Comments on: Lorenzo Snow and Eram Quod Es

By: Kiki Snow

Kiki Snow — Mon, 12 May 2008 19:48:57 +0000

wow i did not know what people had to say to my great, great, great, great, great, great, great Gandfather Snow that is very nice for them to say about him.

thank you

By: john f.

john f. — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:55:33 +0000

Great post.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:19:18 +0000

Very nice.

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 06:47:47 +0000

BiV, This is all very interesting and I had never made the connection before. Thanks.

By: Bored in Vernal

Bored in Vernal — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:33:02 +0000

J. #4–
I know, I wasn’t too rigorous on my treatment of King Follett–that wasn’t my primary focus, and I don’t have access to anything here in the Middle East. But I’m glad you pointed that out. I’ll fix that footnote.

By: Bored in Vernal

Bored in Vernal — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 05:25:05 +0000

smb #2–
the 1843 date is from a very late reminiscence.

True, but we do have at least two different sources, one linked with the words of Father Smith to Lorenzo upon their first meeting, and the other with a meeting in the Sherwood home in Nauvoo before Lorenzo’s mission in the British Isles. Often when events are linked in this way to other events in a person’s life, they are quite accurate. I haven’t heard this date challenged before. Would you go so far as to disagree with Lorenzo’s understanding of couplet theology before 1843?

I, too, would be very interested in early “divine anthropology” references. Please let us know what you find.

Thank you for the “eye-candy” offer! I am interested–please email me. clbruno at hotmail.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:25:09 +0000

Sam, I see your papyri. That makes sense.

By: smb

smb — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 02:48:02 +0000

matt, I see theogony as a complex afterthought to apotheosis, so I look for elements in earliest Mormonism and its surroundings that most conduce to divinization then leave theogony as a supernatural commonsensical coda to that doctrine. hence perfectionism.

And, Stapley, I choose 1836 because I think a lot of confusing work was being done on papyri, temple, Pentecost, and hidden texts of the Bible. I’d need to comb my sources more attentively to fix it there, but I remain suspicious that 1836 will have divine anthropology in at least an early form (I think I just coined this term to encompass both humanized theogony and perfectionist apotheosis).

By: matt b

matt b — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 00:28:27 +0000

As he grew older Finney was openly a perfectionist. But he rejected the doctrine of imputation and adopted a Pelagian version of Methodist holiness. His version of sanctification was somewhat idiosyncratic; it’s not “entire sanctification,” holiness, or ‘perfectionism’ as Wesley’s more radical followers like Pheobe Palmer described it, or even the more nuanced version that Wesley himself taught.

But there’s a missing step between Finney-style perfectionism, or even Wesleyan perfectionism, and theogony, I think. Indeed, the former two preclude the latter.

By: smb

smb — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:58:36 +0000

Staples, you just dared me, brother. I may have to go looking to preserve my honor (if only I had more time).
I don’t think of it as Utah being correct (being generally ignorant of Utah history), but as early radicalism. I don’t think Smith was merely a semi-Methodist primitivist in the 1830s. I think he was fairly radical fairly early.

You are correct re: Pelagianism and sanctification. The trick is looking for perfectionism under the hood. And Oberlin I mention because Snow was a student there.