Church Leaders and the Presumption of Dishonesty

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think we're equivocating over value a bit. Certainly any professional historian or archivist would never damage a document. However as I mentioned these weren't professionals but at best completely untrained amateurs. To them the value would have just been the content.

Who do you believe were "these" and "them"?  Do you know how many had access to put things in the first presidency vault?  (I don't know so that's why I'm asking).  I have to believe we can narrow it down....

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think we have to distinguish between "neglected" and "hidden.

Yes, I think we can too.  Cutting something out of an original document (specifically and only regarding the first vision) and placing it in the first presidency vault does not sound like neglect to me.  It was removed and placed where others would not have access to it.  Once again, we can debate why someone did that....but IMO, that's hiding something rather than neglecting it.  I honestly can understand why this may have been done until decisions could be made regarding how to release it or publish it.

Edited December 4, 2017 by ALarson

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think forgotten is a fair comment if you're talking about the general church membership, but I would say some leaders that knew about the 1832 account wanted it forgotten.

Do you have any evidence for that, or is that merely a "presumption of dishonesty?"

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Other things that were forgotten, is how the FV narrative was not one of the foundational events in early Mormon history.  People forgot or never learned about how founding myths develop and how their emphasis can grow and change over time.  Also forgotten that historical accuracy was not necessarily an emphasis of the authors of these narratives.  Also forgotten is how common visionary experiences were during this time period, and that many elements of the FV narrative appear to be borrowed from other published accounts of the day.

What seems to be forgotten currently is that every assertion in the foregoing is merely an opinion.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Unless they chose not to log it. Logging and tracking systems assume and presume good faith among users. It is possible to archive things, but to leave no searchable record of it being stored. 

Look, guys. the 1832 account doesn't disprove the Church's truth claims. But, it's pretty clear to me that Joseph Fielding Smith chose to rip it out and put it in the vault to keep the account hidden, because he felt that it would be harmful to people's faith.

And why would he think that?

There is another entire thread devoted exclusively to discussing the 1832 account. I think your assumption is misplaced.

[kiwi57]

56 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, and then it was taped back in place when the Tanners started making noise about its existence and there were requests to see the document. That kind of indicates an "uh, oh" reaction to that. 

Do you actually read threads?

The pages were reinserted in the letter book in the 1990's, which was decades after the Tanners had published the account.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

When it comes to truth claims, the claim that Joseph saw God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate and distinct beings in his first vision, I think that claim specifically is challenged by the 1832 account.  If its important for Mormonism to claim a visitation of two separate and distinct beings to bolster the theological Godhead definition that Joseph articulated in the Nauvoo period, then I think the evidence of the 1832 account makes us question the use of the 1838/1839 account as evidence to support the Godhead theology.  Not to say that the Godhead concept is in jeopardy at all, just that the use of the 1838/1839 account as supporting evidence is diminished.  What do you think?  

Not mentioning something is not challenging it. Also the idea of three persons isn't unique to Nauvoo but well predates it. (Arguably it's the view of 3 Nephi) In any case the 1838 account predates Nauvoo and is part of the Missouri period. The Lectures on Faith have a material Father and that's in the 1835 D&C and likely was written by the fall of 1834.

Some claim that Joseph held to modalism from 1830-1833 - largely on the basis of Mosiah 15. That's hard to sustain though. While one could always interpret 3 Nephi 11:7 modally it's not a natural reading. Further none of the passages really push modalism. Mosiah 15 comes closest but even that neglects the relation of how Jesus is Father and Son to the exegesis of Isaiah. The deeper problem is that there are plenty of non-moralistic revelations from the era of the Book of Commandments. For instance 24:15-16 (now D&C 20:21-24) says, "[Jesus] ascended into heaven to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with Almighty power according to the will of the Father." Book of Commandments 41:3 (D&C 76:19-23) has Joseph and Sidney seeing the father and son as separate beings and literally on the right hand of God. That's the same year as the first vision account in question. 

It's also worth not in that in Moses 1, received around June 1830, seems to describe the Father and Son as separate beings. (I'd argue Moses 1 is explicitly riffing on Mosiah 15 but I'll admit that's debatable) I'll admit that Moses 1 can be read in terms of modalism but again it's not a natural reading at all. (At least with Mosiah 15 a case could be made for modalism) The main argument against a modalistic reading is that both the Father and his Only Begotten Son were agents in creation. Under modalism they'd be the same being and more particularly don't appear to be different modes (since the son is doing the same creative work as the father). In particular Moses 1:3,6 seem incompatible with modalism.

By the time of the retranslation of Genesis 1 the plurality is explicit. "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so." That's some time in early summer of 1830. 

So it's not clear to me why the 1832 First Vision account would in the least indicate a different belief in Joseph regarding the godhead.

Quote

Yes, I think we can too.  Cutting something out of an original document (specifically and only regarding the first vision) and placing it in the first presidency vault does not sound like neglect to me.  It was removed and placed where others would not have access to it.  Once again, we can debate why someone did that....but IMO, that's hiding something rather than neglecting it.  I honestly can understand why this may have been done until decisions could be made regarding how to release it or publish it.

Neglect was in terms of publication and use. We simply have to distinguish between protect and hide. Since everyone agrees no one except the Tanners were denied access, that's not exactly hiding. Merely not publishing. You are assuming that anything short of publication is hiding. Yet if it was seen as an important document, they may have cut it out from the rest of the papers which weren't seen as valuable to preserve it in the vault along with the seer stones and other very important items.

As I said it's not hard to find similar items we today find significant but clearly they didn't publish.

Edited December 4, 2017 by clarkgoble

[kiwi57]

9 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, I think we can too.  Cutting something out of an original document (specifically and only regarding the first vision) and placing it in the first presidency vault does not sound like neglect to me.  It was removed and placed where others would not have access to it.  Once again, we can debate why someone did that....but IMO, that's hiding something rather than neglecting it.  I honestly can understand why this may have been done until decisions could be made regarding how to release it or publish it.

Except that it wasn't "specifically and only regarding the first vision." It's easy to assume that, because that's the impression the critics labour to create; but it is false.

The letter book contained essentially two things: (1) an early history, and (2) hard copies of correspondence. The entire history was excised, not merely the First Vision material.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Except that it wasn't "specifically and only regarding the first vision." It's easy to assume that, because that's the impression the critics labour to create; but it is false.

The letter book contained essentially two things: (1) an early history, and (2) hard copies of correspondence. The entire history was excised, not merely the First Vision material.

Is there a copy of what was written on the 3 leaves that were removed? (I will look too....I admit that I'm not well read regarding this so that's why I ask).

Do you have a theory as to why someone removed that one section (damaging the original document) and putting it in the first presidency vault?  I'd really like to know why you believe this was done rather than the leaders publishing the history....

Edited December 4, 2017 by ALarson

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Is there a copy of what was written on the 3 leaves that were removed? (I will look too....I admit that I'm not well read regarding this so that's why I ask).

Do you have a theory as to why someone removed that one section (damaging the original document) and putting it in the first presidency vault?  I'd really like to know why you believe this was done rather than publishing the history....

This is what I really want to know too..I have been reading this thread but still so confused..but there is a big why one would believe this....thanks!

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Do you have any evidence for that, or is that merely a "presumption of dishonesty?"

What seems to be forgotten currently is that every assertion in the foregoing is merely an opinion.

Yes, have you read the Stan Larson essay I posted the link to earlier?  

I'm not sure why you would emphasize that my earlier comment about things forgotten is "merely an opinion", as if that dismisses the points I made.  Those opinions are all based on evidence and if you want to discuss the strengths or weaknesses of any of those points, I'm happy to do so, but trying to dismiss them without any counter arguments actually shows a weakness in your position, not in mine.  

[Web Of Slime]

Assuming honesty is the easiest way to fall for the trick of Orwellian double speak.

Presuming dishonesty is the best frame in which to pursue a skeptical point of view.

The alternative is the suspension of judgment, altogether, where you consciously make the decision to wait for more information before reaching any conclusions.

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Is there a copy of what was written on the 3 leaves that were removed? (I will look too....I admit that I'm not well read regarding this so that's why I ask).

Joseph Smith Papers has it all in that link I'd given earlier.

There are still 8 missing pages from the end of the papers - it's not clear what was on them.

[kiwi57]

19 minutes ago, Web Of Slime said:

Assuming honesty is the easiest way to fall for the trick of Orwellian double speak.

Not really. The presumption of honesty is the best way to get to the truth. If you start from the presumption that everything a person says is something they honestly believe, then if they are lying, sooner or later it will become apparent.

19 minutes ago, Web Of Slime said:

Presuming dishonesty is the best frame in which to pursue a skeptical point of view.

Only if "skeptical" is the same as "cynical." As I pointed out in the OP (it's always a good idea to read the OP of any thread, BTW) if you assume dishonesty, no evidence will ever be sufficient to clear the suspicion.

19 minutes ago, Web Of Slime said:

The alternative is the suspension of judgment, altogether, where you consciously make the decision to wait for more information before reaching any conclusions.

Which is fine in theory, but in practice, if you are interested enough in a subject to really care about the outcome, you are probably going to have some predisposition one way or the other.

[kiwi57]

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, have you read the Stan Larson essay I posted the link to earlier?  

Yes. I have.

I've commented on it, too.

26 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure why you would emphasize that my earlier comment about things forgotten is "merely an opinion", as if that dismisses the points I made.  Those opinions are all based on evidence and if you want to discuss the strengths or weaknesses of any of those points, I'm happy to do so, but trying to dismiss them without any counter arguments actually shows a weakness in your position, not in mine.  

When you offer unsupported opinions, I don't need to do anything but point out that that's what they are. If you think the evidence is so compelling, then by all means produce it. If you have to resort to an argument from undemonstrated authority, then that doesn't show a weakness in my position.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Joseph Smith Papers has it all in that link I'd given earlier.

There are still 8 missing pages from the end of the papers - it's not clear what was on them.

Thanks Clark.  I haven't followed this thread that closely so I must have missed your reference.  I'll take a look....

So has no one found the other 8 pages (just clarifying)?   If not I wonder if they were simply destroyed (?).  What are your thoughts regarding those pages?

[rongo]

Just now, ALarson said:

Thanks Clark.  I haven't followed this thread that closely so I must have missed your reference.  I'll take a look....

So has no one found the other 8 pages (just clarifying)?   If not I wonder if they were simply destroyed (?).  What are your thoughts regarding those pages?

They had the priesthood ban revelation . . . 

[kiwi57]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

They had the priesthood ban revelation . . . 

You know you're a bad person...

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Not really. The presumption of honesty is the best way to get to the truth. If you start from the presumption that everything a person says is something they honestly believe, then if they are lying, sooner or later it will become apparent.

Only if "skeptical" is the same as "cynical." As I pointed out in the OP (it's always a good idea to read the OP of any thread, BTW) if you assume dishonesty, no evidence will ever be sufficient to clear the suspicion.

 

In that respect, assuming dishonesty is akin to the fallacy of the argument from silence. It is impossible to falsify. Therefore it is a form of sophistry.

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Not mentioning something is not challenging it. Also the idea of three persons isn't unique to Nauvoo but well predates it. (Arguably it's the view of 3 Nephi) In any case the 1838 account predates Nauvoo and is part of the Missouri period. The Lectures on Faith have a material Father and that's in the 1835 D&C and likely was written by the fall of 1834.

I don't think the 1830 BoM has any evidence to support the later Mormon Godhead concept that became a distinctly different conception in Mormonism.   Can you explain your reading of 3 Nephi 11:7, I don't see how that doesn't fit into a contemporary protestant Christian view of God, whether it fits modalism or trinitarianism exactly wasn't the key point I was trying to make, the key point being that it wasn't distinctly different from other protestant interpretations of biblical passages at the time.  

Quote

Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him.

Also do you have any evidence from early Mormon writings that would corroborate the interpretation you're giving to the 3 Nephi verses, i.e. writings by early leaders, D&C revelations, etc. 

As for Lectures on Faith, can you explain where it says there is a "material Father", as this is the opposite of a straight forward reading of Lecture #5:

Quote

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh

 

35 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The deeper problem is that there are plenty of non-moralistic revelations from the era of the Book of Commandments. For instance 24:15-16 (now D&C 20:21-24) says, "[Jesus] ascended into heaven to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with Almighty power according to the will of the Father." Book of Commandments 41:3 (D&C 76:19-23) has Joseph and Sidney seeing the father and son as separate beings and literally on the right hand of God. That's the same year as the first vision account in question. 

The problem with these examples you're giving from the early D&C in the early 1830s, is that none of them are departures from New Testament sounding language, in fact, they sound quite biblical.  See Acts 2:32-33 as a comparison.  

Quote

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

For D&C 76, Acts 2:33 is similar also, but see these other verses too, and there are others, but this is a good list.    

Quote

Mark 16:19 - So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Acts 7:55 - But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God

Acts 7:56 - And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God

Romans 8:34 - Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Colossians 3:1 - If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

 

59 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It's also worth not in that in Moses 1, received around June 1830, seems to describe the Father and Son as separate beings. (I'd argue Moses 1 is explicitly riffing on Mosiah 15 but I'll admit that's debatable) I'll admit that Moses 1 can be read in terms of modalism but again it's not a natural reading at all. (At least with Mosiah 15 a case could be made for modalism) The main argument against a modalistic reading is that both the Father and his Only Begotten Son were agents in creation. Under modalism they'd be the same being and more particularly don't appear to be different modes (since the son is doing the same creative work as the father). In particular Moses 1:3,6 seem incompatible with modalism.

For one, I'm not arguing a strictly modalistic interpretation, thats why I said its a blend of modalism and trinitarianism.  The key thing is that these early Mormon concepts are not distinctly different from biblical passages and they don't represent a departure from other protestant concepts. 

Look at these verses for comparison to your Moses verses.   

Quote

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Isaiah 45:5 - I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:

 

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

By the time of the retranslation of Genesis 1 the plurality is explicit. "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so." That's some time in early summer of 1830. 

What about the KJV for Genesis 1:26 which says. 

Quote

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I agree that by including Jesus in the creation narrative its departing from the Genesis reading, but that is the John concept from the NT, that Jesus was involved in creation.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

So it's not clear to me why the 1832 First Vision account would in the least indicate a different belief in Joseph regarding the godhead.

You're probably more familiar with the evidence than I am, and the many Mormon studies scholars who've shown ample evidence that the concept was evolving over time.  You even hint at this in your response saying "by the time they were retranslating Genesis the plurality is explicit", indicating that you're aware of doctrinal evolution happening.  Are you trying to argue that no evolution happened?  Are you trying to say that the 1832 concept of God was the same as an 1839 concept or even a late Nauvoo concept?  If so, why, as I'm sure you see evidence for other concepts evolving over time, and I thought I've seen you post about that in past threads.  

 

[hope_for_things]

46 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes. I have.

I've commented on it, too.

When you offer unsupported opinions, I don't need to do anything but point out that that's what they are. If you think the evidence is so compelling, then by all means produce it. If you have to resort to an argument from undemonstrated authority, then that doesn't show a weakness in my position.

So when I post links to articles supporting my opinion, you call them unsupported opinions?  That makes no sense.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Tearing it out and putting it in the vault might have contributed to it being forgotten, though, right? 

Does no one else put things in special places to ensure that they are dealt with and then promptly forget them because they are not seen constantly? 

Not saying this is what happened, but the thought popped into my head given my constant failures lately at organizing (handling two adults I could manage, 4 adults with three of those starting out completely unorganized with constant interruptions...I have yet to find the key).

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think the 1830 BoM has any evidence to support the later Mormon Godhead concept that became a distinctly different conception in Mormonism.   Can you explain your reading of 3 Nephi 11:7, I don't see how that doesn't fit into a contemporary protestant Christian view of God, whether it fits modalism or trinitarianism exactly wasn't the key point I was trying to make, the key point being that it wasn't distinctly different from other protestant interpretations of biblical passages at the time.  

I don't think anyone is claiming the plurality of gods is in the Book of Mormon in a clear fashion. Rather than the claim the Father and Son are distinct persons was held. So you're taking me as arguing for something I'm not arguing. I'm just saying 3 Nephi isn't modalistic nor are the texts prior to the 1832 First Vision account.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Also do you have any evidence from early Mormon writings that would corroborate the interpretation you're giving to the 3 Nephi verses, i.e. writings by early leaders, D&C revelations, etc. 

Why doesn't Moses 2, just a few months later, count? But maybe I'm missing what you're asking for.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

As for Lectures on Faith, can you explain where it says there is a "material Father", as this is the opposite of a straight forward reading of Lecture #5:

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father;"

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

The problem with these examples you're giving from the early D&C in the early 1830s, is that none of them are departures from New Testament sounding language, in fact, they sound quite biblical.  See Acts 2:32-33 as a comparison.  

That's a problem for the claim of modalism since it implies the same problem with modalist readings of the New Testament against Trinitarians. However D&C 76 has them seeing the son on the right hand of the Father so it's not metaphoric the way modalists claim of language in the NT. Plus a modalist wouldn't be apt to quote language from the NT typically used against modalism. i.e. you'd expect passages modalists prefer not quoting the very passages that led to modalism dying out. Note I didn't list all the D&C passages that are problematic to a modalist.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Look at these verses for comparison to your Moses verses.   

What about the KJV for Genesis 1:26 which says. 

I agree that by including Jesus in the creation narrative its departing from the Genesis reading, but that is the John concept from the NT, that Jesus was involved in creation.  

I'm not sure what you're arguing relative to Moses. Could you be more explicit? Moses 2 in particular seems pretty explicit. But Genesis 1:26 is pretty difficult for a modalist to explain. Usually they claim the Hebrew is the royal we. Modalism in late antiquity (Sabelism) simply fell out of favor particularly because of those passages. I think the only contemporary modalists are a subset of Pentacostals but I honestly don't know their apologetics on the matter.

Recall that the issue isn't whether Jesus helped but whether Jesus and the Father are the same person. A lot of your comments more or less reduce to "modalism doesn't make sense given the NT texts" which I completely agree with. It makes even less sense with the pre-1832 Mormon texts.

My point is that modalism is unlikely and that unless one can make a clear argument for Joseph being a modalist then the 1832 account really isn't a problem at all. All of this is an issue just because a few people made claims, largely on the basis of Mosiah 15, for Joseph being a modalist. The 1832 account is part of their argument but it's an amazingly weak argument that hinges upon ignoring these other passages. (And I've read a lot of these modalistic arguments and most really don't engage these other passages even in order to dismiss them)

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

For one, I'm not arguing a strictly modalistic interpretation, thats why I said its a blend of modalism and trinitarianism.  The key thing is that these early Mormon concepts are not distinctly different from biblical passages and they don't represent a departure from other protestant concepts. 

I'm not following you at all. There's not really common ground between those positions since the whole argument is over whether there's one person or three persons. The common substance part they agreed upon.

If Joseph isn't a modalist then he accepts more than one person and therefore the 1832 First Vision account isn't controversial at all.

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

You're probably more familiar with the evidence than I am, and the many Mormon studies scholars who've shown ample evidence that the concept was evolving over time.

Certainly. But it matters how they were evolving. They were evolving from having two persons into having an infinite plurality.

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think anyone is claiming the plurality of gods is in the Book of Mormon in a clear fashion. Rather than the claim the Father and Son are distinct persons was held. So you're taking me as arguing for something I'm not arguing. I'm just saying 3 Nephi isn't modalistic nor are the texts prior to the 1832 First Vision account.

Why doesn't Moses 2, just a few months later, count? But maybe I'm missing what you're asking for.

"There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things—by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father;"

That's a problem for the claim of modalism since it implies the same problem with modalist readings of the New Testament against Trinitarians. However D&C 76 has them seeing the son on the right hand of the Father so it's not metaphoric the way modalists claim of language in the NT. Plus a modalist wouldn't be apt to quote language from the NT typically used against modalism. i.e. you'd expect passages modalists prefer not quoting the very passages that led to modalism dying out. Note I didn't list all the D&C passages that are problematic to a modalist.

I'm not sure what you're arguing relative to Moses. Could you be more explicit? Moses 2 in particular seems pretty explicit. But Genesis 1:26 is pretty difficult for a modalist to explain. Usually they claim the Hebrew is the royal we. Modalism in late antiquity (Sabelism) simply fell out of favor particularly because of those passages. I think the only contemporary modalists are a subset of Pentacostals but I honestly don't know their apologetics on the matter.

Recall that the issue isn't whether Jesus helped but whether Jesus and the Father are the same person. A lot of your comments more or less reduce to "modalism doesn't make sense given the NT texts" which I completely agree with. It makes even less sense with the pre-1832 Mormon texts.

My point is that modalism is unlikely and that unless one can make a clear argument for Joseph being a modalist then the 1832 account really isn't a problem at all. All of this is an issue just because a few people made claims, largely on the basis of Mosiah 15, for Joseph being a modalist. The 1832 account is part of their argument but it's an amazingly weak argument that hinges upon ignoring these other passages. (And I've read a lot of these modalistic arguments and most really don't engage these other passages even in order to dismiss them)

I'm not following you at all. There's not really common ground between those positions since the whole argument is over whether there's one person or three persons. The common substance part they agreed upon.

If Joseph isn't a modalist then he accepts more than one person and therefore the 1832 First Vision account isn't controversial at all.

Certainly. But it matters how they were evolving. They were evolving from having two persons into having an infinite plurality.

Let me back up a little, because I think we're getting into territory that I don't have enough confidence in to discuss.  I admit that the differences between modalism and trinitarianism are difficult for me to tease out.  I also admit that the Mormon correlated Godhead concept is also difficult for me to distinguish from trinitarianism in many ways, the only really distinct difference is the idea that both God the Father and God the Son have physical resurrected bodies, and that seems like a clear difference.  The other differences are less clear to me, and have overlapping concepts.  But none of these differences are the point I was trying to make earlier.  

The point I was trying to make is that the 1832 vision description of "The Lord" challenges the way that correlated Mormonism uses the 1838/39 account as proof of the correlated Godhead doctrine.  The correlated Sunday School manuals use the 1838/39 account as proof of a physical resurrected embodied Father and Son, two distinct and separate beings visiting Joseph Smith.  But even the 1838/39 text does not explicitly call them physical or resurrected.  The way correlated Mormonism uses the 1838/39 account is stretched in multiple ways, the vision becomes a visitation, the two personages become resurrected physical embodied beings.  The text of the 1838/39 account is already being misused through correlated Mormonism in my opinion.   The 1832 account directly challenges the way correlated Mormonism misuses the 1838/39 account.  

My other point about early Mormon concepts of deity, is that they don't draw stark differences from other Christian interpretations of the bible.  Whether modalism or trinitarianism or some other protestant concept, all of which I have a hard time distinguishing myself, and it would take me studying the sometimes subtle differences in theologies for different denominations to fully appreciate.  I guess in that sense I admit that I could be wrong on my point about Mormonism's concept not drawing a distinct difference between the BoM and early revelations concepts of deity and other protestant denominational ideas in the 19th century.  I'm trusting that scholars that I've read are correct on this point, but without investing the time to truly dig deep on this issue, I admit that I may be wrong on this point.  

 

[hope_for_things]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Certainly. But it matters how they were evolving. They were evolving from having two persons into having an infinite plurality.

The many ways that Mormon leaders have expressed concepts of deity in the past were very confusing, hence the Joseph F. Smith statements in 1916 to try and clarify the matter, but even today, I think there remains confusion about how we can believe in one God and multiple Gods at the same time.  The one purpose idea is an attempt to harmonize all the disparate canonized concepts, but it really doesn't fit in many ways.  Thought you might find this Orson Pratt quote interesting.  

Quote

this I endeavored to do in some of my last publications; not because I had more light upon this subject than many others, but I endeavored to do it for the benefit of the people—to show them wherein we believe in the plurality of Gods, and yet acknowledge only one God. I believe both of these principles with all my heart. I believe there is one only wise God, and I believe there is an immense number of Gods

 

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Let me back up a little, because I think we're getting into territory that I don't have enough confidence in to discuss.  I admit that the differences between modalism and trinitarianism are difficult for me to tease out.  I also admit that the Mormon correlated Godhead concept is also difficult for me to distinguish from trinitarianism in many ways, the only really distinct difference is the idea that both God the Father and God the Son have physical resurrected bodies, and that seems like a clear difference.  The other differences are less clear to me, and have overlapping concepts.  But none of these differences are the point I was trying to make earlier.  

Part of the problem is that we have to distinguishing the formal trinitarianism of the creed which is technically compatible with Mormonism with the way the trinity was seen as part of a series of doctrines beyond the formal creed. Then there are some linguistic issues in the creeds.

Formal trinity = three hypostasis (sometimes seen as persons in normal sense of term) with one common metaphysical substance or essence

Trinity doctrine = three hypostasis (sometimes seen as persons but more often abstracted in weird ways) with one common metaphysical substance. Ontological divide between substance/persons and creation. Father pure platonic nature. Son pure platonic nature also sharing mortal nature.

Modalism = three modes (not persons) in one substance.

Mormon henotheism = believe in multiple gods each of whom is a person in normal sense of term who share one essence that is not necessarily a metaphysical substance (but could be) but believe only one is to be worshipped

Polytheism = believe in multiple gods , each of whom is a person in normal sense of term, and any or many could be worshipped

So the formal trinity is compatible with some Mormon belief for those Mormons who accept a substantial unity between the divine persons. (Pratt comes close to this although he shifted from a metaphysical unity to a physical unity in terms of shared intelligent aether after the D&C 131 revelation) The doctrine of the trinity includes two main doctrines Mormon's typically can't accept which is the denial of the embodiment of the father and the acceptance of creation ex nihilo forming an absolute ontological divide between God and created people. We also have a different view of the two natures in Christ.

My point is just that Joseph appears to have always held that God the Father and God the Son were two persons in a strong sense. i.e. there's no indication he really ever believed in either modalism nor the more holistic conception of the trinity. The only real reference that comes close to modalism is Mosiah 15 but that can be read in multiple ways. Further there's simply nothing explicitly calling the Son and Father as two modes of a single being. Which makes attributing modalism more difficult since they tend to hinge just on ambiguous scriptures that could be read modalistically. (Much like modalists still accepted the New Testament)

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The point I was trying to make is that the 1832 vision description of "The Lord" challenges the way that correlated Mormonism uses the 1838/39 account as proof of the correlated Godhead doctrine.  The correlated Sunday School manuals use the 1838/39 account as proof of a physical resurrected embodied Father and Son, two distinct and separate beings visiting Joseph Smith.  But even the 1838/39 text does not explicitly call them physical or resurrected.  The way correlated Mormonism uses the 1838/39 account is stretched in multiple ways, the vision becomes a visitation, the two personages become resurrected physical embodied beings.  The text of the 1838/39 account is already being misused through correlated Mormonism in my opinion.   The 1832 account directly challenges the way correlated Mormonism misuses the 1838/39 account.  

But this seems wrong. It certainly can't be used as a proof text for such "correlated use." But that isn't the same as challenging the doctrine. That's like saying that because Alma 11 doesn't offer a proof text for the traditional theology of the godhead that therefore it challenges it.

Now I'd certainly agree that Mormons read back into the 1838 account a more robust doctrine. Just like mainstream Christians will read back into any NT passage a doctrine of the Trinity. But other than the banal point that most prooftexts don't establish as much as people using them use them for, I'm not sure why that matters much. Certainly Mormons don't believe in the Father's embodiment because of the 1838 First Vision. They believe in it because of later revelations of Joseph Smith.

47 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

My other point about early Mormon concepts of deity, is that they don't draw stark differences from other Christian interpretations of the bible.  Whether modalism or trinitarianism or some other protestant concept, all of which I have a hard time distinguishing myself, and it would take me studying the sometimes subtle differences in theologies for different denominations to fully appreciate. 

I fully agree. Indeed I've argued that many Mormons like myself shouldn't have problems with the Anthanasian Creed. The biggest divide between Mormons and creedal Christianity is over creation ex nihilo. Most all else follows from that. I'd say seeing the Father as having two natures like the Son also is a divide. But I think most creedal Christians would say God the Father could do this if he wanted. But that gets even more esoteric and subtle and gets into the relation and roles of the Father and Son. A point not all creedal Christians necessarily agree upon.

Since creation ex nihilo is the main difference, it's worth asking when Joseph rejected that doctrine. Unfortunately that seems difficult to know since he rarely addresses it formally. We can probably infer it as an implication of many of his doctrines fairly early on. But it's not at all clear he ever really understood the idea of creation ex nihilo in order to reject it.

Edited December 5, 2017 by clarkgoble