Institute for Religious Research Study Guide Challenge

[Pahoran]

Your work is the answer to this CFR.

ERayR,

I don't think there's any danger that anyone will ever mistake me for a Rob Bowman fan. But that doesn't mean I can let him be treated unfairly.

Rob issued a CFR to the claim that he had ever asserted that he knew more about LDS doctrine than knowledgeable LDS believers. That is a reasonable request. To assert something is to rather overtly and explicitly say it; pointing to a whole body of work does not actually answer that CFR. If he has asserted something, then it should be possible to locate that assertion somewhere.

Now I will grant you that a great deal of his work seems to imply or assume that he is better-informed about Mormonism than Latter-day Saints are, such as when he takes it upon himself to tell us what our unique scriptures, or the statements of our leaders, mean. I have taken issue with this apparent hubris myself, but I have yet to see that he has ever asserted that he has such superior knowledge.

Is it possible that when you said he "asserted" superior knowledge, you might have been thinking in terms of what Mr Bowman appears to assume?

Regards,

Pahoran

[ERayR]

ERayR,

I don't think there's any danger that anyone will ever mistake me for a Rob Bowman fan. But that doesn't mean I can let him be treated unfairly.

Rob issued a CFR to the claim that he had ever asserted that he knew more about LDS doctrine than knowledgeable LDS believers. That is a reasonable request. To assert something is to rather overtly and explicitly say it; pointing to a whole body of work does not actually answer that CFR. If he has asserted something, then it should be possible to locate that assertion somewhere.

Now I will grant you that a great deal of his work seems to imply or assume that he is better-informed about Mormonism than Latter-day Saints are, such as when he takes it upon himself to tell us what our unique scriptures, or the statements of our leaders, mean. I have taken issue with this apparent hubris myself, but I have yet to see that he has ever asserted that he has such superior knowledge.

Is it possible that when you said he "asserted" superior knowledge, you might have been thinking in terms of what Mr Bowman appears to assume?

Regards,

Pahoran

Ok I will have to admit my statement was made on what he apears to assume.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Yet, your perception of a fair-minded and accurate description of LDS beliefs is frequently at odds with what those of us who are actually LDS would consider an accurate description of our LDS beliefs. Reasonably, this should give you pause to reconsider, but it doesn't.

I keep asking for examples, and I keep getting silly criticisms such as that my use of the word corporeal was a nefarious lie. Reasonably, this sort of response to my request for examples should embarrass the heck out of honest Mormons. Whether it does is hard to tell.

[mfbukowski]

No. As explained to you on numerous occasions, the criticism is that you are expressing your disagreement with LDS beliefs under the guise of attempting to fairly represent LDS beliefs. To avoid misrepresenting LDS beliefs necessitates stating their interpretations, and not your own, of the origins, historical significance, and original theological meanings of their sacred writings This is a cogent criticism. In critical analysis it is called pointing out straw men.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This is precisely the good news and the bad news. He misrepresents us, without a doubt- that is the bad news. The good news is that as long as he presents straw men, his criticisms are just foolish.

From what I have seen, he doesn't even understand what would be a cogent criticism from our point of view. He doesn't understand us well enough.

All he does is assert his own world view and then criticise us for not corresponidng to his world view.

[mfbukowski]

Wade,

You wrote:

I keep asking for examples, and I keep getting silly criticisms such as that my use of the word corporeal was a nefarious lie. Reasonably, this sort of response to my request for examples should embarrass the heck out of honest Mormons. Whether it does is hard to tell.

The entire point is that we would never use the word "corporeal". You are trying to explain our theology without using our unique vocabulary. That is the entire problem which it appears you will never understand.

The very use of the term is a distortion when applied to our theology.

But that's ok. Keep distorting. It makes your arguments vacuous.

Edited January 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Vance]

I keep asking for examples, and I keep getting silly criticisms such as that my use of the word corporeal was a nefarious lie. Reasonably, this sort of response to my request for examples should embarrass the heck out of honest Mormons. Whether it does is hard to tell.

LOL!!!

So you can't represent us correctly, are too arrogant to accept legitimate criticisms, and it is our fault.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Rob Bowman]

Here is a statement from a Mormon:

"Most Mormons would accept that the Holy Ghost is corporeal, but does not have a physical body."

So this way of articulating the idea is not some anti-Mormon attempt to deceive.

[mfbukowski]

Here is a statement from a Mormon:

"Most Mormons would accept that the Holy Ghost is corporeal, but does not have a physical body."

So this way of articulating the idea is not some anti-Mormon attempt to deceive.

Gosh this is difficult.

And what was this anonymous "Mormon" (? - who knows who he is?) trying to do? He was trying to explain the idea to NON-MORMONS

In other words he was "translating" into "Sectarian", a very peculiar language based on Greek and Latin philosophy.

But that's ok.

You will never figure it out. You do not speak our language and you can't learn it because your thought patterns are totally different.

Good. Keep it up.

Edited January 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

Gosh this is difficult.

And what was this anonymous "Mormon" (? - who knows who he is?) trying to do? He was trying to explain the idea to NON-MORMONS

In other words he was "translating" into "Sectarian", a very peculiar language based on Greek and Latin philosophy.

But that's ok.

You will never figure it out. You do not speak our language and you can't learn it because your thought patterns are totally different.

Good. Keep it up.

I give Mr. Bowman more credit than that. It is not that he can't learn it is that he won't.

[Rob Bowman]

By the way, for those who may not know, there are two individuals posting in this thread whose behavior over a very long time and numerous posts finally led me to choose to ignore them. They know who they are. So if I don't respond to those two, that's the reason.

[mfbukowski]

By the way, for those who may not know, there are two individuals posting in this thread whose behavior over a very long time and numerous posts finally led me to choose to ignore them. They know who they are. So if I don't respond to those two, that's the reason.

Guilty as charged. You all ought to try it. It's a pretty silly position if you ask me, it appears that you can't answer the questions presented.

I have been attacked on other boards- I think we know which one in particular- and I have found non-response a losing battle.

But to each his own.

But being a good social constructivist- the real issue really is the vocabulary used. Every word has its nuances, and the sectarian word "corporeal" does not equal "spirit body" any more that Zeitgeist equals "time spirit".

Really, they are technical terms. That's why people don't translate words like "Zeitgeist"

Edited January 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

Rob Bowman,

I am interested in the "so what" portion of your argument, in as much as it applies to the difference between current teachings on doctrine and ideas/doctrine expressed in the BOM. Lets say I happily concede to major differences on many points of doctrine as presented in the BOM and then the current church study material; so what next?

I also think your argument is a bit of a red herring as our guides do accurately reflect, at least for the most part, the current day doctrine of the church. Divergence between these teachings and the ideas expressed in the BOM does not seem to undermine that?

What am I missing here?

Could you please enlighten me as to the point of this criticism. I am currently very confused as to why so many members are trying to argue that your point is not correct. It seems very obvious to me.

Anyway, let me know the why this matters point.

Mike

Edited January 17, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Rob Bowman]

Bikemikey,

You wrote:

I am interested in the "so what" portion of your argument, in as much as it applies to the difference between current teachings on doctrine and ideas/doctrine expressed in the BOM. Lets say I happily concede to major differences on many points of doctrine as presented in the BOM and then the current church study material; so what next?

Well, there's a bigger picture here. If you read my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, you'll get that big picture. Briefly, the historical changes in Joseph Smith's teachings from the Book of Mormon in 1829 through his early revelations, the Lectures on Faith (which he oversaw), the Book of Abraham and changing versions of the First Vision, to his radically different teachings in the last several months of his life in 1844, exhibit a pattern of theological development or evolution in Joseph's doctrines. In 1829-1830 he was a monotheist, advocating something like the doctrine of the Trinity though not in a formally sound way; by 1844 he had become a polytheist, teaching that a plurality of Gods organized eternal matter into this and other words, that the head God had started out as a mortal man and progressed to Godhood under the guidance of his divine father, and that we could also progress and become exalted as Gods just as our God had done before us. This means, for example, that the conventional LDS claim that Joseph left the Sacred Grove in 1820 knowing that the Trinity was false and that the Father and the Son were two separate deities each possessing a body of flesh and bones is completely untenable. (By the way, Joseph Smith himself never claimed to have known that in 1820.) It means that Joseph's rather brazen claim in 1844 that for fifteen years he had always taught a plurality of Gods doctrine was flat-out false. The evidence, viewed historically, rather convincingly demonstrates that Joseph's theology changed because Joseph changed.

This evidence of theological development from monotheism to polytheism is just one slice of the pie of considerable evidence supporting the conclusion that Joseph Smith was the author of the LDS religion. To make the case complete we would need to look at a lot of other things: Joseph's handling of the Bible and his quirky and often embarrassingly wrong-headed pronouncements on the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible; the evidence that the Book of Mormon is heavily dependent on the KJV Bible (and not just in its extensive quotations from Isaiah); the smoking gun of the Joseph Smith papyri proving that Joseph's claim to translate ancient texts by divine inspiration was false; his track record in predictive prophetic statements; his substantive changes to older revelations in D&C, such as the addition of what is now D&C 27:5b-13 to D&C 27 to back-date an account of supposed visitations of resurrected persons to impart priesthood authority, inserted into the middle of a sentence (!) in a revelation about using water instead of wine in the sacrament (!); his deception and manipulation of his own family and church members in regard to polygamy; and on and on.

The trouble with threads like this one is that we typically focus on one tree in the forest and people don't see the big picture. To some extent that is inevitable.

[Deborah]

Briefly, the historical changes in Joseph Smith's teachings from the Book of Mormon in 1829 through his early revelations, the Lectures on Faith (which he oversaw), the Book of Abraham and changing versions of the First Vision, to his radically different teachings in the last several months of his life in 1844, exhibit a pattern of theological development or evolution in Joseph's doctrines.

Except it's presented in a way that doesn't express context or understanding of Joseph's own increased understanding as he received more revelation. It's not that he changed his mind, it's that he grew precept by precept.

[ERayR]

Except it's presented in a way that doesn't express context or understanding of Joseph's own increased understanding as he received more revelation. It's not that he changed his mind, it's that he grew precept by precept.

The problem is that Joseph Smith believed in continuing revelation and was not tied to dead creeds. That appears to me to be a problem for Mr Bowman. He just does not seem to understand line upon line.

[Bikeemikey]

Bikemikey,

You wrote:

Well, there's a bigger picture here. If you read my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, you'll get that big picture. Briefly, the historical changes in Joseph Smith's teachings from the Book of Mormon in 1829 through his early revelations, the Lectures on Faith (which he oversaw), the Book of Abraham and changing versions of the First Vision, to his radically different teachings in the last several months of his life in 1844, exhibit a pattern of theological development or evolution in Joseph's doctrines. In 1829-1830 he was a monotheist, advocating something like the doctrine of the Trinity though not in a formally sound way; by 1844 he had become a polytheist, teaching that a plurality of Gods organized eternal matter into this and other words, that the head God had started out as a mortal man and progressed to Godhood under the guidance of his divine father, and that we could also progress and become exalted as Gods just as our God had done before us. This means, for example, that the conventional LDS claim that Joseph left the Sacred Grove in 1820 knowing that the Trinity was false and that the Father and the Son were two separate deities each possessing a body of flesh and bones is completely untenable. (By the way, Joseph Smith himself never claimed to have known that in 1820.) It means that Joseph's rather brazen claim in 1844 that for fifteen years he had always taught a plurality of Gods doctrine was flat-out false. The evidence, viewed historically, rather convincingly demonstrates that Joseph's theology changed because Joseph changed.

This evidence of theological development from monotheism to polytheism is just one slice of the pie of considerable evidence supporting the conclusion that Joseph Smith was the author of the LDS religion. To make the case complete we would need to look at a lot of other things: Joseph's handling of the Bible and his quirky and often embarrassingly wrong-headed pronouncements on the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Bible; the evidence that the Book of Mormon is heavily dependent on the KJV Bible (and not just in its extensive quotations from Isaiah); the smoking gun of the Joseph Smith papyri proving that Joseph's claim to translate ancient texts by divine inspiration was false; his track record in predictive prophetic statements; his substantive changes to older revelations in D&C, such as the addition of what is now D&C 27:5b-13 to D&C 27 to back-date an account of supposed visitations of resurrected persons to impart priesthood authority, inserted into the middle of a sentence (!) in a revelation about using water instead of wine in the sacrament (!); his deception and manipulation of his own family and church members in regard to polygamy; and on and on.

The trouble with threads like this one is that we typically focus on one tree in the forest and people don't see the big picture. To some extent that is inevitable.

Hey there Rob,

I don't know you, obviously. I certainly have no history with you on the board. I am also certainly not in a position to be well researched enough to be able to comprehensively counter each of your claims. I am also aware that I am not in a position to present anything you have not heard before. In short I respect that it is highly improbable for me to change your conclusions on any or all of the points presented. I am also assuming what you have present is simply scratching the surface of the wealth of research you have no doubt accumulated over your time of study.

Just a quick recap to understand that I follow your argument correctly:

Joseph Smith changed is doctrinal perspectives on many things while proclaiming he was a prophet of God.

One of these things was his conception of God that moved from monotheistic to Polytheistic.

Joseph Smith later claimed to have always believed in a polytheistic theology.

The first vision evidence to the contrary calls into question the veracity of JS claims, as well as the accuracy/truth of the first vision itself.

Further evidence for the lack of credibility of JS we have the following:

Bad translations of the Greek and Hebrew.

The BOM being overly reliant on the KJ Bible.

The Book of Abraham and papyri issues

etc etc etc.

Many of the concerns that you have raised I have thought about a lot, many I have not. Many I will never be educated enough about to form a really informed opinion(the Abraham - papyri and Hebrew and Greek translation discussions for example).

I do know the complexity of historical research makes concrete claims about the state of the authors underlying beliefs/theological ideas difficult. That is why discussing religious text (all text where the author has left little explanation for that matter) so much fun.

Let assume for the sake of discussion that i agree that JS dramatically changed in views and ideas regarding the Godhead/trinity from the time of the first vision until his death. Lets also assume it went from Monotheistic to Polytheistic.

Let me start by addressing the first paragraph argument. I see nothing in Joseph Smith moving from a monotheistic to polytheistic concept of God over his time as a "prophet" that is in itself problematic. The impact this change has on the reliability of the first vision is really the only concern for me. JS changing theological understanding is itself not and issue. To this concern regarding the first vision I guess i only have a few thoughts.

1. Your claim that JS was originally a monotheist may be a straining at the boundaries of what source material can really confirm. He certainly was not advocating a plurality of Gods at the beginning, but the separation of the Godhead into three distinct beings is not absolutely contradicted by the source material we have available. Many Christians currently believe in the Godhead being made up by three distinct entities yet still claim to be Monotheist. Such an understanding would allow that JS never really became a polytheist until much later. As such the need to express the individuated nature of God the father and jesus christ seen in JS first vision may have not really been a relevant part of the experience during earlier recounting. The importance of emphasizing this idea may have escalated from JS when we was trying to emphasize the polytheistic nature of "God" beyond just the God, Jesus, Holy Ghost separation.

2. It is possible that Joseph Smith left the grove of trees having seen two beings and having no idea that it had actually been a literal physical separation he had witnessed. That is to say his monotheistic mindset did not fully understand the transformative impact of having been two distinct beings until later when his doctrinal and theological understanding started to catch up to his actual religious experience. This could explain his tendency to express more traditional monotheistic ideas and express the vision in more monotheistic fashion at the beginning of his ministry. JS later revelation may have been as much a result of earlier incorrect beliefs that God was specifically correcting. Joseph Smith was a very young boy when this was going on. The digesting of such an experience, including the flow on implications of specific components of the event may have taken years to sink in.

So, I can fully accept that JS was not aware of the present day conception of the Godhead when he left the Grove. Furthermore, I can fully accept that JS stating he had always taught the plurality of Gods is a hyperbolic tool, and therefore not true - but also not dishonest or deceitful. I can also accept that JS dramatically changed his conception of God between 1829 and 1844. I can also do all of this with out, in my mind, dramatically undermining the veracity of JS's claim to be a prophet and representing him as a fraud. You certainly have a very compelling case to erode confidence in the commonly held belief that JS knew the true nature of the trinity at the very moment of the first vision. However, debunking a popular LDS convention is well short of your intended goal. I personally dont feel that your argument really achieves its goal. I personally have a much greater awareness of the growth of JS personal theological awareness though.

On to the second paragraph and the additional evidences against the character and veracity of Joseph Smith.

I will agree that Joseph Smith had many weaknesses. Some of them include some potentially in accurate projections and predications about future events. As for some of the other points, the papyri for example. It seems to me like there is a lot of evidence to support you position that this is a smoking gun. However, there is enough doubt in the debate to allow me to "keep my faith". The other items are all subject to a specific reading of sources and subjective assessments of text. I personally don't feel that I can add anything you have not heard before on these issues so I wil not bore you with arguments you have already heard a hundred times.

A final personal note:

I personally find that I get much further in understanding the JS when I treat him as a boy/man first and prophet second. Whether the church is true or not the Doctrine and Covenants contains passages of doctrine and religious argument that are as good as any I have read (I have been through 5 years of university education on world religion and I have read a lot). That said, I was 14 once, I know the limits of the 14 year old mind, there is only so much you can really expect from a person. In general Christians are very lucky that they never have to meet the authors of the bible, they are also lucky that apart from the Bible it self the additional texts regarding the personal habits and weaknesses of the prophets are very limited. If JS was a prophet today we would have millions of hours of video and blogs and tweets and all sorts to figure how and why he sucked.

However, a prophet can have way more weaknesses than they have strengths. They can get all sorts of things wrong. They only need to be right at certain times; when they speak as the voice of the Lord.

Thanks so much for your insights. I really enjoyed thinking about the issues related to the growth from Monotheistic to polytheistic theology in JS life and the impact this must have on our understanding of the First Vision. Having a better picture of who JS was, and what JS believed, right after first vision is certainly important. I think the more we understand JS as a person that grew and developed, rather than perfect from the first vision onwards (or even perfect from much earlier in his life as some people think), the better we will be as a church.

Cheers!

Edited January 18, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

The problem is that Joseph Smith believed in continuing revelation and was not tied to dead creeds. That appears to me to be a problem for Mr Bowman. He just does not seem to understand line upon line.

I think Bowman's point is a lot deeper than the issue related to continuing revelation alone.

How comfortable are we as believing members to say that JS did not understand the Godhead right after the First Vision. Does it matter. Can we say that it seems Joseph Smith did not really understand that God the Father and Jesus had separate bodies until a few years later and still believe in the accuracy of the main account of the first vision as expressed today.

His questions merit thought, not because they can undermine the gospel or prove JS was a fraud... rather they can help us understand a little more about JS and his personal growth into the role of prophet.

[Rob Bowman]

Deborah,

You wrote:

Except it's presented in a way that doesn't express context or understanding of Joseph's own increased understanding as he received more revelation. It's not that he changed his mind, it's that he grew precept by precept.

Your statement here doesn't engage the evidence. I understand the idea of someone's understanding increasing over time. This isn't what happened. If it had, for starters, Joseph would have been frank about the process. He would not have lied in 1844 and said that he had taught plurality of God for fifteen years when in fact he had done no such thing.

The Book of Mormon is supposedly not Joseph's understanding or composition, reflecting his own theological position at the time, but an inspired translation that LDS apologists claim repeatedly was beyond his ken. If that were so, then we would expect its theology to be ahead of Joseph's, not right there beside it. In 1829-30, Joseph was a monotheist and the Book of Mormon was monotheistic. This is inexplicable if the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth and does not reflect Joseph's theological beliefs at the time of translation, given that by 1844 the Prophet was teaching polytheism instead of monotheism.

There are many problems with the comfortable-sounding explanation you gave, which I'm sure you were taught and assured was the correct explanation. I have just mentioned two such problems.

[Rob Bowman]

ERayR,

You wrote:

The problem is that Joseph Smith believed in continuing revelation and was not tied to dead creeds. That appears to me to be a problem for Mr Bowman. He just does not seem to understand line upon line.

See my reply to Deborah.

[Rob Bowman]

Bikeemikey,

I have given your post a "rep" point because it is one of the most candid, thoughtful, humble responses I have seen from a Mormon on this forum. Even though I disagree with you, I really appreciate the way you articulated your thoughts. I also think you're a smart guy and I wouldn't be surprised if I could learn some things from you, so please don't worry about presenting an argument you think I might have heard before. I never want to stop learning.

I'm going to respond to the substance of what you said in a separate post, but here I just want to say thanks.

[mfbukowski]

Well, there's a bigger picture here. If you read my Gospel Principles Scripture Study Guide, you'll get that big picture.

How many times have we heard that?

The site must be low on hits for this week.

[mfbukowski]

Except it's presented in a way that doesn't express context or understanding of Joseph's own increased understanding as he received more revelation. It's not that he changed his mind, it's that he grew precept by precept.

Another thing he will never understand.

[ERayR]

I think Bowman's point is a lot deeper than the issue related to continuing revelation alone.

How comfortable are we as believing members to say that JS did not understand the Godhead right after the First Vision. Does it matter. Can we say that it seems Joseph Smith did not really understand that God the Father and Jesus had separate bodies until a few years later and still believe in the accuracy of the main account of the first vision as expressed today.

His questions merit thought, not because they can undermine the gospel or prove JS was a fraud... rather they can help us understand a little more about JS and his personal growth into the role of prophet.

I don't know if Joseph Smith understood the Godhead when he died but I do know that after his first vision he understood they were seperate entities. He however unshackled himself and his folowers from the dead creeds that were binding them and instructed them to receive their own revelations.

[Rob Bowman]

Bikeemikey,

You did a nice job of summarizing the points I had made. Let's jump into your responses. You wrote:

Let assume for the sake of discussion that i agree that JS dramatically changed in views and ideas regarding the Godhead/trinity from the time of the first vision until his death. Lets also assume it went from Monotheistic to Polytheistic.

Let me start by addressing the first paragraph argument. I see nothing in Joseph Smith moving from a monotheistic to polytheistic concept of God over his time as a "prophet" that is in itself problematic.

In my reply to Deborah, I tried to explain why this seems very problematic in historical context. I gave two reasons. First, Joseph Smith lied in 1844 when he claimed he had been teaching plurality of Gods for fifteen years (i.e., since 1829 or 1830). You yourself acknowledge (see below) that Joseph "certainly was not advocating a plurality of Gods at the beginning." And that's correct. But Joseph claimed that he did. Your explanation for why you don't see this as a lie comes up further below and I'll try to cover it as I come to it. Second, Joseph's beliefs in 1829 should have had no significant influence on the theology of the Book of Mormon, if he was simply the inspired translator as he claimed. But the theology of the Book of Mormon is even more explicitly monotheistic than that of the Bible!

You wrote:

The impact this change has on the reliability of the first vision is really the only concern for me. JS changing theological understanding is itself not and issue. To this concern regarding the first vision I guess i only have a few thoughts.

I agree this is a very important question. I'm glad you're addressing it.

1. Your claim that JS was originally a monotheist may be a straining at the boundaries of what source material can really confirm. He certainly was not advocating a plurality of Gods at the beginning, but the separation of the Godhead into three distinct beings is not absolutely contradicted by the source material we have available. Many Christians currently believe in the Godhead being made up by three distinct entities yet still claim to be Monotheist. Such an understanding would allow that JS never really became a polytheist until much later. As such the need to express the individuated nature of God the father and jesus christ seen in JS first vision may have not really been a relevant part of the experience during earlier recounting. The importance of emphasizing this idea may have escalated from JS when we was trying to emphasize the polytheistic nature of "God" beyond just the God, Jesus, Holy Ghost separation.

This is very intelligently stated. In the Book of Mormon the distinction between the Father and the Son is so blurred (e.g., passages in which Jesus says "I am the Father and the Son") that serious and extremely knowledgeable scholars studying the Book of Mormon have concluded that it advocates something closer to modalism or monarchianism than Trinitarianism. LDS scholars disagree, of course. My own assessment is that Joseph Smith thought he was explaining the doctrine of the Trinity in the Book of Mormon. He has the Book of Mormon saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one God." This very language is also in one of the Witnesses statements and also in one of Joseph's early D&C revelations, showing that at the time Joseph's doctrine was the same as that found in the Book of Mormon. There are places in the Book of Mormon where the Son, or Christ, seems personally distinct from God. This ambiguity and (arguable) confusion is just what one would expect in an unsophisticated articulation of the Trinity. Nothing in the Book of Mormon supports the view that the Three are three separate beings, let along three Gods.

Now, as for the First Vision, the first record of such an event with the Father and the Son both appearing to Joseph was written in 1838. That's 18 years after it is supposed to have taken place. Between 1820 and 1838 we do not have a gap of no writings from Joseph; to the contrary, we have a steady stream of writings, a paper trail, from 1829 right through 1838. There is no mention of this event anywhere before 1838 except for a handwritten account from 1832 that was put away without anyone besides Joseph and his scribe ever seeing it and that never saw the light of day until 1965. The 1832 account doesn't mention the Father at all. That is, the problem is not that in 1832 Joseph failed to make a theologically sharp enough articulation of the Father-Son distinction or, say, an overtly polytheistic articulation, but that the Father is simply not there at all. This doesn't begin to make any sense if we accept anything like the conventional story told by one LDS Prophet after another for the past century that Joseph's seeing the Father and the Son as separate beings was enough to convince him when he left the Sacred Grove that the Trinity was false and that the two personages were in fact separate divine beings. In fact, Joseph never came up with that supposed significance of the story, not even in the 1838 account found in Pearl of Great Price. In 1838 Joseph had not yet become a polytheist, but he had come to clearly distinguish the Father and the Son as two separate personages (as seen in Lectures on Faith, produced 1834-35). That's why he sees them separately in the 1838 account. But the polytheistic interpretation of the First Vision is a later development originating decades after Joseph Smith died. This means that the canonical account in Joseph Smith-History is an artifact of Joseph's theological position in the late 1830s, after he had come to view the Father and the Son as two separate personages but before he had come to view them as two different Gods. It fits right in that chronological line of development.

There's more to be said, but let's move on to your next point.

2. It is possible that Joseph Smith left the grove of trees having seen two beings and having no idea that it had actually been a literal physical separation he had witnessed. That is to say his monotheistic mindset did not fully understand the transformative impact of having been two distinct beings until later when his doctrinal and theological understanding started to catch up to his actual religious experience. This could explain his tendency to express more traditional monotheistic ideas and express the vision in more monotheistic fashion at the beginning of his ministry. JS later revelation may have been as much a result of earlier incorrect beliefs that God was specifically correcting. Joseph Smith was a very young boy when this was going on. The digesting of such an experience, including the flow on implications of specific components of the event may have taken years to sink in.

That it happened at all seems to have taken years to sink in. Joseph seems to have said nothing about it to anyone before the mid-1830s except for that handwritten document that no one but his scribe saw, and the First Vision part was in Joseph's own handwriting. Joseph claims in the PGP account that he had told people about the First Vision shortly after it occurred and that he was the object of vicious persecution from people of all the sects. Yet no one seems to know anything about it throughout the 1820s and most of the 1830s. Joseph's supporters and enemies knew all about the angel and the gold plates, but nothing about the First Vision. The Book of Mormon prophetically refers to such incidents as the Anthon transcript affair and the testimony of the Three Witnesses but does not prophesy what the LDS Church claims is the second most important event in human history (second only to Christ's resurrection). Mormons don't even claim that the Bible prophesied about the First Vision. There was an incident in the early 1820s when someone shot a gun and the bullet whizzed by Joseph's head, but according to Joseph's mother they had no idea who shot at him or why -- a strange comment if Joseph had been the object of intense persecution over the First Vision at that very time, as Joseph claimed. I'm afraid the best explanation for these facts is that the event did not happen at all.

So, I can fully accept that JS was not aware of the present day conception of the Godhead when he left the Grove. Furthermore, I can fully accept that JS stating he had always taught the plurality of Gods is a hyperbolic tool, and therefore not true - but also not dishonest or deceitful.

Teachers are going to be held by God to a higher standard than others for what they say (James 3:1), and even more so must we hold people to a high standard for truthfulness who claim to be prophets of God. I don't wish to beat you down with facts, but the reality is that Joseph had a history of prevarication and deception, much of it clearly self-serving. It isn't just this one lie about teaching polytheism, although it is a particularly plain instance. Joseph lied to his own church about practicing polygamy. He even lied about it in scripture! (The false statement was later removed from D&C.) We all have an impressive ability to rationalize all sorts of things, but at some point hopefully we can look at something like this and see it for what it is.

I can also accept that JS dramatically changed his conception of God between 1829 and 1844. I can also do all of this with out, in my mind, dramatically undermining the veracity of JS's claim to be a prophet and representing him as a fraud. You certainly have a very compelling case to erode confidence in the commonly held belief that JS knew the true nature of the trinity at the very moment of the first vision. However, debunking a popular LDS convention is well short of your intended goal. I personally dont feel that your argument really achieves its goal. I personally have a much greater awareness of the growth of JS personal theological awareness though.

You appear to me to be grappling with the evidence, and that's great. I understand that we come at these things from different vantage points and I don't think less of you for having a different opinion. I would like you to be able to understand why I think the evidence shows that Joseph was not a prophet of God, but I'm grateful just that we can have a respectful discussion about the question.

I'm going to leave the remainder of your post for a subsequent response.

[wenglund]

I keep asking for examples, and I keep getting silly criticisms such as that my use of the word corporeal was a nefarious lie. Reasonably, this sort of response to my request for examples should embarrass the heck out of honest Mormons. Whether it does is hard to tell.

Strident language aside (I see now that in your post above you are not shy about claiming Joseph lied), are you still of the opinion that you haven't been given ample examples of where your presentation of LDS beliefs and doctrines differs from what we LDS generaly understand to be our beliefs and doctrines, and in that sense it is misrepresentative of our beliefs and doctrines? I am just trying to figure out just how myopic you may be to valid criticism.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 18, 2012 by wenglund