Joseph Smith's Developing Understanding of the Godhead

[David T]

I take it back, they're too big to email. Let's try another route:

Thomas G. Alexander, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology." Sunstone 5 (July-Aug 1980):25

Boyd Kirkland, "Jehovah as Father: The Development of the Mormon Jehovah Doctrine." Sunstone 9 (Autumn, 1984): 37.

Boyd Kirkland, "Elohim and Jehovah in Mormonism and the Bible." Dialogue 19 (Spring 1986): 77

Van Hale, "Trinitarianism and the Earliest Mormon Concept of God." Dialogue (May 1983)

Van Hale, "Defining the Mormon Doctrine of Deity." Sunstone 10 (Jan 1985):27

Gregory L. Kofford, "The First Vision: Doctrinal Development and Analysis." Dialogue (1988)

Thanks!

I just read the Kirkland article, and while I agree for the most part in his structure of the 5-part development of the LDS understanding of the Godhead, I disagree on many levels with his readings of the Old and New Testament. (I'm in the Margaret Barker camp, for the record).

Also, I also think I disagree as to Joseph's primary understanding following the First Vision (which he views as Trinitarian Monotheism).

I believe he always recognized there were two distinct personages. I don't think he understood fully their nature, or complete relationship to each other at this point. I think he was very much taught line upon line. I do think the Lectures on Faith is a pretty solid place to look for an explanation of how Joseph understood - and taught - the nature of God and the relationship of members of the Godhead.

[David T]

? ?I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other?This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!? (JS?H 1:17).?

In his last sermons he said he had always taught a plurality of Gods, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While the terms and conditions were in flux it's safe to say JS was not trinitarian or modalistic even from the start, based on the records.

I agree with this.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I like Ostler's account of the LDS Godhead in many ways, with a few disagreements, parenthetically.

[David T]

I just started Exploring Mormon Thought: Volume 1 this week

[David T]

Van Hale, "Trinitarianism and the Earliest Mormon Concept of God." Dialogue (May 1983)

Are you sure this reference is correct?

[structurecop]

David Paulsen dismantles some of the things structurecop is referring to in this thread.

Enjoy!

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392

I'm looking for the dismantling of something I referred to and can't find it. Can you point me to the relevant passage?

[structurecop]

Are you sure this reference is correct?

No, I'm not sure... double checking now.

[structurecop]

Allright, I fixed it... turns out I don't have an online reference for it and only have an article by Dan Vogel which refers to it.

[erichard]

D&C 130 came late - in 1843. It's the early theology of the Lectures on Faith (which put the 'Doctrine' in the 1835 'Doctrine and Covenants') which I made reference to. Although probably composed by Rigdon, it was approved and taught by Joseph.

hi nack,

I see your point. Thank you for your reply.

I tend to think that the part you quoted was a lot from Rigdon's understanding, and not so much from Joseph's revelations.

About this point:

In the book of Mormon, we have a clear connection between Jehovah and Jesus. They are the same, but separate. The texts referring to God, to me, appear very rarely to refer to the personage we know in current Mormon thought as Elohim, or the Literal Spirit Father of Mankind, but rather the Eternal nature of Jehovah, the God of Israel. This, in the Book of Mormon, is what is referred to as the Father. The Son is the Mortal element of Jesus Christ. An element of the essence of Jehovah was incarnated into the Flesh to become a distinct and separate personage. Jesus and Jehovah (the Father) are One God, for they had the same source of essence, or being.

If it is not too much a burden, could you reference the BoM verses that you used to support this point?

To be fair, what you say supports my own faith in the "understanding of God" revealed in the Second Book of Commandments. So it will be useful for me.

Richard

[Bunny]

Please forgive my utter lack of understanding, but are you saying that Joseph Smith understood the Jesus figure to be two separate entities? Jehovah the spirit Father and Jesus the mortal Son? I'm just trying to understand how that is any different from the way most Christians see the Trinity. I probably shouldn't ask, as it may involve too much reading into something that I have only a passing interest in.

[Duncan]

"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father." -- Times and Seasons 3 (15 November 1841)

This was written by Erastus Snow, later of of the Twelve, and B. WInchester. In 1841 this magazine had two editors, Ebeneezer Robinson-whose name appears in this edition and also Joseph Smith although when he took over I don't know. I don't know who the "we" refers too and I wait for some evidence or proof that others know.

More importantly I wonder how we can even guage the mindsets of early saints and claim their thought adapted or changed as time went on. Do we really know what they thought at all times and was that thought the same as other people? Do two LDS even today believe the same things about the same things?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'm looking for the dismantling of something I referred to and can't find it. Can you point me to the relevant passage?

"Unpacks" would have been a more appropriate term, yes.

[structurecop]

"Unpacks" would have been a more appropriate term, yes.

10-4.

[David T]

hi nack,

If it is not too much a burden, could you reference the BoM verses that you used to support this point?

Richard

It begins with a solid understanding that, at least in the Book of Mormon, 'Father' rarely, if ever, refers to the Higher God we presently refer to with the title Elohim.

Abinadi's Father & Son discourse, especially, becomes massively confusing if one tries to read into it 'Father = Elohim', 'Son = Jehovah/Jesus'. It is talking solely about the Jehovah/Jesus figure:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son? 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son? <a name="4"> 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

In Ether 3, the Brother of Jared's experience showed the future Body of Christ: something he believed had never before been seen, even though the records show that Jehovah had been seen. Again, a problem if tried to be interpreted through the Elohim/Jehovah way of thinking:

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. 15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image. 16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh. 17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites. 18 And he ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him. 19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.

What it appears was understood to have been seen was not just the spirit body of Jehovah the Father, but of the Son - the Second Person, which had not been manifested. It was the first visual manifestation of the Son aspect of the Eternal God (the Father). While what it was that became the separate Son figure was always inherent in Jehovah, it was not until the incarnation of Jesus (prefigured here) that they became separate. I think this is a key understanding of the manifestation to the brother of Jared - not that he's the first to see the image of Jehovah, but that he's the first to see the image of that in Jehovah which will be manifested as the Son.

This understanding could have led to a more complex theology and hierarchy following Joseph's revelation of, and teachings concerning the Elohim. It was perhaps thought by some that while Jesus was the spirit offspring (as in, an aspect of his spiritual essence literally proceeding from his own glory) of Jehovah (his only-begotten son, but One with him prior to the incarnation/division), Jehovah, as well as the rest of us, were spiritual offspring of Elohim. Jehovah, our 'brother', designated as Father and King by Elohim, the Literal Father from whom we have proceed.

The relationship, or 'Trinity' of the One Personage of Jehovah including Father (Eternal Spirit), Son (Flesh/Incarnation), and Holy Spirit (their combined and unified mind) is a type and shadow of the Higher Structure of individual presidency, Literal Spirit Father (Elohim), Literal Son (Jehovah), Messenger and Testifier (Holy spirit)

Jesus being a manifestation of Jehovah who is in turn a manifestation of Elohim. One God, because they have One Source.

Clarification:

My purpose isn't to create a 'New' or 'Reimagined' theology to conflict with modern teaching and understanding (which I agree with and sustain). Rather, it is to follow the developments that came through revelation that also created a theological atmosphere that would have allowed for Brigham Young's (wrong, in my opinion) ideas concerning Adam-God, yet would still have been able to get 'back on track' to the current (what I consider 'purified' )understanding. I think there's a 'missing link' theological mindset that is often leaped over.

I think it is problematic (and unnecessary) when the Book of Mormon and D&C are viewed with the perspective that Modern Understanding of Theology and Godhead sprung fully formed into Joseph with the First Vision.

[robuchan]

That he believed in separate personages at least from the incarnation of Christ is clear, even from the Book of Mormon. Who he understood them to be, and their relationship to each other, however, is what appears to have changed and developed as he received further revelations.

What he said in 1844 notwithstanding, his earliest understanding of the role of the Holy Ghost is far less clear (especially in Lectures on Faith era texts, and the Book of Moses).

How is that clear from the BOM or other early texts?

[cinepro]

Anyone in SoCal might be interested in this upcoming lecture by Blake Ostler:

Blake T. Ostler has explored Christian and Mormon notions about God. He has looked at these issues from the viewpoint of Mormons and non-Mormons in examining the relationship between Mormonism and classical theism. He has critiqued classical theism regarding some of the central concepts that have formed the Christian understanding of God. He examines the questions of traditional philosophical theology including free will and foreknowledge, the nature of God and Christology. His approach to these questions comes from the analytic philosophical tradition and includes detailed arguments relating to the coherence of Christian belief, scripture and practice. However he recognizes that religious faith is far more a product of intimacy with the divine than of ultimacy of reason, more a product of relationships than of logical necessities.

His analysis includes various perspectives within Mormonism including a detailed analysis of Joseph Smith?s Lectures on Faith and discussion of the thought of Orson and Parley Pratt, B. H. Roberts and John Widstoe. He has shown that earlier Mormon thought viewed God as a being in process. He has suggests areas in which Mormon approaches to questions about free agency and God?s omnipotence suggest resolutions to some of the difficult issues that have troubled theologians and philosophers for centuries. For the first time ever Blake T. Ostler has formulated a systematic Mormon Christology.

He's speaking Friday, 10/16 in Orange County, and Saturday, 10/17 in La Canada/Flintridge (north of Pasadena). Since the details haven't been publicly posted yet, I don't feel at liberty to post them here, so PM me if you're interested.

[David T]

Anyone in SoCal might be interested in this upcoming lecture by Blake Ostler:

He's speaking Friday, 10/16 in Orange County, and Saturday, 10/17 in La Canada/Flintridge (north of Pasadena). Since the details haven't been publicly posted yet, I don't feel at liberty to post them here, so PM me if you're interested.

I'd love to go, but I'm nowhere near CA. I just finished his chapter (in Book 1) on a summary of Systematic theology from Lectures on Faith to the Pratt's to Brigham Young to Widstoe to B.H. Roberts to Bruce R. McConkie. Fascinating compares and contrasts.