A Different God?

[Rico]

Steve,

I came in rather late in this thread.  I don't know if you will revisit this discussion, but I think something truly important was not brought out even after 11 pages of discussion.  So, here it is:

Joseph Smith's First Vision is the foundation for most of Mormon theology about God.  This is where Mormons separate from traditional Christianity.  As Pres. Gordon Hinckley once affirmed:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/31188/Crown-of-gospel-is-upon-our-heads.html

The First Vision is where Mormons began to deviate from the Catholic doctrine about God.  I use the adjective Catholic to refer to the Church that held the first seven ecumenical councils to affirm authentic Christian doctrine against pseudo-Christian teachings.

There is however a severe problem with the First Vision account.  Joseph Smith published many different versions of the account with fundamentally contradictory details.  This has been investigated, criticized, and pointed out to the Mormon Church since the 1960s.  It was only in the 2010s that it has finally acknowledged the problem:

"First Vision Accounts"
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

The earliest known account of the vision is dated 1832, or two years after Joseph established his church, and 12 years since the alleged vision happened.  This is the only account written in his handwriting.  The document can be viewed here:

"Joseph Smith's First Vision"
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

In this document, Joseph Smith narrates about seeing only ONE personage whom he called "the Lord," not two personages as officially recorded in "Joseph Smith History" of the Pearl of Great Price.

This 1832 version of the vision is actually consistent with the Book of Mormon that he published just three years earlier in 1829.  The book affirms that God is only one.

Alma 11:27-34, 38-40

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.
32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word...
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Ether 3:14
14 I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.

In affirming that there is only God, the Book of Mormon confuses the Father and the Son as the same person.  This is further confirmed in Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible, aka, the "Inspired Version" (or JST, Joseph Smith translation):

Luke 10:23, JST
23 ...no man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.

So here are the facts:
1.  The 1832 version of the First Vision narrates only one personage, "the Lord".
2.  The Book of Mormon speaks only of one God where the Father is the same as the Son.
3.  The JST also confirms the there is only one God.

However, all of that changed in the 1840s.  In the Book of Abraham, we now read that "the Gods" created the entire universe from pre-existing matter.  And then there is the "King Follett Discourse" where Joseph taught many controversial teachings about God not supported by the Evangelical Protestant theology found in the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, it is rather disingenious to say that Catholic teaching on God is a departure from Biblical teaching.  The Catholic and Orthodox churches have stood firm in their Trinitarian dogma for more than a thousand years.  If the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and a "kingdom that cannot be moved" (Hebrews 12:28) then Catholic Trinatarian dogma fits the description.  It hasn't moved after it was established.

In contrast, Joseph Smith cannot even hold on to the the "restored truths" he claimed to have received.  He apostatised from his own beliefs about God without officially repudiating them.  All in less than 15 years.  "...Tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14) seems an accurate description of this theology.

Therefore, if Gordon Hinckley's Jesus turns out to be a "different God" than what the Catholic Church has always preached everywhere, it is not a defect in Trinitarian doctrine.  It is more a defect in Joseph Smith.

[Calm]

1996:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

[Calm]

1985:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1985/01/joseph-smiths-recitals-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

1986:

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/01/confirming-witnesses-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng

Edited April 15, 2016 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, Rico said:
2.  The Book of Mormon speaks only of one God where the Father is the same as the Son.
.

 

 

False:

http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-book-of-mormon-trinitarianism-or-modalism.pdf

 

[Steve Noel]

21 minutes ago, Rico said:

Steve,

I came in rather late in this thread.  I don't know if you will revisit this discussion, but I think something truly important was not brought out even after 11 pages of discussion.  So, here it is:

Joseph Smith's First Vision is the foundation for most of Mormon theology about God.  This is where Mormons separate from traditional Christianity.  As Pres. Gordon Hinckley once affirmed:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/31188/Crown-of-gospel-is-upon-our-heads.html

The First Vision is where Mormons began to deviate from the Catholic doctrine about God.  I use the adjective Catholic to refer to the Church that held the first seven ecumenical councils to affirm authentic Christian doctrine against pseudo-Christian teachings.

There is however a severe problem with the First Vision account.  Joseph Smith published many different versions of the account with fundamentally contradictory details.  This has been investigated, criticized, and pointed out to the Mormon Church since the 1960s.  It was only in the 2010s that it has finally acknowledged the problem:

"First Vision Accounts"
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

The earliest known account of the vision is dated 1832, or two years after Joseph established his church, and 12 years since the alleged vision happened.  This is the only account written in his handwriting.  The document can be viewed here:

"Joseph Smith's First Vision"
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

In this document, Joseph Smith narrates about seeing only ONE personage whom he called "the Lord," not two personages as officially recorded in "Joseph Smith History" of the Pearl of Great Price.

This 1832 version of the vision is actually consistent with the Book of Mormon that he published just three years earlier in 1829.  The book affirms that God is only one.

Alma 11:27-34, 38-40

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.
32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word...
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Ether 3:14
14 I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.

In affirming that there is only God, the Book of Mormon confuses the Father and the Son as the same person.  This is further confirmed in Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible, aka, the "Inspired Version" (or JST, Joseph Smith translation):

Luke 10:23, JST
23 ...no man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.

So here are the facts:
1.  The 1832 version of the First Vision narrates only one personage, "the Lord".
2.  The Book of Mormon speaks only of one God where the Father is the same as the Son.
3.  The JST also confirms the there is only one God.

However, all of that changed in the 1840s.  In the Book of Abraham, we now read that "the Gods" created the entire universe from pre-existing matter.  And then there is the "King Follett Discourse" where Joseph taught many controversial teachings about God not supported by the Evangelical Protestant theology found in the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, it is rather disingenious to say that Catholic teaching on God is a departure from Biblical teaching.  The Catholic and Orthodox churches have stood firm in their Trinitarian dogma for more than a thousand years.  If the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and a "kingdom that cannot be moved" (Hebrews 12:28) then Catholic Trinatarian dogma fits the description.  It hasn't moved after it was established.

In contrast, Joseph Smith cannot even hold on to the the "restored truths" he claimed to have received.  He apostatised from his own beliefs about God without officially repudiating them.  All in less than 15 years.  "...Tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14) seems an accurate description of this theology.

Therefore, if Gordon Hinckley's Jesus turns out to be a "different God" than what the Catholic Church has always preached everywhere, it is not a defect in Trinitarian doctrine.  It is more a defect in Joseph Smith.

Rico,

Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this. I appreciate your zeal. I think the discrepancies in the accounts of the First Vision are important. I am interested in what you think about the links Calm has posted above. I am too tired to read the articles tonight, but I glanced at them. They appear to be Ensign articles from the 80's and 90's which discuss the various accounts of the First Vision. Based on this evidence would you grant that you are incorrect in stating that they did not acknowledge the discrepancies until 2010 or later?

[Rico]

Steve,

If I recall it right, it was from a J. Reuben Clark book in the 1960s where I first read a General Authority address the inconsistencies.  I cannot find the book title, not even in Deseret Book's site.  But correlated Church material has not acknowledged that work, so many Mormons are still in the dark about the problem.  Even the recent Gospel Essays are not advertised so I would suspect that many Mormons are still unaware.

I never made the argument that it was only recent that the LDS Church acknowleged the problem.  So I am not incorrect in something I never argued about.

Trinitarian dogma cannot be blamed for why Mormons ended up having a different God.  That is my argument.

I will not deny that when Mormons pray, that the God of the Catholics hear them.  But when I pray, I am not praying to the God of Joseph Smith whose confusion is evident in his changeable and elastic beliefs.  Pres. Hinckley affirms that his God is not the same as mine.  I most certainly agree with him.

Those are the plain facts....:-)

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

31 minutes ago, Rico said:

Steve,

If I recall it right, it was from a J. Reuben Clark book in the 1960s where I first read a General Authority address the inconsistencies.  I cannot find the book title, not even in Deseret Book's site.  But correlated Church material has not acknowledged that work, so many Mormons are still in the dark about the problem.  Even the recent Gospel Essays are not advertised so I would suspect that many Mormons are still unaware.

I never made the argument that it was only recent that the LDS Church acknowleged the problem.  So I am not incorrect in something I never argued about.

Trinitarian dogma cannot be blamed for why Mormons ended up having a different God.  That is my argument.

I will not deny that when Mormons pray, that the God of the Catholics hear them.  But when I pray, I am not praying to the God of Joseph Smith whose confusion is evident in his changeable and elastic beliefs.  Pres. Hinckley affirms that his God is not the same as mine.  I most certainly agree with him.

Those are the plain facts....:-)

 

 

 

There is no such thing as "plain facts" there are only interpretations.  That is an incredibly naive view.

Please research the other zillion threads on this topic before you think you have invented this new thing that goes around called the "wheel".

Your post is on a par with this stuff

http://philipcoppens.com/fatima.html

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/fatima.htm

Edited April 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rico said:

Steve,

I came in rather late in this thread.  I don't know if you will revisit this discussion, but I think something truly important was not brought out even after 11 pages of discussion.  So, here it is:

Joseph Smith's First Vision is the foundation for most of Mormon theology about God.  This is where Mormons separate from traditional Christianity.  As Pres. Gordon Hinckley once affirmed:

In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints "do not believe in the traditional Christ. No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.

http://www.ldschurchnewsarchive.com/articles/31188/Crown-of-gospel-is-upon-our-heads.html

The First Vision is where Mormons began to deviate from the Catholic doctrine about God.  I use the adjective Catholic to refer to the Church that held the first seven ecumenical councils to affirm authentic Christian doctrine against pseudo-Christian teachings.

There is however a severe problem with the First Vision account.  Joseph Smith published many different versions of the account with fundamentally contradictory details.  This has been investigated, criticized, and pointed out to the Mormon Church since the 1960s.  It was only in the 2010s that it has finally acknowledged the problem:

"First Vision Accounts"
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

The earliest known account of the vision is dated 1832, or two years after Joseph established his church, and 12 years since the alleged vision happened.  This is the only account written in his handwriting.  The document can be viewed here:

"Joseph Smith's First Vision"
https://www.lds.org/topics/first-vision-accounts?lang=eng

In this document, Joseph Smith narrates about seeing only ONE personage whom he called "the Lord," not two personages as officially recorded in "Joseph Smith History" of the Pearl of Great Price.

This 1832 version of the vision is actually consistent with the Book of Mormon that he published just three years earlier in 1829.  The book affirms that God is only one.

Alma 11:27-34, 38-40

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.
28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?
29 And he answered, No.
30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?
31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.
32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.
34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word...
38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?
39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;
40 And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Ether 3:14
14 I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.

In affirming that there is only God, the Book of Mormon confuses the Father and the Son as the same person.  This is further confirmed in Joseph Smith's revision of the Bible, aka, the "Inspired Version" (or JST, Joseph Smith translation):

Luke 10:23, JST
23 ...no man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.

So here are the facts:
1.  The 1832 version of the First Vision narrates only one personage, "the Lord".
2.  The Book of Mormon speaks only of one God where the Father is the same as the Son.
3.  The JST also confirms the there is only one God.

However, all of that changed in the 1840s.  In the Book of Abraham, we now read that "the Gods" created the entire universe from pre-existing matter.  And then there is the "King Follett Discourse" where Joseph taught many controversial teachings about God not supported by the Evangelical Protestant theology found in the Book of Mormon.

Therefore, it is rather disingenious to say that Catholic teaching on God is a departure from Biblical teaching.  The Catholic and Orthodox churches have stood firm in their Trinitarian dogma for more than a thousand years.  If the Church is the "pillar and ground of truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and a "kingdom that cannot be moved" (Hebrews 12:28) then Catholic Trinatarian dogma fits the description.  It hasn't moved after it was established.

In contrast, Joseph Smith cannot even hold on to the the "restored truths" he claimed to have received.  He apostatised from his own beliefs about God without officially repudiating them.  All in less than 15 years.  "...Tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Ephesians 4:14) seems an accurate description of this theology.

Therefore, if Gordon Hinckley's Jesus turns out to be a "different God" than what the Catholic Church has always preached everywhere, it is not a defect in Trinitarian doctrine.  It is more a defect in Joseph Smith.

And shall we examine changes in Catholic doctrine and the mass?

From Augustine through Aquinas down to the present day?  Limbo?  The manufacturing of transubstantiation? Bleeding hosts?  The stigmata?

The present alleged apostasy of Francis?

There are a hundred ways to interpret anything.

[Rico]

Steve,

Let me correct myself:  It wasn't a 1960s J. Reuben Clark book, but Milton V. Backman’s "Joseph Smith’s First Vision" (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).  It wasn't my book, so I could not recall it with clarity.  Most of the LDS books I read in the 80s were published in the 60s.  Having said that, I have been aware through that book of the First Vision versions many years before the Gospel Essays were published.

However, the "First Vision Accounts" Gospel Essay that addressed the problem was specifically written to answer the many criticisms that have already piled up since the internet was invented.  The pre-internet Ensign articles that Calm posted were not really intended to answer critics, but deepen the faith of members.  However, there is the 2001 Barry Bickmore article that deals with the problem.  I don't see him refuting anything at all in my first post.

The historical context shows that in writing the 1832 version, Joseph Smith was still fresh from producing the Book of Mormon and the JST Bible.  Thus, it was only natural to expect him to write seeing only "the Lord" and no other God beside him.  The idea of God as "one God" is affirmed.  There is no hint at all there were two or three Gods.  That change would come later in another version of the vision after Joseph had already changed his belief.  Thus, if Joseph believed in a radical plurality of Gods as early as this time period, let Calm produce the argument from Barry Bickmore.

I should add that many of the current beliefs taught by LDS Church cannot be found in the Book of Mormon.  Doctrines about the Pre-existence, three degrees of glory, eternal progression, etc. are not found there.  From the time he established the Church in 1830 up to the writing of the 1832 First Vision account, no Mormon knew of these doctrines.  But everyone believed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, so correct that it can bring a man closer to God than the Bible.  If that claim were true, then what the book taught about God should be true.  So why did Joseph Smith apostatise from his belief in "one God"?  Let calm produce the explanation from Barry Bickmore.

[Rico]

Mfbukowski,

You: "There is no such thing as "plain facts" there are only interpretations."
Me: Is that assertion self-evident?  I don't think so.  Please provide evidence.

You:  And shall we examine changes in Catholic doctrine and the mass?
Me:  Is this discussion about the Catholic Mass or about Mormonism's "Different God"?

You: From Augustine through Aquinas down to the present day?  Limbo?  The manufacturing of transubstantiation? Bleeding hosts?  The stigmata?
Me: Are you trying to hijack the thread?

You: The present alleged apostasy of Francis?
Me: Mormonism's different God resulted from Joseph Smith's apostasy from his own initial belief about the "one God".  If you think my interpretation of the facts is wrong, then don't hijack the discussion.  Refute the evidence.

You: There are a hundred ways to interpret anything.
Me:  There is only One God.  I don't blame you that you ended up following a confused prophet.

[Steve Noel]

3 hours ago, Rico said:

Steve,

Let me correct myself:  It wasn't a 1960s J. Reuben Clark book, but Milton V. Backman’s "Joseph Smith’s First Vision" (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).  It wasn't my book, so I could not recall it with clarity.  Most of the LDS books I read in the 80s were published in the 60s.  Having said that, I have been aware through that book of the First Vision versions many years before the Gospel Essays were published.

However, the "First Vision Accounts" Gospel Essay that addressed the problem was specifically written to answer the many criticisms that have already piled up since the internet was invented.  The pre-internet Ensign articles that Calm posted were not really intended to answer critics, but deepen the faith of members.  However, there is the 2001 Barry Bickmore article that deals with the problem.  I don't see him refuting anything at all in my first post.

The historical context shows that in writing the 1832 version, Joseph Smith was still fresh from producing the Book of Mormon and the JST Bible.  Thus, it was only natural to expect him to write seeing only "the Lord" and no other God beside him.  The idea of God as "one God" is affirmed.  There is no hint at all there were two or three Gods.  That change would come later in another version of the vision after Joseph had already changed his belief.  Thus, if Joseph believed in a radical plurality of Gods as early as this time period, let Calm produce the argument from Barry Bickmore.

I should add that many of the current beliefs taught by LDS Church cannot be found in the Book of Mormon.  Doctrines about the Pre-existence, three degrees of glory, eternal progression, etc. are not found there.  From the time he established the Church in 1830 up to the writing of the 1832 First Vision account, no Mormon knew of these doctrines.  But everyone believed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, so correct that it can bring a man closer to God than the Bible.  If that claim were true, then what the book taught about God should be true.  So why did Joseph Smith apostatise from his belief in "one God"?  Let calm produce the explanation from Barry Bickmore.

Thank you for digging into this a little further. You write:

Quote

I never made the argument that it was only recent that the LDS Church acknowleged the problem

But this is what you wrote in your first post:

Quote

 It was only in the 2010s that it has finally acknowledged the problem

I understand that this was not your primary point. I also am not arguing against your viewpoint here. You make some good arguments. I'm glad you've offered them. That being said, I would encourage you to approach this subject with more humility. You lose credibility when you cannot receive correction on this minor matter. 

[Kevin Christensen]

The April 1970 Improvement Era, a predecessor of the Ensign, as well as earlier essays in BYU Studies discussed the various First Vision accounts. And published them in 1969.

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/exploring-first-vision/1-earliest-documented-accounts-joseph-smith-s-first-vision

I bought my copy of The First Vision by Bachman at the Deseret Book kitty-corner from Temple Square.

James Allen pointed out something in that early Improvement Era essay that seldom gets discussed in these cut-and-paste approaches to the First Vision.  That is that in the ms, the "The ^Lord opened the heavens to me and I saw the Lord."  In the manuscript, the first instance of Lord is an insert above the line.  If the first instance had been God or the Father, we'd have no controversy.  More recently, in a 2006 FAIR Conference, Matthew Brown made this relevant observation, that also never gets discussed by the cut-and-pasters:

Quote

As you can tell by now, JS 1832 is no ordinary text. Even though it is relatively short in length, it is deliberately assembled and tightly structured, which more than anything explains why certain details of the First Vision story were left out of it.

This brings us to the most frequent anti-Mormon criticism about JS 1832. God the Father is obviously not mentioned as making an appearance to Joseph Smith in this First Vision account. I would like to suggest, however, that all this time we as Latter-day Saints have not recognized that God the Father’s appearance is, in fact, referred to right in this document. This has occurred, I believe, because we have been looking in the wrong place.

In the introductory remarks of JS 1832 Joseph Smith outlined precisely how he was about to proceed in the narration of his history. He mentioned that the very first incident associated with his “marvelous experience” in the Restoration was that he received “the testimony from on high.” Because of the formatting of the introductory paragraph and the structure of the text which follows it, it can be concluded with a marked degree of certainty that this testimony was connected with the First Vision. The question to ask, then, is, What was the “testimony from on high” that Joseph Smith received during the First Vision? This question is easily answered by referring to another First Vision recital given by the Prophet in November 1835. There he states that one of the two personages who appeared unto him testified that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. In JS 1838 (which is the First Vision narrative now published in the Pearl of Great Price) we learn that one of the personages testified to Joseph using the following words, “This is my beloved Son.” We may comfortably conclude from this documentary evidence that the “testimony from on high” of JS 1832 is equivalent to the phrase spoken by God the Father in JS 1838. Therefore, we may safely say that when Joseph Smith wrote the 1832 account of the First Vision the appearance of God the Father was definitely in his mind—because he obliquely refers to it. It seems that he did not make an explicit mention of this part of the story simply because he had chosen to use the apostle Paul’s experience as the main framework for that portion of his narrative—and Paul only saw Jesus Christ.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2006-fair-conference/2006-revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories

And I recently discussed most of the Book of Mormon passages that Rico cited here in the "Texts and Contexts" section of my response to Runnells:

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/eye-of-the-beholder-law-of-the-harvest-observations-on-the-inevitable-consequences-of-the-different-investigative-approaches-of-jeremy-runnells-and-jeff-lindsay/#more-5242

There I cite many other relevant studies.

It helps one's case to do one's homework, or at least, to be willing to ask questions rather than assume without doing do that believing LDS have never given the issues any careful consideration.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Kevin Christensen

[consiglieri]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And shall we examine changes in Catholic doctrine and the mass?

 

 

Why should we examine changes in Catholic doctrine as justification for changes in Mormon doctrine?

 

It seems relatively clear that Joseph Smith's view of God and the Godhead evolved over his 15-year career (which I measure from 1829 with the Book of Mormon to 1844 with his death).

 

It also seems relatively clear that Joseph Smith's revelations, including the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, tend to reflect his evolving idea of God and the Godhead.

 

Do you disagree?

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Why should we examine changes in Catholic doctrine as justification for changes in Mormon doctrine?

 

It seems relatively clear that Joseph Smith's view of God and the Godhead evolved over his 15-year career (which I measure from 1829 with the Book of Mormon to 1844 with his death).

 

It also seems relatively clear that Joseph Smith's revelations, including the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, tend to reflect his evolving idea of God and the Godhead.

 

Do you disagree?

I agree.

I would see it as a huge red flag if it hadn't evolved.

[Kevin Christensen]

33 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

SNIP

It seems relatively clear that Joseph Smith's view of God and the Godhead evolved over his 15-year career (which I measure from 1829 with the Book of Mormon to 1844 with his death).

It also seems relatively clear that Joseph Smith's revelations, including the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, tend to reflect his evolving idea of God and the Godhead.

Do you disagree?

Joseph Smith seems to:

Quote

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 that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.^[2]

Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, Illinois, 16 June 1844

See http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12.

The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God:
Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths
Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen

I've read many of the essays cited in their footnote three which concludes "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts."   Before reading their essay, and the unabridged version, I had been impressed by some of those arguments, such as Boyd Kirtland's oft reprinted essay.  However, after reading Bruening and Paulsen's essay, and other relevant things by Margaret Barker and Brant Gardner and Matthew Brown and such, I've begun to take Joseph Smith's 1844 comment very seriously indeed.  Careful contextualization makes a difference in the short list of favorite proof texts. As N. R. Hanson observed, "All data is theory-laden", and as Jesus observes, the same seed can produce vastly different yields based on context and nurture.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Rico said:

You: There are a hundred ways to interpret anything.
Me:  There is only One God.  I don't blame you that you ended up following a confused prophet.

I agree there is only one God. But there are millions of different voices clamoring and claiming to speak for God. It's not so cut and dried.

[consiglieri]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.

I would see it as a huge red flag if it hadn't evolved.

I agree with you.  Joseph Smith's view of pretty much everything evolved over time.

And that is a good thing, I think--not to be so bound in by your previous beliefs as to reject new truth when it comes along; even when the new truth overturns and contradicts things you formerly believed.

This is an issue many face.  The crisis comes when we have to make the decision--Do we accept the new truth we have received?  Or do we reject the new truth in order to cling to the old truth with which we have grown familiar and comfortable?

Joseph Smith's example leads me to think he did the former, and not the latter.

Which I believe is a good example.

What I see going on in the current LDS Church, however, smacks more of the latter to my mind.

[halconero]

Paul was much the same way. If you start with his earliest authentic letter (i.e. put aside 1-2 Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, Ephesians for the moment. Scholars doubt he wrote these ones directly), which is 1 Thessalonians and work your way through to 2nd Corinthians and Romans you see some major changes in Paul's view on the Eschaton (2nd Coming), Resurrection, and the relevance of Mysteries (in the Greek sense, i.e. rites, rituals, and knowledge of a sacred/secretive, initiated, nature).

[consiglieri]

44 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Joseph Smith seems to:

See http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12.

The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God:
Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths
Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen

I've read many of the essays cited in their footnote three which concludes "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts."   Before reading their essay, and the unabridged version, I had been impressed by some of those arguments, such as Boyd Kirtland's oft reprinted essay.  However, after reading Bruening and Paulsen's essay, and other relevant things by Margaret Barker and Brant Gardner and Matthew Brown and such, I've begun to take Joseph Smith's 1844 comment very seriously indeed.  Careful contextualization makes a difference in the short list of favorite proof texts. As N. R. Hanson observed, "All data is theory-laden", and as Jesus observes, the same seed can produce vastly different yields based on context and nurture.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

I appreciate your insights, Kevin.  I think I have mentioned it before, but I will always consider myself indebted to you for the insights you brought into my life with your paper regarding paradigms and introducing me to the writings of Margaret Barker. 

That said, I have to question Joseph Smith's statement made in his last recorded sermon from which you quote the following:
 

Quote

 

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 that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.

 

Here I think Joseph Smith is projecting his current thought (as of 1844) all the way back to 1829.

Although Joseph Smith claims he has always taught this, the historical record does not support that claim.

For instance, Joseph claims he has always taught that "these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."

And yet, the Lectures on Faith, given in 1834-35 and published with the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, states the following regarding the number of personages in the Godhead:

Quote

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son:

 

http://www.lecturesonfaith.com/5/

In the same lecture, the Holy Ghost is not described as "a distinct personage and a Spirit," as Joseph Smith claims in 1844 he and the Elders have "always declared."

Rather, the Holy Ghost is clearly not a personage, as there are only "two personages" in the Godhead described there, "the Father and the Son."

The Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) is instead the "mind of the Father" which is shared by the Son:

 

Quote

And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one:

 

This is one reason I tend to think Joseph was not being entirely accurate when stating in 1844 he had always taught "that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."

The Lectures on Faith also teach the Father has a body of spirit, as contrasted with the Son, who has a body of flesh and bone.

Quote

They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man,

Clearly Joseph's view of the nature of God's body evolved between 1835 and 1843 when D&C 130:22 was received, which teaches that the "Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit."

So I am left to conclude that, in spite of what Joseph Smith said in 1844, the historical record demonstrates that his views of God were indeed evolving over time.

And that his accounts of the First Vision tend to mirror that evolution of Joseph's views.

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by consiglieri

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Why should we examine changes in Catholic doctrine as justification for changes in Mormon doctrine?

 

It seems relatively clear that Joseph Smith's view of God and the Godhead evolved over his 15-year career (which I measure from 1829 with the Book of Mormon to 1844 with his death).

 

It also seems relatively clear that Joseph Smith's revelations, including the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, tend to reflect his evolving idea of God and the Godhead.

 

Do you disagree?

No

My point was that all beliefs evolve, so this should not be surprising or of consequence. 

God reveals himself line by line, precept by precept as our understanding grows

Edited April 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[consiglieri]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No

My point was that all beliefs evolve, so this should not be surprising or of consequence. 

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you believe the current belief of the LDS Church regarding the nature of God and the Godhead should continue to evolve?

If not, why not?

[cdowis]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I appreciate your insights, Kevin.  I think I have mentioned it before, but I will always consider myself indebted to you for the insights you brought into my life with your paper regarding paradigms and introducing me to the writings of Margaret Barker. 

That said, I have to question Joseph Smith's statement made in his last recorded sermon from which you quote the following:
 

Here I think Joseph Smith is projecting his current thought (as of 1844) all the way back to 1829.

Although Joseph Smith claims he has always taught this, the historical record does not support that claim.

For instance, Joseph claims he has always taught that "these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."

And yet, the Lectures on Faith, given in 1834-35 and published with the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, states the following regarding the number of personages in the Godhead:

 

http://www.lecturesonfaith.com/5/

In the same lecture, the Holy Ghost is not described as "a distinct personage and a Spirit," as Joseph Smith claims in 1844 he and the Elders have "always declared."

Rather, the Holy Ghost is clearly not a personage, as there are only "two personages" in the Godhead described there, "the Father and the Son."

The Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit) is instead the "mind of the Father" which is shared by the Son:

 

 

This is one reason I tend to think Joseph was not being entirely accurate when stating in 1844 he had always taught "that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."

The Lectures on Faith also teach the Father has a body of spirit, as contrasted with the Son, who has a body of flesh and bone.

There is evidence that he was not the author of the Lectures on Faith, and, like the statement on marriage of which he was also not the author, was removed from the D&C.

Clearly Joseph's view of the nature of God's body evolved between 1835 and 1843 when D&C 130:22 was received, which teaches that the "Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit."

So I am left to conclude that, in spite of what Joseph Smith said in 1844, the historical record demonstrates that his views of God were indeed evolving over time.

And that his accounts of the First Vision tend to mirror that evolution of Joseph's views.

Outside the Lectures on Faith, which is questionable regarding the authorship, there is no compelling evidence that he held the traditional view of God. The BOM text has been misinterpreted to  support your view.  I have concluded that he clearly has always taught the correct view of God.  He had first hand knowledge of the nature of God.  

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.  It simply comes down to whether he was a prophet, and had the First Vision.  It always comes down to that, doesn't it.

 

 

 

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, cdowis said:

 

The question of whether Joseph Smith authored or approved of the Lectures on Faith is a manufactured dispute--and it is manufactured precisely because of the parts of Lecture 5 that I quoted above.

How can you reasonably say that Joseph Smith did not approve of the Lectures on Faith when they were included in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835, and remained in the Doctrine and Covenants through the rest of Joseph Smith's lifetime--without one word of disapprobation of their inclusion by Joseph Smith?

It is a hard argument to make.

But some still try.

And the reason they try is because they want to distance Joseph Smith's evolving views of God and the Godhead from Lecture 5.

In other words, the dispute occurs precisely because some people do not want to see Joseph Smith's views on God and the Godhead as evolving.

It's that simple, really.

[RevTestament]

8 hours ago, Rico said:

Steve,

Let me correct myself:  It wasn't a 1960s J. Reuben Clark book, but Milton V. Backman’s "Joseph Smith’s First Vision" (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980).  It wasn't my book, so I could not recall it with clarity.  Most of the LDS books I read in the 80s were published in the 60s.  Having said that, I have been aware through that book of the First Vision versions many years before the Gospel Essays were published.

However, the "First Vision Accounts" Gospel Essay that addressed the problem was specifically written to answer the many criticisms that have already piled up since the internet was invented.  The pre-internet Ensign articles that Calm posted were not really intended to answer critics, but deepen the faith of members.  However, there is the 2001 Barry Bickmore article that deals with the problem.  I don't see him refuting anything at all in my first post.

The historical context shows that in writing the 1832 version, Joseph Smith was still fresh from producing the Book of Mormon and the JST Bible.  Thus, it was only natural to expect him to write seeing only "the Lord" and no other God beside him.  The idea of God as "one God" is affirmed.  There is no hint at all there were two or three Gods.  That change would come later in another version of the vision after Joseph had already changed his belief.  Thus, if Joseph believed in a radical plurality of Gods as early as this time period, let Calm produce the argument from Barry Bickmore.

This is certainly one of the "sticking points" of critics. However, I would point out that every time Paul tells of his vision of Christ appearing to him in Acts, it is different, and even seemingly conflicting. It is well known in the law that every time a witness tells a story different facts come out. Thus, usually lawyers have witnesses rehearse a story several times - and often this is when it is supposedly fresh. 

I personally believe JS was somewhat reticent at first to reveal this vision to strangers due to the reaction the story got, so did not reveal the part about his vision of the Father. He probably also worried about what he was allowed to reveal, as by this time he had been corrected several times for not following commands. We are also often relying on second-hand accounts of what JS said - ie what the witnesses remember him saying vs what he actually said. When JS writes of the account it seems more details come out. Again when critics say "well you would expect that he would remember this or that" it is usually concerning one of these second-hand accounts in which JS may have had motives for omitting some of the facts depending on the demeanor of the listener, etc. If someone is expressing doubt would I tell him the whole thing which I hold sacred, only to perhaps find him damaging himself by mocking God? Critics rarely regard such possible motives. They expect perfection and 20/20 hindsight or they cast their stones. I doubt JS considered the ramifications of not telling the exact same version every time.

I also note that at least as of late there seems a "trend" in the church to say the Father was there in person. I note that JS called it a vision. When Stephen had his vision I don't believe anyone else saw the Father. When Paul saw his vision I don't believe anyone else saw Jesus. So I disagree with this trend. I am quite content to believe that Joseph Smith had a vision in his mind, and that the Father was not physically present. It seems to me that some want to present this vision as proof that the Father has a physical body, and this has brought about this trend.

Quote

I should add that many of the current beliefs taught by LDS Church cannot be found in the Book of Mormon.  Doctrines about the Pre-existence, three degrees of glory, eternal progression, etc. are not found there.  From the time he established the Church in 1830 up to the writing of the 1832 First Vision account, no Mormon knew of these doctrines.  But everyone believed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, so correct that it can bring a man closer to God than the Bible.  If that claim were true, then what the book taught about God should be true.  So why did Joseph Smith apostatise from his belief in "one God"? 

It seems true that many of the "restored doctrines" of the Church are actually from the Bible rather than the BoM - this of course does not render the BoM untrue. As I see the BoM, it is actually supposed to help us interpret the Bible in other ways. Did JS apostatize from the BoM? 

I believe what you are referring to is the teaching of the BoM that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one "God." I believe the issue comes down to the English translations or interpretations of several Hebrew words, El, Elim, Eloah, and Elohim, into "God" or "gods" at various times. El essentially means "the power." Elim is its plural and is rarely used. Eloah is usually used in the Torah with reference to being the stone of Israel or the rock of our salvation. Elohim is its plural and is commonly used in the Tanakh sometimes fully plural with plural verb forms, and sometimes in a singular sense, I believe like we would use the word family. A family is one in a singular sense although it refers to a plurality of people. I believe Elohim refers to His house or family of immovable forces. Thus, I am the LORD/YHWH your God/Elohim means something like I am the life/word/breath of your family/house....

He is saying He is the house. Without Him there is no house or refuge. He invites us in to be one with Him through His unique Son of the house. The "eldest" our Savior who has said He prepares us a room in the house of Elohim. Now does this make us the Most High El? Certainly not. Is there more than one being in the one house of Elohim? Yes, there is. Hebrews 1:8 and Psalms teach us that Jesus the Son is also Elohim. He is also JHWH, "Behold the nail, Behold the hand" per scripture. See Gen 3:22. Is Jesus the Most High El? Luke teaches that He is the Son of the Most High. Joseph Smith taught that we are always to pray to the Father in the name of Jesus. Joseph Smith was quite clear on who was the Father. The Father is the Most High, whom we shall have no other god before. This does not mean there are not other Elohim in the house.

Now to a "Bible Believer" I ask where does the Bible plainly teach that the Holy Spirit is YHWH? How can a spirit be YHWH, if a spirit is not pierced?

Did Joseph Smith's understanding of God change/grow during the course of his life? I believe plainly it did. I believe his understanding increased. Does that mean he apostatized from the teachings of the Book of Mormon? Clearly no. Heavenly Father and Jesus are clearly one Elohim, and one JHWH/Lord. The difference is I believe JS came to understand that we could be Elohim/"gods" with them in the house of Elohim. The fact that Joseph Smith used the English interpretation "gods" does not infer that he/we believe we shall all be the Father at the end of this world or that everyone will be "the Most High"  - or certainly not in the sense those words are used in Hebrew. My personal belief is that it is the unique honor and privilege of our Savior, Jesus Christ, to inherit all the Father hath at the end of this world, and that anything we inherit shall be through Him. A belief that we can be Elohim does not in my mind infer that we don't believe in the One Most High El. We do. We pray only to Him in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ. We are not Catholics who pray to Mary as mediatrix, or to other saints for intercession. We believe only Jesus Christ is our Savior and the only mediator with the Father for our sins - and yes, I believe they are one YHWH Elohim in spirit although they are separate spirits with separate wills. But Joseph Smith was correct to disregard the doctrines of the trinity which are incorrect on many levels beginning with the begotten nature of the Son and God as "one substance" whatever that is. One spirit yes, but one body, no. We as limited conscious spirits don't fathom it, but their spirits are not so limited. The Spirit of the Father knows the Spirit of the Son, and the Son knows His presence. 

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks for the clarification.

Do you believe the current belief of the LDS Church regarding the nature of God and the Godhead should continue to evolve?

If not, why not?

It depends on how God decides to reveal himself which depends on the needs of his children. 

You don't teach quantum mechanics to a three-year old.

Our present conception is what we are presently capable of understanding