Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A New Defense of the 1832 First Vision Account


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like something Yoda would say.

Back from vacation I am glad you are! ;)

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
On 11/29/2016 at 8:43 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

One of the common criticisms leveled against the first vision is that the 1832 First Vision account only has Jesus Christ present in the theophany, and considering that it is the earliest account and it being in JS's own hand, it makes the later accounts (with two personages) look like the First Vision developed over time. Many people find validity in this criticism, and some leave the church over this. Apologists have done a good job of pointing out that God and Jesus Christ are separate and coexistant in the book of Moses, a text predating the 1832 account, which demonstrates that Mormon doctrine posited that God and Jesus were separate and distinct as early as 1830. They have also pointed to passages in the BOM, which I find somewhat less convincing. I propose that the doctrine of Jesus and God the Father being separate beings was possibly a sacred and guarded (read secret) doctrine in early Mormonism, likely due to its controversial nature. If the doctrine was indeed a secret, that could account for the 1832 account's omission of two personages.  

Keeping controversial items secret was not foreign to Mormonism. Polygamy was kept a secret from the early 1830s. Knowledge of how the Book of Mormon translation occurred was more or less kept within the bounds of a select few. In Nauvoo, the endowment was kept secret. All of these items were controversial in their own ways, and engendered criticism from various corners. The separate nature of the Father and Son had enormous potential for controversy, and comments by JS in 1844 indicate JS' frustration with prevailing notions and possibly with criticism of his teachings.

Evidence that God the Father and Jesus being separate beings was not only controversial but also a secret doctrine comes from JS' revelations and an account of the school of the prophets given by Zebedee Coltrin. According to Coltrin and another witness, the men experienced a vision of God the Father and Christ, likely in 1832 or 1833. First they saw Christ walk through the room, and following that, they saw God the Father walk through the room. After the vision, Joseph Smith told the men there, "Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages." His comments place emphasis on God and Christ's separate nature and makes it a qualifier for apostleship. Further, intimate knowledge of God's existence can be considered a divinely granted privilege reserved for apostles or others who qualify through great faith, according to JS' revelations. JS' comments to the school of the prophets infer a type of categorical equivalence between intimate knowledge of God's existence and the knowledge that the Father and the Son are separate beings. This makes knowledge of the Father and Son's separate nature a sacred mystery revealed by God to the privileged and prepared. 

As noted earlier, the Book of Moses gives fairly clear accounts of God the Father and Jesus being separate beings present at the same time (ie. council in heaven and the creation). Notably, this revelation contains two statements that prescribe that the text only be shared with true believers.
 

It's also worth noting that the council in Heaven and account of Satan's casting out, which is one of the places the separate nature of the Father and the Son is clear, is found in chapter 4.

The above are the earliest instances of the doctrine being clearly delineated (as far as I've identified), and both the school of prophets vision and the Moses revelation can be interpreted as sacred secrets.

Another supporting evidence is the public nature of the Book of Mormon text and its sometimes trinitarian-like portrayal of God (ex. Abinadi's comments about God/Christ), which dates to just a year before the Book of Moses. Even in the BOM's grandest theophany, the Brother of Jared's vision, only the preexistant Christ is seen. I would argue that the 1832 account, like the Book of Mormon, was meant to be a public document. The exaggerated language (mighty acts which he doeth in the name of Jesus Christ), the Book of Mormon like summary at the beginning, and it's inclusion in a letter book instead of a private journal suggest that it may have been intended for public use, and for this reason the theophany account was limited to a a manifestation of Christ, similar to the Brother of Jared's theophany.

An edited 1832 vision is also consistent with how Joseph would later edit or be complicit to editing controversial items from his 1838 history. For example, the seer stone is not mentioned, and the history simply gives a description of the Urim and Thummim and breastplate and states that it was by this means that the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph's treasure digging was also minimized in the history. Essentially, editing controversial material along with sacred secrets are consistent with early Mormonism and provide a compelling explanation for the omission of two personages from the 1832 account of the First Vision.

That's the gist of the argument. Comments? 

Excellent idea.   I think we all knew the doctrine evolved but the idea that the knowledge was sacred/secret and all the research really ties it together.  Well done!

Link to comment
On 11/30/2016 at 1:43 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

while the Book of Moses reports a theophany of God the Father specifically. 

You are mistaken.  There is  a statement by the First Presy on this issue (don't have the reference at hand). Jehovah (Christ) was speaking to Moses.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, cdowis said:

You are mistaken.  There is  a statement by the First Presy on this issue (don't have the reference at hand). Jehovah (Christ) was speaking to Moses.

It's clearly the personality of the Father. If someone wants to argue it's Christ speaking with divine investiture, that's  fine. It's clear that the person speaking wants Moses to perceive him as the Father, and that is markedly different from Bro. of Jared and 1832 first vision account.

 

 

Link to comment

You might call the wording Joseph used 'scripture code' 

…. piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and …..” 

Now compare this to Stephen in Acts 7

 "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

The idea of the Lord opening the heavens comes from Matt 11
“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.” 

I assume this is what he was talking about, the Holy Spirit first had to come upon him and then the Lord opened the heavens meaning he saw Heavenly Father. The experience was so very sacred to him he let those with ears to hear understand. 
 

Edited by Jude2
Link to comment
On 11/29/2016 at 9:43 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Another supporting evidence is the public nature of the Book of Mormon text and its sometimes trinitarian-like portrayal of God (ex. Abinadi's comments about God/Christ), which dates to just a year before the Book of Moses.

I've looked at that passage and tried to understand it, I believe we have to come to the conclusion Abinadi had no concept of the Trinity for it wasn't invented until around 100 ad and on another continent. So what was he talking about? Here's my own opinion.

I believe he is trying to explain to these people that there are actually two beings. 

Abinadi is a  Hebrew man and Yahweh had made a covenant with Abraham (see Gen 17:7) to be their God but he understood there was a Father also and that Yahweh was the mediator between the Father and mankind. 

I also think that the word Elohim which is plural is not expressed here but assumed by Abinadi and we would say Godhead. 

He has just talked about how “God/Yahweh himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man,…” and quoted Isa 53.

There is a title which Abinadi uses that helps us understand his meaning. “ the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.” A similar  phrase is also used when  Melchizedek meets Abraham, he is a priest of El and serves the sacrament to Abraham and says 

“Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth” Gen 14 

And then Abraham says “…I have lift up mine hand unto the Lord/ Yahweh , the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,..” 

Abinadi understands this title, Yahweh /Jesus is the father or possessor of heaven and earth because he created it. (see also Eph 3: 14-15)  

Verses 6 &7 I think really expresses what he is trying to get across, 

7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men— 

He separates the two with each having a will of their own yet they have become one will because the Son has said “Thy will be done”   Note also first it says “being the Father and the Son and then it says ‘becoming the Father and Son’ 

“And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—”

He subjected his flesh by suffering and dieing on the cross as his Father commanded even though he was the Father or creator of heaven and earth.  

“The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God/El; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—”

I am my father’s daughter as he was his Father’s son.


 “And they are one God” or meaning one Godhead 

yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. 
And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, 

Or Yahweh who is the Eternal Father of heaven and earth subjected his will to the Father’s will and they are one Godhead. 

Link to comment

Given that well-known statement by Stephen, it's not clear to me that a vision of Jesus-and-the-Father would have offended orthodox Protestants of Smith's day. It really could not have offended typical believers, because the New Testament is full of familiar statements that obviously present Jesus and the Father as distinct. In the canonical gospels, Jesus prays several times to the Father; after his resurrection, he speaks in John to Mary Magdalene about ascending to "your God and my God". To mention God the Father and Jesus as two distinct figures would not have been controversial at all to any contemporary churchgoer.

Neither would it have bothered any contemporary Christian preachers or theologians. Trinitarian theology has never denied that the Father and the Son are distinct. The belief that Jesus and the Father are identical, to the point where one may say that God the Father was crucified, was condemned way back in early times as the heresy of Patripassionism. As the (so-called) Athanasian Creed puts it,

[W]e worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.

Trinitarian Christians are supposed to believe in three "persons", who are not to be "confounded" (that is, mixed or confused), but who are nonetheless one God in "essence". Exactly what "person" and "essence" mean in this context has always been a bit fuzzy, but Trinitarians at least insist that being "one in essence" is much more than merely being in agreement, while being "distinct in person" is more than merely taking different roles. If that sounds self-contradictory, well, it's the Trinity. It's been notoriously mysterious as a concept ever since it was articulated in the early centuries after Jesus. What it is not and never has been is a simple belief, flying in the face of so many statements in the gospels, that Jesus and the Father are a single person.

Since a vision of Jesus and the Father as distinct persons would not have been at all controversial in Joseph Smith's day, I really don't understand the motivation for keeping such a detail secret. If Smith had told the full story from the beginning, the worst I could see happening is that some pedantic theologian might have disputed fine points of how Smith interpreted his vision. But deliberately concealing a vision of God just to avoid the hair-splitting cavils of a few theologians isn't exactly prophetic boldness, it seems to me.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Jude2 said:

I've looked at that passage and tried to understand it, I believe we have to come to the conclusion Abinadi had no concept of the Trinity for it wasn't invented until around 100 ad and on another continent. 

It really depends on the assumptions you make. I don't assume that trinitarianism can't be found in the Book of Mormon text. My most fundamental reason for doing that is that the text was dictated primarily in 1829, well after Trinitarianism had been developed and become integral to Christianity. So, when I see a passage that appears to be shaped by Trinitarianism in the BOM, whether I assume that there is an underlying historical ancient document or not, there is too obvious an entry point for me to ignore the potentially Trinitarian passage.

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Given that well-known statement by Stephen, it's not clear to me that a vision of Jesus-and-the-Father would have offended orthodox Protestants of Smith's day. It really could not have offended typical believers, because the New Testament is full of familiar statements that obviously present Jesus and the Father as distinct. In the canonical gospels, Jesus prays several times to the Father; after his resurrection, he speaks in John to Mary Magdalene about ascending to "your God and my God". To mention God the Father and Jesus as two distinct figures would not have been controversial at all to any contemporary churchgoer.

Neither would it have bothered any contemporary Christian preachers or theologians. Trinitarian theology has never denied that the Father and the Son are distinct. The belief that Jesus and the Father are identical, to the point where one may say that God the Father was crucified, was condemned way back in early times as the heresy of Patripassionism. As the (so-called) Athanasian Creed puts it,

 

 

So, I'm fairly certain a two personage vision would have been controversial. Despite some of the biblical proof texts we Mormons use (I.e. Stephen), Christianity had and still has a very distinct view that opposes our interpretation of those proof texts. 

First, I've already quoted JS' critique of what he viewed as the mainstream trinitarian view, which he mocks as a giant three-in-one fantastic God. This at least suggests that a vision of two separate personages, both representing God, would be controversial.

Second, while trinitarianism does have 3 distinct persons, meaning personalities and actors, of one "substance," another highly established Protestant doctrine is that no man can see God, usually interpreted to mean God the Father. Also, the Father is considered to be a Spirit which typically means not embodied. That means not only was Joseph up against the assumption that man could not see God, he was also dealing with the general assumption that God did not have a bodily form.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I've already quoted JS' critique of what he viewed as the mainstream trinitarian view, which he mocks as a giant three-in-one fantastic God. This at least suggests that a vision of two separate personages, both representing God, would be controversial.

Hmmm. Are you assuming that Smith's depiction of Trinitarianism must have been an accurate account of what his Trinitarian contemporaries believed? Or are you just saying that Smith was—rightly or wrongly—afraid that his Trinitarian contemporaries would have been offended by his vision?

It is indeed a standard assumption of mainstream Christians that God the Father cannot really be seen. But I doubt that anyone would have objected to a vision in which someone subjectively perceived the Father as a figure beside Jesus. Christian artwork has not infrequently represented God the Father as a man; think of the Sistine chapel image of God touching Adam's hand. Daniel's vision of "the ancient of days" has traditionally been understood as a vision of God the Father. Any such vision would necessarily be a very limited perception of God; if Smith had insisted that what he saw was more than that, then he might have been laughed at. But if he had just said, "This is what I saw", I really doubt that he would have been in any danger.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Hmmm. Are you assuming that Smith's depiction of Trinitarianism must have been an accurate account of what his Trinitarian contemporaries believed? Or are you just saying that Smith was—rightly or wrongly—afraid that his Trinitarian contemporaries would have been offended by his vision?

I'm just demonstrating that JS felt trinitarianism was antithetical to his doctrine.

The other question worth asking is why would JS have made such a big deal about God and Christ being two separate beings post-vision at the school of the prophets? Its easy to understand his statement as a contrast to common conception.

22 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

It is indeed a standard assumption of mainstream Christians that God the Father cannot really be seen. But I doubt that anyone would have objected to a vision in which someone subjectively perceived the Father as a figure beside Jesus. Christian artwork has not infrequently represented God the Father as a man; think of the Sistine chapel image of God touching Adam's hand. Daniel's vision of "the ancient of days" has traditionally been understood as a vision of God the Father. Any such vision would necessarily be a very limited perception of God; if Smith had insisted that what he saw was more than that, then he might have been laughed at. But if he had just said, "This is what I saw", I really doubt that he would have been in any danger.

He reports being repeatedly rejected by ministers for sharing his vision. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the message, but he also said that even just having a vision was found unpalatable. I'll do some more research on the topic. It should be easy enough to see if a vision of God the Father embodied would have been controversial.

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

It really depends on the assumptions you make. I don't assume that trinitarianism can't be found in the Book of Mormon text. My most fundamental reason for doing that is that the text was dictated primarily in 1829, well after Trinitarianism had been developed and become integral to Christianity. So, when I see a passage that appears to be shaped by Trinitarianism in the BOM, whether I assume that there is an underlying historical ancient document or not, there is too obvious an entry point for me to ignore the potentially Trinitarian passage.

I guess I just don't believe the Lord would have a prophet teach something false any more than I believe the Trinity to be Biblical. 

In Alma 11 Amulek uses the same phrasing answering a series of questions put forth to him from Zeezrom  

And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

 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.

In this case the Father is referred to as a true and living God and there is only one of those. (it's because he has a body, he's a living soul) 

32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.

Zeezrom is trying to figure this out and says : See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come,

 38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

And Amulek makes the same distinction Abinadi did;

 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; And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; 

He then explains the resurrection and tells them;

and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, 

By one Eternal God he’s most likely using Elohim which I believe  means one Eternal Godhead

 

*And then there is King Benjamin in Mosiah 3:8, see also 2 Nephi 25:12 

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Now you mentioned Ether and the brother of Jared; 
Yahweh says;
 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Who prepared him? 

Let’s understand this is Moroni writing about the Brother’s experience and in the next chapter he makes the needed clarification;

“7…then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.” 

Jesus/Yahweh is the Son of God the Father the living God but  He bears the title of “the Father of Heaven and Earth” because He Yahweh created all things physical. 

I just think you are just trying to come up with some sort of intellectual explanation which really isn’t needed because the Book of Mormon does not teach the trinity doctrine any more than the Bible does. 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Jude2 said:

I guess I just don't believe the Lord would have a prophet teach something false any more than I believe the Trinity to be Biblical. 

In Alma 11 Amulek uses the same phrasing answering a series of questions put forth to him from Zeezrom  

And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God?

 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.

In this case the Father is referred to as a true and living God and there is only one of those. (it's because he has a body, he's a living soul) 

32 And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?
33 And he said unto him, Yea.

Zeezrom is trying to figure this out and says : See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come,

 38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

And Amulek makes the same distinction Abinadi did;

 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; And he shall come into the world to redeem his people; 

He then explains the resurrection and tells them;

and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, 

By one Eternal God he’s most likely using Elohim which I believe  means one Eternal Godhead

 

*And then there is King Benjamin in Mosiah 3:8, see also 2 Nephi 25:12 

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Now you mentioned Ether and the brother of Jared; 
Yahweh says;
 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Who prepared him? 

Let’s understand this is Moroni writing about the Brother’s experience and in the next chapter he makes the needed clarification;

“7…then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.” 

Jesus/Yahweh is the Son of God the Father the living God but  He bears the title of “the Father of Heaven and Earth” because He Yahweh created all things physical. 

I just think you are just trying to come up with some sort of intellectual explanation which really isn’t needed because the Book of Mormon does not teach the trinity doctrine any more than the Bible does. 

I understand you're argument, but the reason I don't find your explanation compelling is because the simpler interpretation of these passages, the one that fits Christianity as it had developed up through JS' time period and hundreds of years preceding, is a trinitarian-like view. JS, as the one dictating the BOM, could have affected the text, whether it was subconsciously or consciously. Essentially, the words of the BOM came from his mouth, and so we are left with the possibility that modern Christianity could have influenced the text.

As I find a trinitarian-like approach the simplist and most straight forward interpretation of these passages and as I aknowledge the possibility that JS inflected the text, I take this interpretation as the most likely. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I understand you're argument, but the reason I don't find your explanation compelling is because the simpler interpretation of these passages, the one that fits Christianity as it had developed up through JS' time period and hundreds of years preceding, is a trinitarian-like view. JS, as the one dictating the BOM, could have affected the text, whether it was subconsciously or consciously. Essentially, the words of the BOM came from his mouth, and so we are left with the possibility that modern Christianity could have influenced the text.

As I find a trinitarian-like approach the simplist and most straight forward interpretation of these passages and as I aknowledge the possibility that JS inflected the text, I take this interpretation as the most likely. 

No, you're just fitting the scriptures to your hypothesis rather than take the time to read and compare passages back and forth.  

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

He reports being repeatedly rejected by ministers for sharing his vision. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the message, but he also said that even just having a vision was found unpalatable. I'll do some more research on the topic. It should be easy enough to see if a vision of God the Father embodied would have been controversial.

Having a vision probably was kind of unpalatable. I'm just not seeing how the detail of seeing God the Father and Jesus as distinct figures would have raised the unpalatability by such a big notch as to justify keeping entirely mum about that detail. If the bit about seeing God the Father along with Jesus was the one thing that would have made the difference between toleration of Smith's message and immediate burning at the stake, then maybe there could be a case for him keeping that detail secret and proclaiming the rest. But Trinitarian theology is and was far from being so especially sensitive about a vision of the Father.

This detail might have had some effect on people's responses to Smith's message, but it could not have made enough of a difference in reception to justify keeping it secret. It was supposed to be a vision of God. Once we're talking about a guy who could feel free to leave out God the Father just for the sake of a little bump in palatability, it feels to me as though we're talking about a guy who was bold enough about spinning vision details that he could just have made up the whole vision in the first place.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

The other question worth asking is why would JS have made such a big deal about God and Christ being two separate beings post-vision at the school of the prophets? Its easy to understand his statement as a contrast to common conception.

He reports being repeatedly rejected by ministers for sharing his vision. Obviously, that has a lot to do with the message, but he also said that even just having a vision was found unpalatable. I'll do some more research on the topic. It should be easy enough to see if a vision of God the Father embodied would have been controversial.

Did Joseph ever explicitly state that he saw God the Father in vision?  I'm not sure.  The language of the 1838/1839 account doesn't name the one individual as being God the Father.  The wording implies this, but it wouldn't be unheard of for an Angel to announce those words, I believe that happens in the some of the biblical accounts.  

Also, there isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that Joseph received any push back from anyone about this theophany.  The earlier visionary accounts 1832 and 1835 don't describe any pushback either.  These are some of the reasons people question the reliability of the idea that his reports were rejected by ministers.  

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Having a vision probably was kind of unpalatable. I'm just not seeing how the detail of seeing God the Father and Jesus as distinct figures would have raised the unpalatability by such a big notch as to justify keeping entirely mum about that detail. If the bit about seeing God the Father along with Jesus was the one thing that would have made the difference between toleration of Smith's message and immediate burning at the stake, then maybe there could be a case for him keeping that detail secret and proclaiming the rest. But Trinitarian theology is and was far from being so especially sensitive about a vision of the Father.

This detail might have had some effect on people's responses to Smith's message, but it could not have made enough of a difference in reception to justify keeping it secret. It was supposed to be a vision of God. Once we're talking about a guy who could feel free to leave out God the Father just for the sake of a little bump in palatability, it feels to me as though we're talking about a guy who was bold enough about spinning vision details that he could just have made up the whole vision in the first place.

Good points, I agree.  Actually having visions as part of the conversion experience was quite common back then, and in some denominations a type of "religious experience" was expected in order to be considered converted and for membership in the congregation.  Many of the groups were very charismatic and the camp meetings were hot beds for the kinds of experiences described in many BoM accounts like the King Benjamin account and other conversion stories like Alma the younger.  

Reading through the history, I find it more surprising that Joseph claimed to be persecuted for having a vision like this, when so many others were having similar visions, Richard Bushman says he even borrowed language from other visionary accounts to craft his account.  

Edited by hope_for_things
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Jude2 said:

No, you're just fitting the scriptures to your hypothesis rather than take the time to read and compare passages back and forth.  

Actually, after I responded I realized that there may be something important happening here that feeds into my original hypothesis. First, I'll willingly admit that the detailed qualifiers the BOM gives for how Christ is the Father and the Son do create a caveat which allows for the doctrine of a separate Father; however, the BOM is also carefully silent and ambiguous on that, meaning that the BOM text consistently allows for a trinitarian view if the reader assumes one. This ambiguity is aknowledged by both faithful and secular scholars, and even FAIR Mormon aknowledges the ambiguity (http://www.fairmormon.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-book-of-mormon-trinitarianism-or-modalism.pdf). The FAIR articles goes on to point out that Mormon specifically states that he is holding back teachings and only giving the lesser portion, which justifies the BOM's ambiguity in the matter.

Quote

3 Ne 26: 8-11

And these things have I written, which are a lesser part of the things which he taught the people; and I have written them to the intent that they may be brought again unto this people, from the Gentiles, according to the words which Jesus hath spoken. And when they shall have received this, which is expedient that they should have first, to try their faith, and if it shall so be that they shall believe these things then shall the greater things be made manifest unto them. And if it so be that they will not believe these things, then shall the greater things be withheld from them, unto their condemnation. 

This is entirely consistent with the idea of sacred/secret doctrines given to the trusted believers. In other words, the BOM text itself tells us its a text that omits the greater portion. Meanwhile the caveat title of Father of Heavens and Earth in the BOM and the title's role in a Godhead (in contrast to a trinity) is given in the Book of Moses, a text which readily admits that it contains greater teachings reserved for the true believers! Christ's role as creator, for example, is addressed directly in Moses 2:1, and as I've argued in earlier posts, the Book of Moses makes a much clearer case for separate personages than the BOM does.

Quote

Moses 2:1 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven, and this earthwrite the words which I speak. I am the Beginning and the End, the Almighty God; by mine Only Begotten I created these things; yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

So, we can hopefully agree on a few things here:

  • The Book of Mormon text is ambiguous about the nature of God (trinity-like vs. separate beings), and is written in a way that wouldn't rub a trinitarian the wrong way.
  • The details of the Book of Mormon carefully qualify Jesus's role as Father and do create space for a non-trinitarian interpretation.
  • The Book of Mormon claims to be the lesser teachings.
  • The Book of Moses is more explicit about the nature of God and more clearly addresses the distinct nature of the the Father and the Son.
  • The Book of Moses, while portraying God and the Son as separate personages, uses one of the same qualifiers from the Book of Mormon, allowing the astute reader to feel justified in his non-trinitarian interpretation of the BOM.
  • The Book of Moses infers that its teachings are sacred (i.e. greater teachings), and explicitly demands that the text only be shared with them that truly believe.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

Having a vision probably was kind of unpalatable. I'm just not seeing how the detail of seeing God the Father and Jesus as distinct figures would have raised the unpalatability by such a big notch as to justify keeping entirely mum about that detail. If the bit about seeing God the Father along with Jesus was the one thing that would have made the difference between toleration of Smith's message and immediate burning at the stake, then maybe there could be a case for him keeping that detail secret and proclaiming the rest. But Trinitarian theology is and was far from being so especially sensitive about a vision of the Father.

This detail might have had some effect on people's responses to Smith's message, but it could not have made enough of a difference in reception to justify keeping it secret. It was supposed to be a vision of God. Once we're talking about a guy who could feel free to leave out God the Father just for the sake of a little bump in palatability, it feels to me as though we're talking about a guy who was bold enough about spinning vision details that he could just have made up the whole vision in the first place.

The doctrine that eventually surfaced, which was that God was separate and distinct from the Son, was controversial and was at odds with mainstream Christian beliefs. The visionary representation of that doctrine, without explicit statement of the doctrine, may not have been very controversial as you've suggested (I don't know), but as the doctrine itself was controversial, JS may have felt the need or even believed he was instructed to keep that doctrine, and thus its representations in visions and revelations, a sacred secret.

In other words, I don't need the vision itself to be controversial as the underlying doctrine's clearly controversial nature was enough to create an atmosphere necessitating inner circle secret/sacred teachings. 

Edited by Benjamin Seeker
Link to comment
1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Did Joseph ever explicitly state that he saw God the Father in vision?  I'm not sure.  The language of the 1838/1839 account doesn't name the one individual as being God the Father.  The wording implies this, but it wouldn't be unheard of for an Angel to announce those words, I believe that happens in the some of the biblical accounts.  

You're right. JS is careful not to specifically refer to the other personage as God the Father in any of the primary printed accounts. He only infered it. Actually, this is consistent with my hypothesis as well. JS could be inferring a vision of God the Father and the Son while being careful not state it explicitly in order to retain a form of plausible deniability (even that late in the game: 1835, 1838, and 1842).

I don't think JS believed that it was an angel, or he would have just come out and said it. No reason not to.  

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

You're right. JS is careful not to specifically refer to the other personage as God the Father in any of the primary printed accounts. He only infered it. Actually, this is consistent with my hypothesis as well. JS could be inferring a vision of God the Father and the Son while being careful not state it explicitly in order to retain a form of plausible deniability (even that late in the game: 1835, 1838, and 1842).

I don't think JS believed that it was an angel, or he would have just come out and said it. No reason not to.  

I also wonder how much D&C 84:21-22 influenced Joseph's decision to not specifically name the individuals in his vision.  Was this a case of just copying the language of other visionary experiences he was familiar with, or was he concerned with specifically identifying deity when scripture that he had previously written specifically calls this out. I'm not sure.  

I also wonder about this late recollection from Zebedee Coltrin, its interesting in that it recounts Joseph seeing Jesus and later seeing God the Father.  This account was remembering an 1833 school of the prophets time period experience.  

Quote

At one of these meetings after the organization of the school, (the school being organized_ on the 23rd of January, 1833, when we were all together, Joseph having given instructions, and while engaged in silent prayer, kneeling, with our hands uplifted each one praying in silence, no one whispered above his breath, a personage walked through the room from east to west, and Joseph asked if we saw him. I saw him and suppose the others did and Joseph answered that is Jesus, the Son of God, our elder brother. Afterward Joseph told us to resume our former position in prayer, which we did. Another person came through; he was surrounded as with a flame of fire. He (Brother Coltrin) experienced a sensation that it might destroy the tabernacle as it was of consuming fire of great brightness. The Prophet Joseph said this was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I saw Him.

http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/ZebC.html

Now this is interesting because in the lectures on faith in 1835, God was just a spirit, and perhaps because the Father was surrounded by flames of fire, this is what a personage of spirit would look like?

I don't know, but throughout Joseph's life he was taking traditional ideas around angels, spirits, demons, devils, and turning the traditional interpretations on their head.  He also claimed to be able to discern between these entities (handshakes, etc), but at other times he claimed he was deceived by them.  I have to think this is another example of his mixing folk magic/occult practices with religion, but he really took it to another level by claiming special abilities to be in touch with the supernatural world.  

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...