Teaching on the Nature of God

[robuchan]

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.

This is why I think this is an important issue. If there is no evidence of Joseph Smith or any of the early saints thinking anything differently on the trinity or nature of God than the Christian churches they had just left, then it really calls into question the validity of the 1838 First Vision account.

[David T]

This is why I think this is an important issue. If there is no evidence of Joseph Smith or any of the early saints thinking anything differently on the trinity or nature of God than the Christian churches they had just left, then it really calls into question the validity of the 1838 First Vision account.

I don't think so, for the reasons I stated above:

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 a resurrected flesh-and-bone tabernacle.

Either way, they were distinct personages of Glory, which the BoM (post incanration) allows for. What I don't believe is that the BoM posits separate physical personages prior to the incarnation.

[robuchan]

I don't think so, for the reasons I stated above:

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 a resurrected flesh-and-bone tabernacle.

Either way, they were distinct personages of Glory, which the BoM (post incanration) allows for. What I don't believe is that the BoM posits separate physical personages prior to the incarnation.

Yes, I understand your position. With a few twists we can make anything work out. I'm keeping tally of the twists. When the total twists reach 100 is when I officially call my testimony dead.

[David T]

Yes, I understand your position. With a few twists we can make anything work out. I'm keeping tally of the twists. When the total twists reach 100 is when I officially call my testimony dead.

Please explain what's being twisted, and by whom.

As should be clear from my posts, I don't believe all the scriptures need to be fully consistent. Not by far. I just don't think Joseph was trying to be misleading in any way in the '38 account.

[robuchan]

Please explain what's being twisted, and by whom.

As should be clear from my posts, I don't believe all the scriptures need to be fully consistent. Not by far. I just don't think Joseph was trying to be misleading in any way in the '38 account.

Sorry for being snarky, I know it doesn't carry the conversation forward in a positive manner. I've been involved with Mormon apologetics issues for 15 years or so. The first ten or so as a believer and last five or so as a non-believer. My characterization of the faithful view on nearly every difficult subject is that an answer can always be found, but it always entails a lot of twisting.

On this example: this is a list of steps that would satisfactorily answer the OP's question with each step requiring an additional twist to explain it logically: 1) modern LDS doctrine on trinity was found in the BOM 2) Joseph and others started preaching modern LDS doctrine immediately after the First Vision 3) Joseph introducing the modern LDS godhead doctrine early on in a nice, clean revelation that didn't include other doctrine since dumped by the LDS church (KFD) or has since been seriously called into question for authenticity (BoA).

I understand to you it seems crystal clear and logical. It doesn't to me. All the twisting is what ended up causing me to change my mind on the overall picture.

[maupayman]

The belief seems to be that they became separate at the incarnation.

CFR

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).

CFR before 1835

Either way, they were distinct personages of Glory, which the BoM (post incanration) allows for.

Allows for possibly, certainly doesn't clear up the matter very clearly. All these readings seem to require subjective reasoning, rather than being based on any clear teachings, such as were given later in D&C 130.

[David T]

Sorry for being snarky, I know it doesn't carry the conversation forward in a positive manner. I've been involved with Mormon apologetics issues for 15 years or so. The first ten or so as a believer and last five or so as a non-believer. My characterization of the faithful view on nearly every difficult subject is that an answer can always be found, but it always entails a lot of twisting.

On this example: this is a list of steps that would satisfactorily answer the OP's question with each step requiring an additional twist to explain it logically:

1) modern LDS doctrine on trinity was found in the BOM

I don't agree with that. In fact, I view the BoM as using 19th century trinitarian terminology to teach about and describe Christ, in a way that would be quite unfamiliar to most saints approaching it from a modern perspective, and with assumptions that are inaccurate based on modern understanding. and that such teaching were interpreted differently in 1830 than they are now.

2) Joseph and others started preaching modern LDS doctrine immediately after the First Vision

Absolutely not. What I stated as being Joseph's early understanding of the nature of God ( which I expanded on in other ways in the Moses 1 thread) is significantly different than later 1840s, and even 2010 understandings!

3) Joseph introducing the modern LDS godhead doctrine early on in a nice, clean revelation that didn't include other doctrine since dumped by the LDS church (KFD) or has since been seriously called into question for authenticity (BoA).

CFR that I ever made such a claim.

I understand to you it seems crystal clear and logical. It doesn't to me. All the twisting is what ended up causing me to change my mind on the overall picture.

My position is that early revelations were dictated by Joseph using language that included theological assumptions he made that were not based on revelation, which were later shown to be incorrect. I do not try to harmonize them with 2010 correlated teachings, because it is not necessary, in my mind, to do so. I see the need to find Divine Investiture in Moses 1 unnecessary, and foreign to what Joseph would have understood it when he wrote it.