle, amplified on this idea, saying, “About the time of Abraham, the Tower of Babel was built. … They thought that the City of Enoch was caught up a little ways from the earth, and that the city was within the first sphere above the earth; and that if they could get a tower high enough they might get to heaven where the City of Enoch and the inhabitants thereof were located.”
Of course, we have the Philo Dibble illustration, presented to him by Joseph Smith, which gives us a virtual picture of Earth in a tandem arrangement with other planets that makes the above statements meaningful. This was Joseph’s vision of what the ancient heavens looked like, what Orson Hyde called “one grand constellation of worlds,” a concept that he undoubtedly learned from Joseph.
This picture of the ancient Earth with its companion planets explains the following statement by Apostle Orson Pratt: “The Prophet Joseph once in my hearing advanced his opinion that the Ten Tribes were separated from the Earth or a portion of the Earth was, by a miracle, broken off and that the Ten Tribes were taken away with it, and that in the latter days it would be restored to the Earth or be let down in the polar regions.”
Fast forward to the present, and we find that most Mormons today know nothing of such accounts because they seem extravagant, far-fetched and implausible in light of the modern, scientific model of our solar system. They simply have not taken the time or made the effort to learn all that Joseph Smith taught. And LDS scholars have simply avoided quoting such observations because they don’t fit the “scientific” or “logical” worldview we embrace and are therefore an embarrassment or an enigma to them. So, they avoid them entirely.
Yet, as it turns out, the very information that mainstream, LDS scholars have an aversion to is actually what the Prophet believed.
Unlike our founder, it can correctly be said that we Saints today live with both intellectual feet firmly planted in the present. Our motto seems to be, “Forget the past,” a position diametrically opposed to our founding prophet’s perspective.
Even when studying the scriptures, we mostly restrict ourselves to an analysis of their content for a spiritual message. We rarely strive for a contextual, temporal picture of the ancients’ world in order to more fully understand the perspective offered in their writings. Instead, we tend to spiritualize what we don’t understand, substituting metaphysical or supernatural explanations to fill the gaps in our understanding. Hence, the entire study of the gospel has become an exercise designed to give everything a spiritual meaning, entirely ignoring the temporal side of all the scriptural accounts.
Try suggesting to most modern Latter-day Saints that a thorough study of antiquity is necessary to understand the restored gospel, and you will note how their eyes glaze over, their brain switches to the ‘off’ mode and they start looking for the exit sign.
Given the unbounded interest of their church’s founder in the past, one must ask, “What’s wrong with this picture?”
© Anthony E. Larson, 2006
It’s evident from the abundance of information he bequeath the church that he had a profound understanding of the past. In fact, his entire journey as a modern prophet began because he sought for the original, primitive church. The gold plates entrusted to him contained the ancient history of at least two migrations to the New World long before Columbus. The Egyptian papyri, which he explained with self-assured confidence and considerable accuracy at a time when scholars knew little or nothing about their meaning, dealt with an ancient culture with a rich heritage that scholars are still trying to fully fathom.
One could go on for pages, listing his research into and exposure to the past.
So, ancient history played a huge role in the prophet’s life and career. Given that fact, it would be natural to expect that if anything closely approximating what this author affirms about dramatic changes in the heavens and the earth occasioned by past planetary catastrophes, Joseph would have had something to say about it.
In fact, this was the question that prompted one of the early searches this author initiated into ancient history: Did Joseph Smith describe a world in the past that was in any way notably different from the one we know today? The search yielded a wealth of evidence, some of it direct, some of it anecdotal, that, indeed, Joseph knew of and taught about a very different heaven and earth than the one we see today.
For example, speaking of the Tower of Babel story, Apostle Orson F. Whitney said, “… the object of the people who built the Tower of Babel (was) to reach heaven, to attain one of the starry planets, one of the heavenly bodies.
“… I cannot conceive how … a race of people … could cherish the idea that they could actually reach the sun, moon, or one of the stars simply by piling brick upon brick and stone upon stone.
“But the Prophet Joseph Smith, whose job it was to shed light upon the darkness of this generation, is said to have declared that it was not their intention to reach heaven, but to reach Zion, which was then suspended in mid-air between heaven and earth, or at such a height as to render the project feasible. This certainly is more reasonable.”
Orson Pratt, another Apostle, amplified on this idea, saying, “About the time of Abraham, the Tower of Babel was built. … They thought that the City of Enoch was caught up a little ways from the earth, and that the city was within the first sphere above the earth; and that if they could get a tower high enough they might get to heaven where the City of Enoch and the inhabitants thereof were located.”
Of course, we have the Philo Dibble illustration, presented to him by Joseph Smith, which gives us a virtual picture of Earth in a tandem arrangement with other planets that makes the above statements meaningful. This was Joseph’s vision of what the ancient heavens looked like, what Orson Hyde called “one grand constellation of worlds,” a concept that he undoubtedly learned from Joseph.
This picture of the ancient Earth with its companion planets explains the following statement by Apostle Orson Pratt: “The Prophet Joseph once in my hearing advanced his opinion that the Ten Tribes were separated from the Earth or a portion of the Earth was, by a miracle, broken off and that the Ten Tribes were taken away with it, and that in the latter days it would be restored to the Earth or be let down in the polar regions.”
Fast forward to the present, and we find that most Mormons today know nothing of such accounts because they seem extravagant, far-fetched and implausible in light of the modern, scientific model of our solar system. They simply have not taken the time or made the effort to learn all that Joseph Smith taught. And LDS scholars have simply avoided quoting such observations because they don’t fit the “scientific” or “logical” worldview we embrace and are therefore an embarrassment or an enigma to them. So, they avoid them entirely.
Yet, as it turns out, the very information that mainstream, LDS scholars have an aversion to is actually what the Prophet believed.
Unlike our founder, it can correctly be said that we Saints today live with both intellectual feet firmly planted in the present. Our motto seems to be, “Forget the past,” a position diametrically opposed to our founding prophet’s perspective.
Even when studying the scriptures, we mostly restrict ourselves to an analysis of their content for a spiritual message. We rarely strive for a contextual, temporal picture of the ancients’ world in order to more fully understand the perspective offered in their writings. Instead, we tend to spiritualize what we don’t understand, substituting metaphysical or supernatural explanations to fill the gaps in our understanding. Hence, the entire study of the gospel has become an exercise designed to give everything a spiritual meaning, entirely ignoring the temporal side of all the scriptural accounts.
Try suggesting to most modern Latter-day Saints that a thorough study of antiquity is necessary to understand the restored gospel, and you will note how their eyes glaze over, their brain switches to the ‘off’ mode and they start looking for the exit sign.
Given the unbounded interest of their church’s founder in the past, one must ask, “What’s wrong with this picture?”
© Anthony E. Larson, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)