What do we really know about God the Father?

[Meadowchik]

52 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Some very thorough and carefully contextualized takes on the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's accounts of the first vision make the case that Joseph Smith did not evolve from a Trinitarian to a Godhead view, but rather always taught a social trinity.  Granted that his followers came from conventional backgrounds, and it takes time to grasp things.  That's a human problem.

See for instance, Gardner here:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2003/monotheism-messiah-and-mormons-book

I've also written about this in various places (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=547), and cited other scholars who have gone through every single verse in the Book of Mormon, rather than just the handful of context free proof-texts that typically get cited when these claims come up.

And Matthew Brown here:

https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2006/revised-or-unaltered-joseph-smiths-foundational-stories

And notice that Brown points out this:

I would also mention that D&C 76, the vision of the Father and the Son reported by Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon (two witnesses, I notice) also appeared in 1832, and that none of Joseph contemporaries made the complaint about changing from metaphysical Trinity to social Trinity.  And of course, there is the fact that in the 1832 account, where he says, the ^Lord opened the heavens to me and I saw the Lord", the first "Lord" is an insert above the line.  Had the insert been "God" or "Father", we'd have no controversy.  And the 1835 account has the Father appearing first, making the introduction and then Jesus.  And he did comment on the exact resemblance.

Few, if any, of the LDS women I know strike me as particularly subjugatable, particularly via gentleness, meekness, long-suffering, pure knowledge, and love unfeigned, which happen to be only legitimate means at hand.  Most of the fuss and anxiety concerning legal issues around marriage comes as though Jesus is primarily a lawyer, who will use the law to overwhelm and crush any personal feelings that people have about what happens in this life and the next, rather than seeing Jesus as one who will, through love and knowledge "dry all our tears."

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

An alternative to appropriately grasping the history as you cite explanations of it is that Joseph was thoroughly human without any authority. Imo that paradigm allows everything to maje much more sense. 

At some point in Mormonism, we got the Godhead, which is not consistent with all we know about Joseph's saying or LDS scripture and writings of his times.

And it is this God of flesh and bone that we are required to emulate in order to enjoy celestial exaltation, where the husband gives passage to his wife into this eternal life, one where he presides over her, their children, and any other wives he may have, including modern men who are sealed to multiple women in subsequent marriages in mortality.

The subjugation is a reality, Kevin. Of course there can be variances in how women and men react within the construct, but it is doctrine.

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The idea that Heavenly Father doesn't have a body arose not from Christ but from neo-Platonism. It is not scriptural. When Christ shall be called the Eternal Father, will He give up His body? The one He regained in resurrection to teach us about eternal possibilities?

I'd be somewhat careful here. The issue is more the nature of spirits than the issue of an essential body like Jesus has. The basis for that is that God is called spirit in John 4:24. So it's not like the Christians of the 2cd century pulled this out of nowhere. Further even figured influenced more by stoicism than platonism still saw the Father as spirit. Just that spirit was material. 

Even Jews though frequently saw God as not a person like Jesus. This almost certainly has Hellenistic influences. Further there are strong indications that the pre-exilic view of God was closer to the surrounding Canaanite views. How much of that is syncretic mixing with Canaanite views (much as happened with Hellenism after the conquest by Alexander) isn't clear. Obviously we as Mormons like the materialist and divine council aspects of Canaanite religion. But we do have to be careful.

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Some very thorough and carefully contextualized takes on the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's accounts of the first vision make the case that Joseph Smith did not evolve from a Trinitarian to a Godhead view, but rather always taught a social trinity. 

Again I'd be careful here. First off as I mentioned the opposition tends to be more modalism against a quasi-trinity where the main aspects of the trinity aren't addressed. i.e. most Mormons saw the trinity as modalism - an incorrect view. One could argue that Joseph's vision especially by the time of the King Follet Discourse had a more subordinatistic element in that Jesus was seen subordinate to the Father. Yet even that is a bit tricky for various reasons related to seeing the essential soul of Jesus as co-eternal with the Father. Further even while the subordination of Arius is condemned as not part of the trinity an economic or relational subordination is acceptable and that's reasonably close to Joseph's view.

The question of the substantial unity versus a social unity simply seems not to be addressed. I understand why some Mormon theologians like Blake Ostler embrace social trinitarianism but it seems to me the basic concerns about substantial unity simply weren't addressed by Joseph. Further the idea of a substantial unity most definitely is part of the Pratt brother's view at the time. And they're the only ones really discussing it. First Parley adopts a quasi-emanation theory where our spirits are literally made out of the substance of God. Once the revelation on spirits as matter appears we then end up with a more stoic idea of spirit and substantial unity. (Possibly arising out of either their or even Joseph's reading about Tertullian or the stoics or even Spinoza)

It's important to be clear on this as I think Mormon scholars have often muddled issues by not being at all clear on what the doctrine of the trinity actually is nor where the points of dispute are. It's true that if we expand the discussion beyond the creeds to the broader theology of the trinity problems pop up. However the real issues are creation ex nihilo and the physical embodiment of the Father. I'd also tend to agree on the problem that most of the theologies of the trinity being tied to platonic conceptions rather than materialistic ones. Even the theologies of the trinity more influenced by Aristotle still adopt those basic platonic conceptions of the Godhead.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

At some point in Mormonism, we got the Godhead, which is not consistent with all we know about Joseph's saying or LDS scripture and writings of his times.

The Godhead is pretty early on. In the Book of Mormon there are clearly three persons and the main versus Christians use to prooftext the trinity appear quoted/paraphrased in the Book of Mormon. As I just mentioned the issue of substantial unity or the materialistic conception of the Father one can discuss as either not present or evolving. But I think the idea that the Godhead was a later development is impossible to reconcile to the text of the Book of Mormon. 

The main critic view opposing this is that Mos 15 ought be read modalistically but this then avoids the problems of 3 Nephi 11 or related passages.

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

And it is this God of flesh and bone that we are required to emulate in order to enjoy celestial exaltation, where the husband gives passage to his wife into this eternal life, one where he presides over her, their children, and any other wives he may have, including modern men who are sealed to multiple women in subsequent marriages in mortality.

The subjugation is a reality, Kevin. Of course there can be variances in how women and men react within the construct, but it is doctrine.

I think there are numerous problems theologically with that claim too. After all many Mormons do embrace a substantial unity between the Father and Son so the very ideal meaning of presiding seems to be that relation and not the subjugation relation you assert. (I'd add as an aside that there's an argument Paul means that too -- mainstream Christian theologians definitely read those problematic passages in Corithians that way. They note that Paul's claim that there is "neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28) The idea is that there's a new creation that upends the worldly view of hierarchies.

It's also important to note that most of the theology of the nature of the hereafter hasn't yet been revealed. My personal suspicion is that this all comes out of the recognition that people remarry after the death of a spouse and that entails polygamy in the hereafter, possibly even polandry as well as polygyny. But of course almost nothing has been revealed. Joseph's revelations on the topic were limited, the vision of Joseph to Brigham Young suggested a lot more was to be done with adoption and sealings, and that the understanding of the church in 1844 was very limited. My guess is a lot more is to be revealed and we don't have enough to produce a working theology here. I'd note that I believe the current church policy for the dead is to just seal everyone who was ever married and let God work it out in the millennium.  It's true that for historic reasons multiple sealings are only allowed for men who remarry right now. There is no good theological reason for separating the two classes though.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Joseph evolved from a Trinitarian view to a Godhead view. The earlier edition of the Book of Mormon has things like "God" which in subsequent editions become "Son of God." The account of the first vision written in Joseph's hand is that of seeing the Lord, while the official version is of him seeing God the Father (flesh and bone) and His Son.  These writings, among others, demonstrate a movement away from Protestant trinitarianism and toward the LDS Godhead view.

If we are going to have a discussion on what we know of God the Father, this time in Church development seems like a critically important time to ponder, imo.

I have no problem discussing any period you wish Meadowchick. You keep insisting that JS evolved from a "trinitarian view" to a "Godhead view" and I'm just trying to understand how you can keep thinking this. You have not come up with a single example of Joseph ever even endorsing the word "trinity" yet keep insisting he promoted a trinitarian view. Just because the Book of Mormon says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God doesn't mean JS was trinitarian. That is simply the nature of the Godhead. I don't see a difference. Trinitarianism involves accepting several additional concepts such as altering the begotten nature of the Son, so as to essentially make Him arguably unbegotten. In other words in the trinitarian view no one else can be begotten like Him. The trinitarian view makes Yeshua equal to the Father even though Yeshua Himself says the Father is greater, and both the OT and Yeshua Himself say that He does not know all the Father knows. The Book of Mormon clearly differentiates between the Most High and the Holy One of Israel. Jesus is never referred to as the Most High in scripture. Joseph Smith was again never trinitarian.

1 Nephi 11:6

6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the ^aearth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou ^bbelievest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

JS was plainly never trinitarian, but you keep using the word to try to satiate your contention that JS evolved apparently in order to make the same inference many critics do. I simply want you to back up your allegations. So I'm issuing you a CFR in hopes you will realize JS was never trinitarian - at least not while leading the Church - I'm sure from the time of his first vision experience. 

Quote

The LDS practice of polygamy subjugates women.  It did in the 1800s and it does today.  There are LDS women today who suffer because of the polygamous doctrine that still permeates church doctrine. Women are subjugated by the polygamous doctrine which still serves as a model in the temple endowment.  Personally, the elements of female subjugation did not bother me when I was endowed, but they have disturbed other women and created strife and pain for them.

This subjugation of women is still alive in the church, it's in the Proclamation of the Family and it's in the general structure of the church.

(BTW, I do bear witness of the goodness of people who are Muslim, just I have of others including Mormons when the groups they belong to are swept up in unfair generalisations.)

Well this is my point. I believe you are using an unfair generalization about LDS polygamy. LDS polygamy is the most fair and love-promoting form of polygamy I believe is available. I want you to be specific as to how women "still" are "subjugated" in the Church by polygamy. Again according to scripture, the woman has the right to refuse a polygamous relationship. I bring up the Muslim practice of polygamy because you seem to ignore it while picking on the LDS Church. This just seems unfair. Muslim women do not have the right to refuse polygamous relationships. For that matter they often don't have the right to refuse marriage, since they can be "married" as an infant or child. Under their law a husband can separate them into another room and beat them until they comply with his "rights" granted by Sharia. To me that is complete subjugation. In fact Islam means submission. The woman has no choice. Yet, you insist that somehow it is LDS polygamy which subjugates women, when under section 132 it is the most voluntary and pure form imaginable. 

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified;

So where is the "subjugation" if one gives her consent to live a polygamous relationship? Now I suppose you will argue that LDS women were led on, and made promises, etc. Nevertheless the letter of the law does not allow a woman to be "subjugated" to a man. It is certainly not like any other form of polygamy practiced in the world today. I get that maybe you are upset at the way polygamy was practiced in the Church. I get that all women were not happy with what happened in their relationships. However, to be fair I think you should acknowledge that the law given the Church does not "subjugate" women. If so, then you merely believe that all polygamy subjugates women, so I believe your standard as applied to other faiths is not fair.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Trinitarianism involves accepting several additional concepts such as altering the begotten nature of the Son, so as to essentially make Him arguably unbegotten.

It's part of the key Trinitarian doctrine that Christ is begotten. The Athanasian Creed says, "the Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten."

Quote

In other words in the trinitarian view no one else can be begotten like Him.

Well that's certainly true but I don't think that implies he's not begotten. I'd add that it's not clear within Mormon theology how the Son as god (as opposed to his mortality) is begotten. Since the creeds are speaking in terms of essence some might argue that the Trinitarian complaint against Mormons is that Jesus isn't begotten.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd be somewhat careful here. The issue is more the nature of spirits than the issue of an essential body like Jesus has. The basis for that is that God is called spirit in John 4:24. So it's not like the Christians of the 2cd century pulled this out of nowhere. Further even figured influenced more by stoicism than platonism still saw the Father as spirit. Just that spirit was material. 

Even Jews though frequently saw God as not a person like Jesus. This almost certainly has Hellenistic influences. Further there are strong indications that the pre-exilic view of God was closer to the surrounding Canaanite views. How much of that is syncretic mixing with Canaanite views (much as happened with Hellenism after the conquest by Alexander) isn't clear. Obviously we as Mormons like the materialist and divine council aspects of Canaanite religion. But we do have to be careful.

I'm not saying that Jews regard Heavenly Father as being a man like you and I. Clearly at least He is not mortal. However, my contention is that early Christianity misapplied John 4:24. I don't believe Jesus was trying to teach the ontological being of Heavenly Father. In the next chapter He basically says the Father has "shape." As per usual we must consider the context of Jesus trying to teach Jews who had been worshiping God according to the law - they tended to get in the habit of believing that by following their law they were worshiping the Father. So Yeshua was again trying to emphasize the spirit rather than the law. He wanted Jews to understand the spirit of the law rather than to try to rotely worship the Father. So Yeshua is teaching them that Heavenly Father is a spirit just like them who wishes a spiritual connection - a spiritual recognition. Yeshua was therefore not trying to infer that Heavenly Father has no body. My guess is you realize this, but are merely trying to state that this belief could have come from the Jews rather than neo-platonism. I concede that is a possibility. Since Heavenly Father did not make it a practice to make Himself visible to man, and even Moses was not allowed to see His face, He is referred to as the invisible God in Judaism - yet He is a God who warns that no man can look upon Him and live - is that physical or spiritual? It doesn't seem an invisible spirit can say that.

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I'm not saying that Jews regard Heavenly Father as being a man like you and I. Clearly at least He is not mortal. However, my contention is that early Christianity misapplied John 4:24. I don't believe Jesus was trying to teach the ontological being of Heavenly Father. In the next chapter He basically says the Father has "shape."

But of course one can explain shapes platonically. Indeed shapes are typically seen as the foundational platonic ideas. Also John is seen as the most perfused with Hellenistic platonic conceptions. The conception of the logos is one example, even though there was a logos in Stoicism too. Often Philo (a Jewish platonist) was seen as very influential on John and Hebrews. (Also note that platonism of this era was highly influenced by the Stoics -- Plotinus' platonism is basically Plato as read keeping in mind the critiques of the Stoics and Aristotle) One should keep in mind that influence doesn't necessarily mean acceptance. Philo had a very negative view of material in a way John simply doesn't. (You don't get quite the extent of the "matter is evil" view of Jesus that you get among say the gnostics) So in many ways we have a rejection of the type of platonism Philo held to.

Ultimately though my point isn't that we should view such things platonically. I don't think God should be conceived of platonically. Just that we should be careful assuming how the early Mormons understood it and how trinitarians understand it. Further the range of views within platonism is much bigger than I think most people appreciate.

Edited May 8, 2017 by clarkgoble

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's part of the key Trinitarian doctrine that Christ is begotten. The Athanasian Creed says, "the Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten."

Well that's certainly true but I don't think that implies he's not begotten. I'd add that it's not clear within Mormon theology how the Son as god (as opposed to his mortality) is begotten. Since the creeds are speaking in terms of essence some might argue that the Trinitarian complaint against Mormons is that Jesus isn't begotten.

I don't feel the Church has formed any coherent doctrine with regard to the begotten nature of the Son. Possibly the closest was BY. However, arguably BY was just speaking of the temporal begotten nature of the Son. In other words he was begotten naturally from a mother just like the rest of us. I certainly cannot argue with that. But to contend that explains how Jesus was referred to as the only begotten of the Father sent into the world is entirely another thing.

This gets into early Christian doctrine. I can certainly argue that Jesus' earthly body was created. I believe Catholicism just avoids that word by saying He was incarnated instead.

My point is that the trinitarian definition of the begotten nature of the Son, although using the word avoids any possibility of anyone following Christ to be begotten like Him. It started by making Christ begotten before all aeon/ages/worlds in the Nicene Creed. Then it morphed into making Him eternally begotten. My argument is that essentially makes Him unbegotten. The plain meaning of the word is ignored. The scriptures which say He was begotten on a "day" are also ignored. The effect of this is to say there was never a time when Jesus was unbegotten - He has always been with the Father as a begotten Son. This renders the plain meaning of the word begotten meaningless. How can one be begotten if He was never begotten? You see there was never a time when He became begotten. To admit that he was begotten in the usual meaning of the word destroys the doctrine of the trinity. If the Son was actually begotten when the Father said to Him "thou art my Son - this day I have begotten thee," then there was a time when the Son was not the begotten/unique/inheriting Son, and the whole doctrine of the trinity falls in pieces. Potentially plain men could follow Jesus and also be begotten. This hearkens back to the Arian interpretation of scripture. To this extent I have adopted the Arian view as the correct scriptural view - the one which allows us to follow Christ to the holiest of all. Orthodoxy tries to turn this into an argument that the Son was created, as an argument contrary to the scriptures. However, I now believe none of our spirits were created. God created our bodies and breathed our spirits into our created bodies to also form a soul - a place where He to can dwell within us. Our spirits simply were not created from dust like our bodies were - they preexisted this world - like Jesus' did. Some of these spirits did not follow the plan and are some of the spirits Jesus cast out and into swine. They too obviously preexisted the world or would have been confined to hell/spirit prison. Once one sees the entire scriptural picture, trinitarianism is left in rags - a man-made construct which shatters into pieces. Therefore will the image of the beast also be shattered into pieces and be swept away.

[clarkgoble]

38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I don't feel the Church has formed any coherent doctrine with regard to the begotten nature of the Son. Possibly the closest was BY.

The church is pretty lenient on these key foundations that don't have clear revelations. So you even get people like Blake Ostler who deny the endless regress of gods interpretation of the King Follet Discourse and Sermon in the Grove. (To be fair he in part depends upon a careful exegesis for his interpretation - but it's definitely different from the mainstream 20th century views)

My point though was that the idea we were all co-eternal with God is pretty mainstream doctrine. Even Blake accepts that. As such since all the essences are uncreated Jesus' isn't begotten. Only his spirit and body were begotten in any Mormon theology that I'm aware of. (And many see the spiritual begotting as a kind of adoption rather than spirit birth)

Quote

My point is that the trinitarian definition of the begotten nature of the Son, although using the word avoids any possibility of anyone following Christ to be begotten like Him. It started by making Christ begotten before all aeon/ages/worlds in the Nicene Creed.

Yes, it's talking about his essence. But the bigger issue is creation ex nihilo. 

Quote

Then it morphed into making Him eternally begotten. My argument is that essentially makes Him unbegotten. The plain meaning of the word is ignored.

Well that's true with most metaphysical claims. My point though isn't about whether the trinity is correct exegesis. I don't think the scriptures say anything about it honestly. The passages that are taken as applying seem twisted from their context.

Quote

This hearkens back to the Arian interpretation of scripture. To this extent I have adopted the Arian view as the correct scriptural view - the one which allows us to follow Christ to the holiest of all.

I'm not sure Arius is any better on these matters. 

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I have no problem discussing any period you wish Meadowchick. You keep insisting that JS evolved from a "trinitarian view" to a "Godhead view" and I'm just trying to understand how you can keep thinking this. You have not come up with a single example of Joseph ever even endorsing the word "trinity" yet keep insisting he promoted a trinitarian view. Just because the Book of Mormon says the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God doesn't mean JS was trinitarian. That is simply the nature of the Godhead. I don't see a difference. Trinitarianism involves accepting several additional concepts such as altering the begotten nature of the Son, so as to essentially make Him arguably unbegotten. In other words in the trinitarian view no one else can be begotten like Him. The trinitarian view makes Yeshua equal to the Father even though Yeshua Himself says the Father is greater, and both the OT and Yeshua Himself say that He does not know all the Father knows. The Book of Mormon clearly differentiates between the Most High and the Holy One of Israel. Jesus is never referred to as the Most High in scripture. Joseph Smith was again never trinitarian.

1 Nephi 11:6

6 And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God; for he is God over all the ^aearth, yea, even above all. And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou ^bbelievest in the Son of the most high God; wherefore, thou shalt behold the things which thou hast desired.

JS was plainly never trinitarian, but you keep using the word to try to satiate your contention that JS evolved apparently in order to make the same inference many critics do. I simply want you to back up your allegations. So I'm issuing you a CFR in hopes you will realize JS was never trinitarian - at least not while leading the Church - I'm sure from the time of his first vision experience. 

Well this is my point. I believe you are using an unfair generalization about LDS polygamy. LDS polygamy is the most fair and love-promoting form of polygamy I believe is available. I want you to be specific as to how women "still" are "subjugated" in the Church by polygamy. Again according to scripture, the woman has the right to refuse a polygamous relationship. I bring up the Muslim practice of polygamy because you seem to ignore it while picking on the LDS Church. This just seems unfair. Muslim women do not have the right to refuse polygamous relationships. For that matter they often don't have the right to refuse marriage, since they can be "married" as an infant or child. Under their law a husband can separate them into another room and beat them until they comply with his "rights" granted by Sharia. To me that is complete subjugation. In fact Islam means submission. The woman has no choice. Yet, you insist that somehow it is LDS polygamy which subjugates women, when under section 132 it is the most voluntary and pure form imaginable. 

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified;

So where is the "subjugation" if one gives her consent to live a polygamous relationship? Now I suppose you will argue that LDS women were led on, and made promises, etc. Nevertheless the letter of the law does not allow a woman to be "subjugated" to a man. It is certainly not like any other form of polygamy practiced in the world today. I get that maybe you are upset at the way polygamy was practiced in the Church. I get that all women were not happy with what happened in their relationships. However, to be fair I think you should acknowledge that the law given the Church does not "subjugate" women. If so, then you merely believe that all polygamy subjugates women, so I believe your standard as applied to other faiths is not fair.

First, please stop the sideshow about Islam. Me professing of the goodness of Muslims I personally know has nothing to do with my opinion about Islamic polygamy. May that strawman burn.

Second, we cannot separate practice from the doctrine especially of Joseph did not repent any appearance of malpractice to the Church. He effectively modelled the doctrine. The malpractice, unrepented of, combined with the contradicting doctrine form an evil doublespeak that perpetuated abuse.

Today, we are told that as long as we're worthy and righteous,  any man and woman can succeed together in marriage, a marriage where the husband presides. So effectively the LDS woman is told to marry in order to be exalted, to subordinate herself to the presiding of a man who is "worthy" and "righteous" according to other presiding men.

I am being charitable when I attribute this to semi-dormant LDS polygamous doctrine. This makes the most sense of the sexism imo.

Third, for the CFR:

The pattern of chronological shift from seeing the Lord and saying God (in the BoM) to, later, seeing the Father and the Son appearing together and then saying the son of God, this is consistent with shifting from a Trinitarian view to a Godhead view.

If you must, at the least it is consistent with shifting to a Godhead view from something else. 

The 1832 church publication Morning and Evening star does explicitly identify the Trinity as doctrine. Then Lecture Fifth in Lectures on Faith in the 1835 D&C, as doctrine, does describe a Trinitarian concept of the Son being the Son because he is God made flesh.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The church is pretty lenient on these key foundations that don't have clear revelations. So you even get people like Blake Ostler who deny the endless regress of gods interpretation of the King Follet Discourse and Sermon in the Grove. (To be fair he in part depends upon a careful exegesis for his interpretation - but it's definitely different from the mainstream 20th century views)

My point though was that the idea we were all co-eternal with God is pretty mainstream doctrine. Even Blake accepts that. As such since all the essences are uncreated Jesus' isn't begotten. Only his spirit and body were begotten in any Mormon theology that I'm aware of. (And many see the spiritual begotting as a kind of adoption rather than spirit birth)

I'll just cut to the chase Clark. Jesus is begotten spiritually much the same way we are - by following the teachings of His Master. He was begotten spiritually by a covenant with the Father. It is priesthood thing. In other words the Father and Son have a covenant relationship - like a principal/master and his agent or a master and his apprentice. It is not about bringing a new spirit into the universe but rather a reborn spirit - being spiritually reborn or born again as our Lord says. The Son is an office of the priesthood in my view - a calling which He accepted. So in my view He is not the only Son "the Father" has ever had. I believe these things to be part of the oracles of God. Much of it is taught in the book of Hebrews. Are a father and son one? They certainly are one family, but the Son is still learning - following what His Father does or says. Thus, they are one Elohim, and even one YHWH, but the Son is not El Elyon the Most High Power, but is seated on the right hand of this Power, and is repeatedly referred to in our scriptures as the Son of the Most High.

Quote

I'm not sure Arius is any better on these matters. 

I am not saying Arianism had the answer. Unfortunately, we largely only have what Catholics allege Arius taught, and thus we largely have their interpretation of his teachings. I believe Arius was just one of the most outspoken of a very large segment of the Church - the Church of the East - which later became "the Nestorian Church." In Arius' own surviving words I don't find anything unscriptural. In the Nicene Creed I do find unscriptural beliefs such as a "begotten Son" who is never actually begotten. I am not Arian, but on this point I seem to agree with him. Apparently a very large segment of the Church did as well since there were several councils which favored him - they are just dismissed by the Catholic Church as non-ecumenical. The Catholic Church seems to make great effort to single out Arius as a lone heretic. He was hardly alone in not favoring the new state-born Church and its creeds, although the new state-recognized Church seemed to quickly gain power since it would drag dissenters through ex-communication. 

 

[clarkgoble]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Jesus is begotten spiritually much the same way we are - by following the teachings of His Master. He was begotten spiritually by a covenant with the Father. It is priesthood thing. In other words the Father and Son have a covenant relationship - like a principal/master and his agent or a master and his apprentice. 

I agree with that with regards to being born again although I think it would be incorrect to limit it just to a covenant relationship. I think there's a substantial unity due to the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. So while I don't quite buy Pratt's views in the form he expressed them I think there's more going on in terms of how we are physically tied together.

Quote

In Arius' own surviving words I don't find anything unscriptural.

Well it's less the question of scripture than the interpretation of scripture. But even though I personally disagree with Arius - at least in the form we have him - I think he got a raw deal.

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The pattern of chronological shift from seeing the Lord and saying God (in the BoM) to, later, seeing the Father and the Son appearing together and then saying the son of God, this is consistent with shifting from a Trinitarian view to a Godhead view.

If you must, at the least it is consistent with shifting to a Godhead view from something else. 

The 1832 church publication Morning and Evening star does explicitly identify the Trinity as doctrine. Then Lecture Fifth in Lectures on Faith in the 1835 D&C, as doctrine, does describe a Trinitarian concept of the Son being the Son because he is God made flesh.

I don't think I can agree with that since it presupposes that the Father can't be seen. But that's simply never stated in the Book of Mormon. That is to establish a change you'd have to establish more about the Book of Mormon. At best it's ambiguous. So you could say there's a shift in emphasis. But that's different from what you're arguing. I'd also argue that passages like Alma 11:44 could easily be taken to imply an embodied father. Passages like Moroni 9:26 also can easily be taken to imply embodiment. 

Now if you simply mean the idea that the Father was, like Jesus, embodied in a resurrected body, then I'd fully agree that's a development. The bit about the flesh is misleading since that clearly means mortal flesh. Again, if the idea is the idea that God the Father was (like Jesus) once mortal I agree that's a later development. 

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

First, please stop the sideshow about Islam. Me professing of the goodness of Muslims I personally know has nothing to do with my opinion about Islamic polygamy. May that strawman burn.

There just are not many other examples of polygamy in the world. I am showing that other forms of polygamy can be associated with your contention that polygamy subjugates women, and to emphasize the difference between them and LDS polygamy.

Quote

Second, we cannot separate practice from the doctrine especially of Joseph did not repent any appearance of malpractice to the Church. He effectively modelled the doctrine. The malpractice, unrepented of, combined with the contradicting doctrine form an evil doublespeak that perpetuated abuse.

Today, we are told that as long as we're worthy and righteous,  any man and woman can succeed together in marriage, a marriage where the husband presides. So effectively the LDS woman is told to marry in order to be exalted, to subordinate herself to the presiding of a man who is "worthy" and "righteous" according to other presiding men.

I am being charitable when I attribute this to semi-dormant LDS polygamous doctrine. This makes the most sense of the sexism imo.

So is Heavenly Father sexist for sending a man to save us rather than His mother Mary? I mean this seems to be where your argument is going. You seem to forget that men cannot be exalted without their wife. It's not like it's an unequal standard. Further, I believe it may just refer to the virgins of the bridegroom. Wait - is that sexist too? Is it sexist for Jesus to expect multiple mountains or churches to come to Him in the last day, and be one rather than separate? Is it sexist for the man Yeshua to preside? I don't see any explanation as to how women are subjugated if they agree to live in a polygamous family and can consent or refuse any various additional wives her husband presents. It seems to me she has equal control of the matter under the law. That is hardly subjugation.

Quote

Third, for the CFR:

The pattern of chronological shift from seeing the Lord and saying God (in the BoM) to, later, seeing the Father and the Son appearing together and then saying the son of God, this is consistent with shifting from a Trinitarian view to a Godhead view.

If you must, at the least it is consistent with shifting to a Godhead view from something else. 

The 1832 church publication Morning and Evening star does explicitly identify the Trinity as doctrine. Then Lecture Fifth in Lectures on Faith in the 1835 D&C, as doctrine, does describe a Trinitarian concept of the Son being the Son because he is God made flesh.

You are making me work for your CFR. I can only conclude that you are speaking of this passage:

“Through Christ we understand the terms on which God will show favour and grace to the world, and by him we have ground of a PARRESIA access with freedom and boldness unto God. On his account we may hope not only for grace to subdue our sins, resist temptations, conquer the devil and the world; but having ’fought this good fight, and finished our course by patient continuance in well doing, we may justly look for glory, honor, and immortality,’ and that ‘crown of righteousness which is laid up for those who wait in faith,’ holiness, and humility, for the appearance of Christ from heaven. Now what things can there be of greater moment and importance for men to know, or God to reveal, than the nature of God and ourselves the state and condition of our souls, the only way to avoid eternal misery and enjoy everlasting bliss!

“The Scriptures discover not only matters of importance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.” (The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12)

My response is that Joseph Smith did not make this statement. Many people joined the Church. They came with their own biases, and interpretations of scripture. Just because some for instance continued to believe in slavery, and wrote in support of it, doesn't mean Joseph Smith did. Just because some editors later wrote their contentions that the Nephites and Lamanites came to Central America in the same newspaper Joseph Smith edited does not mean that Joseph Smith believed the Lehites landed there. Such contentions are fallacies by association. I contend Joseph Smith never taught of the doctrine of the trinity except to deny it as a doctrine of men. No scripture of the Church teaches anything like what is claimed in the doctrine of the Trinity either. In fact as I have shown the first additional scripture introduced by JS to the Church, the BoM, clearly teaches perfectly in line with the Bible, that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God. Even if he can be referred to as the Father, that again is in alignment with Isaiah 9:6 which teaches He shall be called the Eternal Father. Thus, neither the Book of Mormon, the D&C, nor the Book of Abraham ever teach anything like the doctrine of the Trinity. The Book of Mormon teaches simply the oneness of God. like the Bible does - like the Godhead does. 

In fact to the contrary, the doctrine of the trinity teaches that the Son is NOT the Father, and that God is immutable - thus, the Son will never be the Father. Thus, the Book of Mormon seems to contradict the doctrine of the trinity right off the bat in teaching that the Son is the Father of the world.

Edited May 9, 2017 by RevTestament

[Meadowchik]

14 hours ago, RevTestament said:

There just are not many other examples of polygamy in the world. I am showing that other forms of polygamy can be associated with your contention that polygamy subjugates women, and to emphasize the difference between them and LDS polygamy.

So is Heavenly Father sexist for sending a man to save us rather than His mother Mary? I mean this seems to be where your argument is going. You seem to forget that men cannot be exalted without their wife. It's not like it's an unequal standard. Further, I believe it may just refer to the virgins of the bridegroom. Wait - is that sexist too? Is it sexist for Jesus to expect multiple mountains or churches to come to Him in the last day, and be one rather than separate? Is it sexist for the man Yeshua to preside? I don't see any explanation as to how women are subjugated if they agree to live in a polygamous family and can consent or refuse any various additional wives her husband presents. It seems to me she has equal control of the matter under the law. That is hardly subjugation.

You are making me work for your CFR. I can only conclude that you are speaking of this passage:

“Through Christ we understand the terms on which God will show favour and grace to the world, and by him we have ground of a PARRESIA access with freedom and boldness unto God. On his account we may hope not only for grace to subdue our sins, resist temptations, conquer the devil and the world; but having ’fought this good fight, and finished our course by patient continuance in well doing, we may justly look for glory, honor, and immortality,’ and that ‘crown of righteousness which is laid up for those who wait in faith,’ holiness, and humility, for the appearance of Christ from heaven. Now what things can there be of greater moment and importance for men to know, or God to reveal, than the nature of God and ourselves the state and condition of our souls, the only way to avoid eternal misery and enjoy everlasting bliss!

“The Scriptures discover not only matters of importance, but of the greatest depth and mysteriousness. There are many wonderful things in the law of God, things we may admire, but are never able to comprehend. Such are the eternal purposes and decrees of God, THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, the incarnation of the Son of God, and the manner of the operation of the Spirit of God upon the souls of men, which are all things of great weight and moment for us to understand and believe that they are, and yet may be unsearchable to our reason, as to the particular manner of them.” (The Evening And Morning Star, Vol. I, INDEPENDENCE, MO. JULY, 1832. No. 2. page 12)

My response is that Joseph Smith did not make this statement. Many people joined the Church. They came with their own biases, and interpretations of scripture. Just because some for instance continued to believe in slavery, and wrote in support of it, doesn't mean Joseph Smith did. Just because some editors later wrote their contentions that the Nephites and Lamanites came to Central America in the same newspaper Joseph Smith edited does not mean that Joseph Smith believed the Lehites landed there. Such contentions are fallacies by association. I contend Joseph Smith never taught of the doctrine of the trinity except to deny it as a doctrine of men. No scripture of the Church teaches anything like what is claimed in the doctrine of the Trinity either. In fact as I have shown the first additional scripture introduced by JS to the Church, the BoM, clearly teaches perfectly in line with the Bible, that Jesus is the Son of the Most High God. Even if he can be referred to as the Father, that again is in alignment with Isaiah 9:6 which teaches He shall be called the Eternal Father. Thus, neither the Book of Mormon, the D&C, nor the Book of Abraham ever teach anything like the doctrine of the Trinity. The Book of Mormon teaches simply the oneness of God. like the Bible does - like the Godhead does. 

In fact to the contrary, the doctrine of the trinity teaches that the Son is NOT the Father, and that God is immutable - thus, the Son will never be the Father. Thus, the Book of Mormon seems to contradict the doctrine of the trinity right off the bat in teaching that the Son is the Father of the world.

Everything has a different tint when you suspend the premise that the church is true. Do that, instead of creating strawmen like "So is Heavenly Father sexist for sending a man to save us rather than His mother Mary?"

Then see what happens.

[RevTestament]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Everything has a different tint when you suspend the premise that the church is true. Do that, instead of creating strawmen like "So is Heavenly Father sexist for sending a man to save us rather than His mother Mary?"

Then see what happens.

Suspend any inkling that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true, and accept that is man-made and unscriptural and see what happens - maybe like me you will consider it to be an evil strawman which hides the true nature of God.

[Meadowchik]

25 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Suspend any inkling that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true, and accept that is man-made and unscriptural and see what happens - maybe like me you will consider it to be an evil strawman which hides the true nature of God.

I can do that and I certainly have done so on multiple occasions and indeed most of my life.

And I am pretty open to whatever God wishes to reveal to me now, as well as loyal to what I believe God has already revealed to me.

[halconero]

According to some of us on the board who lean fundamentalist (doctrinally, but not as far as priesthood authority goes) the character and role of the Father and Mother are described in detail by early prophets of the restoration and in associated scripture. I need to make a mental note to actually post those sources since my life has calmed down. I promised to do so originally and never got around to it. Oops.

Edited May 9, 2017 by halconero

[JLHPROF]

21 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Second, we cannot separate practice from the doctrine especially of Joseph did not repent any appearance of malpractice to the Church. He effectively modelled the doctrine. The malpractice, unrepented of, combined with the contradicting doctrine form an evil doublespeak that perpetuated abuse.

Today, we are told that as long as we're worthy and righteous,  any man and woman can succeed together in marriage, a marriage where the husband presides. So effectively the LDS woman is told to marry in order to be exalted, to subordinate herself to the presiding of a man who is "worthy" and "righteous" according to other presiding men.

I am being charitable when I attribute this to semi-dormant LDS polygamous doctrine. This makes the most sense of the sexism imo.

Whether you define these things as sexism or not is irrelevant to whether they are true or not.
Maybe these things are cultural relics passed down over time that continue to hang around in our teachings.
Or maybe these things are actually how eternity functions.

I am willing to accept the first as a possibility.  Is not the second equally as possible?
What if the "Patriarchal" model turns out to be accurately depicting eternity?
What if the OW style strict equality model turns out to be more accurate?

Are we willing to accept the truth of God no matter how it makes us feel right now, is truth more important than anything?
Assuming of course we are even able to determine the realities of eternity.

[probablyHagoth7]

On 5/6/2017 at 2:50 PM, Meadowchik said:

...it is hard to warm to a conception of God that continues to be used for the subjugation of women....

Currently reading an unexpected book that suggests God's intent was/is the exact opposite.

Edited May 9, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Meadowchik]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Whether you define these things as sexism or not is irrelevant to whether they are true or not.
Maybe these things are cultural relics passed down over time that continue to hang around in our teachings.
Or maybe these things are actually how eternity functions.

I am willing to accept the first as a possibility.  Is not the second equally as possible?
What if the "Patriarchal" model turns out to be accurately depicting eternity?
What if the OW style strict equality model turns out to be more accurate?

Are we willing to accept the truth of God no matter how it makes us feel right now, is truth more important than anything?
Assuming of course we are even able to determine the realities of eternity.

I choose to believe Christ's description of the First and Second Commandments.  I believe Him.  Thus, I don't believe in things contrary to Him. 

I also cannot abide the internal contradiction, abusive nature of practice, and lack of foundation for Joseph's polygamy.  The seed was bad, the fruit is bad.

That is my understanding of the issue, but I can understand that yours may sincerely be different.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 5/8/2017 at 8:25 AM, clarkgoble said:

I'd be somewhat careful here. The issue is more the nature of spirits than the issue of an essential body like Jesus has. The basis for that is that God is called spirit in John 4:24. So it's not like the Christians of the 2cd century pulled this out of nowhere. Further even figured influenced more by stoicism than platonism still saw the Father as spirit. Just that spirit was material. 

Even Jews though frequently saw God as not a person like Jesus. This almost certainly has Hellenistic influences. Further there are strong indications that the pre-exilic view of God was closer to the surrounding Canaanite views. How much of that is syncretic mixing with Canaanite views (much as happened with Hellenism after the conquest by Alexander) isn't clear. Obviously we as Mormons like the materialist and divine council aspects of Canaanite religion. But we do have to be careful.

Again I'd be careful here. First off as I mentioned the opposition tends to be more modalism against a quasi-trinity where the main aspects of the trinity aren't addressed. i.e. most Mormons saw the trinity as modalism - an incorrect view. One could argue that Joseph's vision especially by the time of the King Follet Discourse had a more subordinatistic element in that Jesus was seen subordinate to the Father. Yet even that is a bit tricky for various reasons related to seeing the essential soul of Jesus as co-eternal with the Father. Further even while the subordination of Arius is condemned as not part of the trinity an economic or relational subordination is acceptable and that's reasonably close to Joseph's view.

The question of the substantial unity versus a social unity simply seems not to be addressed. I understand why some Mormon theologians like Blake Ostler embrace social trinitarianism but it seems to me the basic concerns about substantial unity simply weren't addressed by Joseph. Further the idea of a substantial unity most definitely is part of the Pratt brother's view at the time. And they're the only ones really discussing it. First Parley adopts a quasi-emanation theory where our spirits are literally made out of the substance of God. Once the revelation on spirits as matter appears we then end up with a more stoic idea of spirit and substantial unity. (Possibly arising out of either their or even Joseph's reading about Tertullian or the stoics or even Spinoza)

It's important to be clear on this as I think Mormon scholars have often muddled issues by not being at all clear on what the doctrine of the trinity actually is nor where the points of dispute are. It's true that if we expand the discussion beyond the creeds to the broader theology of the trinity problems pop up. However the real issues are creation ex nihilo and the physical embodiment of the Father. I'd also tend to agree on the problem that most of the theologies of the trinity being tied to platonic conceptions rather than materialistic ones. Even the theologies of the trinity more influenced by Aristotle still adopt those basic platonic conceptions of the Godhead.

So in other words, substantial unity mostly comes out of Plato and Aristotle, right?

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I choose to believe Christ's description of the First and Second Commandments.  I believe Him.  Thus, I don't believe in things contrary to Him. 

 

That is, based on faith and little evidence you choose to believe what Jesus allegedly said though there is a case that the person Jesus never existed, right?

I am just trying to show you that your quest for "evidence" is barking up the wrong tree when it comes to religious matters- it's not that I disagree with your principles.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I choose to believe Christ's description of the First and Second Commandments.  I believe Him.  Thus, I don't believe in things contrary to Him. 

I also cannot abide the internal contradiction, abusive nature of practice, and lack of foundation for Joseph's polygamy.  The seed was bad, the fruit is bad.

That is my understanding of the issue, but I can understand that yours may sincerely be different.

 

Do you believe polygamy is permissible between consenting adults, or do you think your values supercede what consenting adults wish to do with their lives?

I am asking this in principle- to see if you think polygamy is inherently evil somehow or that perhaps in certain circumstances it was abused.

That makes a big difference in your argument which I think you are missing.

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So in other words, substantial unity mostly comes out of Plato and Aristotle, right?

The question might but I'm not sure the answer necessarily does. 

Much like many reasonable questions presuppose a scientific world view to form. (Say the relation to cognition between the spirit and brain)

Edited May 9, 2017 by clarkgoble