Teaching on the Nature of God

[robuchan]

I don't think so. I think all the knowledge a person needs to discover the truth of anything is within the pages of the Holy Bible, because even in the Bible it's clear that we need the Holy Ghost to help us, as well as everything else God gives us to think with.

Uh, nope. The Book of Mormon is crystal clear on the doctrine of the trinity, too, while explaining how all 3 of those persons are united as one.

Then to the OP's point, why is trinity doctrine apparently confusing to early saints for a number of years?

[David T]

So you're someone (else) who thinks Jesus is saying he is the Son of himself when saying that he is the Son of God?

What in the world would make you think something like that?

To me, His meaning is crystal clear.

Ahab, as one who believes that there is a distinct personage who is the literal Father of Jesus Christ who is distinct from him, I still don't believe this explicit teaching was understood in the early years of the restoration. The scriptures in those periods that define Sonship do so in a different way than was applied later on.

It is my belief that the Book of Mormon is concerned with making known the characteristics of Christ as the Eternal God of Israel, and of the world. Later revelation made clear the literal nature of a distinction in Personages. The fact that this wasn't emphasized in the book of Mormon doesn't make it less true to me.

Uh, nope. The Book of Mormon is crystal clear on the doctrine of the trinity, too, while explaining how all 3 of those persons are united as one.

Mosiah 15 defines the Book of Mormon usage of Father and Son. In context, it is not referring to different physical personages, but emphasising different aspects of Jesus Christ, the God of Israel. The Father is the Eternal Spirit. The Son is the incarnate manifestation. The book of Mormon also makes reference to the Spirit of Christ (also known as the Light of Christ) , making a Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit embodied in the personage of Jesus Christ.

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself [ Jehovah ] 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

[Ahab]

Then to the OP's point, why is trinity doctrine apparently confusing to early saints for a number of years?

When you someday see what really happened, I think you'll see that nobody was really confused. They just disagreed with other people while each person thought they were right.

Person A to Person B: So you think [that] is right?

Person B: Yes. This is right.

Person A to Person B: Well I don't see it that way. I think this is right. Why do you think that?

Person B: Because that's the way God has explained it to me, both personally and through his prophets and apostles.

Person A to Person B: Heh, yeah, right. Actually, God has helped me to see that this is right, and you are wrong.

Person B: Okay. Go ahead and feel free to think that way, but I still know I am right.

Person A to Person B: Uh, no, that is NOT right. This is right, you bonehead. But go ahead and be wrong if you want to be.

Person B: Ditto back atcha!

Person A to Person B: Well, we can't just keep this up, can we? We're supposed to be on the same team!

Person B: Nah. You go your way, and I'll go mine, and maybe someday God will show you what is really the truth.

Person A to Person B: God is the one who told me I'm right, dude. Get a grip!

Person B: Yeah, well, that's not what God has told me, but go ahead and believe whatever you want.

Person A to a lot of other people who agree with Person A: We've got to do something about this. Any ideas?

A group: Yeah, we've got it all worked out. Don't worry. They'll either change their minds or we'll...

... and the saga continues.

[robuchan]

When you someday see what really happened, I think you'll see that nobody was really confused. They just disagreed with other people while each person thought they were right.

Person A to Person B: So you think [that] is right?

Person B: Yes. This is right.

Person A to Person B: Well I don't see it that way. I think this is right. Why do you think that?

Person B: Because that's the way God has explained it to me, both personally and through his prophets and apostles.

Person A to Person B: Heh, yeah, right. Actually, God has helped me to see that this is right, and you are wrong.

Person B: Okay. Go ahead and feel free to think that way, but I still know I am right.

Person A to Person B: Uh, no, that is NOT right. This is right, you bonehead. But go ahead and be wrong if you want to be.

Person B: Ditto back atcha!

Person A to Person B: Well, we can't just keep this up, can we? We're supposed to be on the same team!

Person B: Nah. You go your way, and I'll go mine, and maybe someday God will show you what is really the truth.

Person A to Person B: God is the one who told me I'm right, dude. Get a grip!

Person B: Yeah, well, that's not what God has told me, but go ahead and believe whatever you want.

Person A to a lot of other people who agree with Person A: We've got to do something about this. Any ideas?

A group: Yeah, we've got it all worked out. Don't worry. They'll either change their minds or we'll...

... and the saga continues.

I hate to pull the lame CFR thing on you, but what's your basis in thinking conversations like this took place in the church in the early 1830's.

[Ahab]

I hate to pull the lame CFR thing on you, but what's your basis in thinking conversations like this took place in the church in the early 1830's.

It's always been that way, robuchan, and it always will be when people don't agree with each other about something they hold as dear to them as their own religious convictions.

People A represent the type of people who get frustrated when others don't agree with them, while thinking everyone should.

People B represent the type of people who hold to their own religius convictions, usually trying to share them with others, but who will back off and let things go if the other side doesn't agree, which often just makes the A type of person even more frustrated.

What, were you thinking there was a time when everybody in the Church agreed on everything with everyone else?

I know this is a simple issue concerning how many persons are God and their relationship to each other, but people haven't agreed on that issue for thousands of years, and even in 1830 everybody still didn't agree with each other, and not even all church members agreed.

WHY everyone didn't agree is a separate issue, but the fact is that some people said this, and some other people said that, and some of the people who said some things were saying other people were saying things they didn't actually say, but nobody was confused. Each person had their own ideas, and their ideas simply weren't in agreement with everyone else's ideas.

[David T]

So Ahab, are you going to address my comments at all?

[MDalby]

If you are looking for irrefutable evidence that the traditional Christian non-biblical teaching of the trinity DOES IN FACT have credibility then I strongly suggest listening to this quick recording.

Trinitarian Doctrine

MD

[Ahab]

mistake - double post

[Ahab]

Ahab, as one who believes that there is a distinct personage who is the literal Father of Jesus Christ who is distinct from him, I still don't believe this explicit teaching was understood in the early years of the restoration.

My position is that it was understood by some, but not by all, and I believe there were sufficient clear teachings on this issue which would enable ANYONE to come to a correct knowledge, with God to help them.

And just to be clear, again, ALL that is needed to understand this issue is a knowledge of the fact that any Son can't be the Father of himself, because that's all it takes to recognize the Son and the Father as 2 distinct persons, and since we're not talking about imaginary persons, those persons would of course have to be real, or physical, rather than just something in someone's mind or heart with no real substance anywhere else.

It's not rocket science, folks. All real persons are physical persons, and a Son is not the same person as his Father.

The scriptures in those periods that define Sonship do so in a different way than was applied later on.

No they don't, or at least not all "scriptures" do, because the scriptures in the Bible and the Book of Mormon don't even try to define a Son as the same person as his Father, and those teachings in the Bible and Book of Mormon are clear enough that they aren't the same person.

[David T]

Ahab, do you have any plans to address the part of my post following that which actually quotes scripture, and discusses the issue at hand? Or are you just going to keep repeating yourself?

The Bible is not what is the topic of this discussion. The writings and teachings of the pre-1835 Restoration are.

Why is it that nobody who is posting here is even attempting to address the specified topic of the OP, and instead are focusing on straw men arguments that aren't relevant to the topic at hand?

[Ahab]

Ahab, do you have any plans to address the part of my post following that which actually quotes scripture, and discusses the issue at hand?

The issue at hand is whether or not there were any scriptures (or other statements) from our Church leaders in or before 1835 stating the Son and the Father were distinct and physical persons, and I've already commented on the fact that there were.

As evidence of that fact, I've pointed to scriptures in the Bible and the Book of Mormon and opened it up to ANY scripture which simply states that the Son is the Son of God, meaning the Son of the Father, since no Son can be the Son of himself, and I've also pointed out that in the case where we are NOT talking about imaginary persons, what we are talking about are REAL persons, with real persons being persons of some substance with physical properties.

That's now as far as I intend to go in this discussion, because I'm not in the mood to go more indepth than that at this moment.

Some people seem to have a hard enough time with very basic ideas, and I think going beyond that would be a waste of my time.

[David T]

The issue at hand is whether or not there were any scriptures (or other statements) from our Church leaders in or before 1835 stating the Son and the Father were distinct and physical persons, and I've already commented on the fact that there were.

As evidence of that fact, I've pointed to scriptures in the Bible and the Book of Mormon and opened it up to ANY scripture which simply states that the Son is the Son of God, meaning the Son of the Father, since no Son can be the Son of himself, and I've also pointed out that in the case where we are NOT talking about imaginary persons, what we are talking about are REAL persons, with real persons being persons of some substance with physical properties.

No, you made affirmations without evidence, didn't cite a single scripture or pre-1835 statement, saying that the only interpretation possible for the terms Father and Son were actual physical personages. I pointed out Mosiah 15 which gave a different perspective, and discussed that in detail, and included references. You intentionally ignored it.

That's now as far as I intend to go in this discussion, because I'm not in the mood to go more indepth than that at this moment. Some people seem to have a hard enough time with very basic ideas, and I think going beyond that would be a waste of my time.

So actually responding to specific points requested of you is a waste of your time, but constantly repeating your unsubstantiated declarations isn't. Gotcha.

[maupayman]

That's now as far as I intend to go in this discussion, because I'm not in the mood to go more indepth than that at this moment.

Some people seem to have a hard enough time with very basic ideas, and I think going beyond that would be a waste of my time.

God knows you've wasted enough of our time. Thanks Ahab

[David T]

God knows you've wasted enough of our time. Thanks Ahab

Do you have any feedback concerning my responses to the question?

[Lightbearer]

Do not know if this helps or if it is relevant to the discussion. But Joseph Smith did make the following statement:

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Section Six 1843-44, p.370)

"I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."

Now the question I have was the Prophet Joseph mistaken? Or had he and the Elders really declared this doctrine for 15 years?

[Honorentheos]

Do not know if this helps or if it is relevant to the discussion. But Joseph Smith did make the following statement:Now the question I have was the Prophet Joseph mistaken? Or had he and the Elders really declared this doctrine for 15 years?

Good question, Lightbearer. Especially since it seems in the same quote (beyond what you provided) he ties this doctrine to the papyrus purchased in 1835.

[maupayman]

Do you have any feedback concerning my responses to the question?

I agree with most of what you have said. I'm more skeptical than you, about the fact that it took him ten or more years to clearly teach that the Father and Son were distinct seperate beings, despite having suposedly seen them in person.

[maupayman]

Do not know if this helps or if it is relevant to the discussion. But Joseph Smith did make the following statement:Now the question I have was the Prophet Joseph mistaken? Or had he and the Elders really declared this doctrine for 15 years?

Right, this is kind of the point of this thread. To verify that he had in fact been teaching that in the early years of the church.

[Honorentheos]

Right, this is kind of the point of this thread. To verify that he had in fact been teaching that in the early years of the church.

As I noted above, maupayman, I think this same account contradicts itself when JS first says they have been teaching this since the beginning (15 years specifically) which would be in 1829, but also says -

"I learned it by translating the papyrus now in my house---I learned a test. concerning Abraham & he reasoned concerng. the God of Heaven-- in order to do that sd. he--suppose we have two facts that supposes that anotr. fact may exist two men on the earth--one wiser than the other-- wod. show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist-- intelligences exist one above anotr. that there is no end to it--if Abra. reasoned thus-- if J. C. was the Son of God & John discd. that God the Far. of J. C. had a far. you may suppose that he had a Far. also---where was ther ever a Son witht. a Far.---where ever did tree or any thing spring into existence witht. a progenitor-- & every thing comes in this way--Paul says that which is Earthyly is in likeness of that which is Heavenly-- hence if J. had a Far. can we not believe that he had a Fa.r also--I despise the idea of being scared to death--I want you all to pay particr. attent. J. sd. as the Far. wrought precisely in the same way as his Far. had done bef-- as the Far. had done bef--he laid down his life & took it up same as his Far. had done before--he did as he was sent to lay down his life & take it up again & was then committed unto him the keys &c I know it is good reasoning-- "

He learned it by translating the papyrus in his house, purchased in 1835. There is no evidence to support JS's claim that they taught this prior to then that I have seen, and the evidence of what they were teaching, including the BoM, contradicts this claim as well.

[DanGB]

Two teachings from our first two prophets seem to draw highlights to both of them. And they both deal with this very issue of "God's nature". And interstingly enough, they both seem to come from a period when each seemed to need the appearance or perception of seer and revelatory in front f the members. Or equally, one could argue that they made these claims at their height of confidence of being the only true living prophet. Intestingly enough, the claims of both, as to the nature of God as they declared, seem to be what we now as a Church want to dispute and distance ourselves from the most.

Joseph Smith gave his landmark KFD on the nature of God close to his death, and arguably at the pinnacle of his prophecy. He detailed a nature of continuing Gods and the ability for man to become God. Smilarly, Brigham Young introduced an equally controversial doctrine on the nature of God with his "Adam -God" declaration and speech. IMO, both released their detailed teachings of their understanding of God's nature, as controversial that each was at the time, and even now, in an attempt to show their divine nature and divine knowledge as an orator of God, to members of the church. The irony is that today, we as a Church do all that we can to distance ourselves from what these two prophets truly believed was divine knowledge of our God, and preached as such from the pulpit as doctrine for that time.

[Lightbearer]

As I noted above, maupayman, I think this same account contradicts itself when JS first says they have been teaching this since the beginning (15 years specifically) which would be in 1829, but also says -

He learned it by translating the papyrus in his house, purchased in 1835. There is no evidence to support JS's claim that they taught this prior to then that I have seen, and the evidence of what they were teaching, including the BoM, contradicts this claim as well.

He learned what? That the Father and the Son were separate individuals? That is not what the text says. It seems he is talking about God the Father, having a Father.

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith Section Six 1843-44, p.372-373)

"Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself--"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist--two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it."

So it is one thing to preach that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three individual personages, something that he should have learned in 1820 during the First Vision. It is quite another to teach that the Father had a Father also and that we are a race of Gods! Which is not something I believe he knew in 1820, or possibly even 1830. As has already been stated, the restoration is a process, and I am sure the Prophet did not have all revealed at once. I suppose I have no "proof" of that but I do believe the prophet when he said that he stated he preached that the Father and Son were separate beings for 15 years.

[Honorentheos]

He learned what? That the Father and the Son were separate individuals? That is not what the text says. It seems he is talking about God the Father, having a Father.

So it is one thing to preach that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three individual personages, something that he should have learned in 1820 during the First Vision. It is quite another to teach that the Father had a Father also and that we are a race of Gods! Which is not something I believe he knew in 1820, or possibly even 1830. As has already been stated, the restoration is a process, and I am sure the Prophet did not have all revealed at once. I suppose I have no "proof" of that but I do believe the prophet when he said that he stated he preached that the Father and Son were separate beings for 15 years.

That's fine. I would ask if you have sources to back this up? I have pointed out that the original 1830 BoM does not support your claim. And while the reprint in 1837 may have changed the most blatant examples such as 1 Nephi 13:40:

1830 edition - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... "

Current reading - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior ..."

...it still leaves us with a pretty vague, almost trinitarian view of the Godhead. Maybe it was difficult to make the claim of "manuscript errors" after having made corrections once before under that pretense?

[David T]

The belief seems to be that they became separate at the incarnation. But that time, it was understood still that the Father was a 'Personage of Spirit', and the Son a 'Personage of Tabernacle'. It does seem to me that it was believed that prior to the incarnation, however, that the Son was part of the Father's essential nature.

In other words, Joseph would have taught from the beginning that, from the New Testament period onward, they were indeed separate beings (albeit with a Shared Mind).

When Joseph had his first vision, he wouldn't necessarily have recognized two bodies of flesh and bone, but two personages appearing in glory. Easy to assume that one was a personage of spirit, and the other resurrected glorified tabernacle.

[thews]

That's fine. I would ask if you have sources to back this up? I have pointed out that the original 1830 BoM does not support your claim. And while the reprint in 1837 may have changed the most blatant examples such as 1 Nephi 13:40:

1830 edition - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... "

Current reading - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior ..."

...it still leaves us with a pretty vague, almost trinitarian view of the Godhead. Maybe it was difficult to make the claim of "manuscript errors" after having made corrections once before under that pretense?

This is a good point in identifying a changing theology. Joseph Smith, when translating the Book of Mormon claimed he couldn

[David T]

1830 edition - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... "

Current reading - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior ..."

Both versions are consistent with BofM and theology, when the terminology is understood. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus is presented as the incarnate Jehovah, the Eternal Father of heaven and earth, the God of the Old Testament. I understand the latter revision as an unnecessary (but useful for some) commentary/clarifier, emphasizing the Sonship attribute (as remained unchanged in Mosiah 15).

I personally prefer the 1830 edition without the additions (such as adding 'or, the waters of baptism' to an Isaiah passage talking about the seed of Judah).