Church Leaders and the Presumption of Dishonesty

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

By and large Mormons are concerned with the persons as persons. That's clear by Nauvoo and is explicitly the concern by Brigham Young and pretty well persists thereafter. Traditional creedal Christianity in contrast tended to primarily be focused on metaphysical issues. That's true around the time of Augustine and arguably at least 100 years before him. More significantly they saw it through the lens of neoplatonism (especially with Augustine onward). While elements were there before Augustine, the radical change Augustine brought in was creation ex nihilo which forces an ontological break between God/One and all creations. Traditional neoplatonism has a continuous level of emanantions from the One down to matter. Augustine allows the Godhead to be emanations from the One but nothing else. This has radical implications and persists through the rest of creedal Christianity. There are moves at times back to a more neoplatonic conception especially in the Christian mystic tradition. But those moves are almost always seen as heretical even when they attempt to maintain creation ex nihilo. 

With early Mormonism there's not a lot of evidence they had much understanding of metaphysics even when neoplatonism was an influence. So the Pratt brothers early on adopt a view of God fairly similar to Emerson's neoplatonism which was popular in early 19th century America. It was explicitly not trinitarian but most people influenced by it didn't understand the creeds nor the subtle metaphysics involved. (Emerson was an Unitarian and unsurprisingly it's from the unitarians these ideas are most popular)  The Pratts have the idea of a common unity to the Godhead, not all that unlike trinitarianism. Yet they see all creation of divine beings as emanations more like pre-Augustine neoplatonism. So our spirits are literally made out of the spirit of God. Like Emerson they reject creation ex nihilo although it's not quite clear they fully understand this. With the revelation on matter the Pratts move to a more Stoic like conception of the Trinity they possibly found by reading about Tertullian. That is there's a spiritual fluid interpenetrating the universe which is the common substance of the Gods. 

I bring all this up because it's necessary in order to understand how to believe in plural gods and one god.

The trinitarian believes in plural gods in the sense of the hypostasis. It's important to note that while this is often translated as persons most didn't think they were persons like the English term. Augustine for instance saw them as very, very abstract platonic emanations and not person in any real sense. Trinitarians will say that these are really one god in a metaphysical sense because of the common substance. Many (and you see this in the Apostle's Creed) will even say you can't say each is a God although not everyone is that much of a stickler for the language. (This in turn actually leads to logical problems with the Trinity - which is why many contemporary trinitarians are more open on the language) 

Orson Pratt, following Tertullian, thinks God is One because of the common substance as well. However he thinks you can and should use polytheistic language to talk about the persons who share this substantial unity. The problem with Pratt's position that Brigham Young attacks him for is that it naturally leads to thinking this spiritual fluid containing the attributes of godness is what we worship rather than the individual persons. For Young (and pretty well every Mormon since) we worship individual persons only. In the 20th century especially with Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie this moves into what's called a nominalist position. The nominalist position says there are only individual things and not a common real unity at all. So you'll see descriptions that the unity of God just consists of having the same purposes, knowledge and values. (Often expressed as one heart, mind, and purpose - but those are understood as mental states rather than a shared substantial mind-like substance) Technically that nominalism isn't Mormon doctrine. However western civilization by the 19th century had become extremely nominalistic so it's unsurprising Mormons are as well. Brigham Young in particular ridiculed the types of platonism in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. So you tend to have a lot of anti-platonism in Mormonism despite there being fair evidence that neoplatonism was a big influence on the early Church.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Thank you for doing this first part with the definitions of different concepts of deity compared, this is excellent and very helpful.  I'm going to save this part as a quick reference.  Big Kudos!!!  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

I guess at some level perhaps its not worse proof texting than any other group does.  But then why do you take issue with my statement that the 1832 account creates a problem for this kind of proof texting.  See the example below as an example of how they would have to change the lesson (Lesson #3 D&C manual)  when discussing what "truths we can learn from the First Vision" if they were using the 1832 account.  

Quote

What are some of the truths we can learn from the First Vision? (Summarize responses on the chalkboard. Answers could include those listed below.)

God the Father and Jesus Christ live.

The Father and the Son are real, separate beings with glorified bodies of flesh and bones.

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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)

I don't agree that that Josephs held that God the Father and God the Son were two persons in a strong sense.   What about the 1830 passages that Joseph later changed from 1 Nephi 11 and 13.  Those passages were clearly talking about Jesus, but the titles were for Father and Everlasting Father.  Also, this is some of the strongest evidence that Joseph's conception of deity was evolving over time.  

[clarkgoble]

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess at some level perhaps its not worse proof texting than any other group does.  But then why do you take issue with my statement that the 1832 account creates a problem for this kind of proof texting.  See the example below as an example of how they would have to change the lesson (Lesson #3 D&C manual)  when discussing what "truths we can learn from the First Vision" if they were using the 1832 account.  

Because we have the 1838 account. Maybe I'm not following you but if a lesson or the like wants a prooftext or even a scripture to start the discussion you use the one that deals with what you want to discuss. In the same way when teaching some doctrine about Christ you use the gospel that addresses that issue. You don't say that Mark somehow undermines it because it doesn't mention that issue.

32 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't agree that that Josephs held that God the Father and God the Son were two persons in a strong sense.   What about the 1830 passages that Joseph later changed from 1 Nephi 11 and 13.  Those passages were clearly talking about Jesus, but the titles were for Father and Everlasting Father.  Also, this is some of the strongest evidence that Joseph's conception of deity was evolving over time.  

Strong sense when? Again by the time of Moses which is just a few months after the end of the Book of Mormon translation process we have a strong sense of two persons. That's well before the 1832 autographed first vision account. I'd say the original versions of 1 Nephi 11 & 13 weren't as strong and so he changed it to make it clearer. But I don't think you can take from that a change in his views. It could just as likely be an issue with people reading the Book of Mormon so he wanted to improve the translation. There's a lot of evidence that his focus with the JST after finishing the initial Genesis work was primarily for clarity. (Last week's LDS Perspectives Podcast had a great episode on that)

Again I think everyone agrees Joseph's understanding of deity changed with time. The question is how they changed. There's no clear evidence he ever held to modalism. At best there are some passages that are ambiguous and open to multiple readings. But that clearly ends by summer of 1830 given Moses 1 & 2. Further I think the emphasis of the voice from heaven introducing Jesus in 1 Nephi 11 indicates he saw them as separate. Again recognizing that modalists accept the similar NT passages - but the point is they are problematic passages for modalists even in the NT. So 3 Nephi wouldn't be as big of a problem if there were an unambiguous passage pushing modalism. Mosiah 15 is the strongest and even that's problematic because it fits not just modalism but also merkabah treatments, adoption of a mortal Jesus treatments, etc. i.e. it's not unambiguously modal. Further the rest of the chapter's use of Isaiah 52 clearly is tied to the explanation of how Jesus is the Father and Son by those who listen becoming Jesus' seed. Modalism makes it difficult to explain those Isaiah 52 passages. If one thinks Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon then that makes it hard to push modalism onto him.

I should also note that some of the changes to the original text of the Book of Mormon for 3 Nephi were in either the original or printer's manuscript. So the 1830 printed text isn't necessarily correct there. (See the FAIR article for examples) 

Edited December 5, 2017 by clarkgoble

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thank you for doing this first part with the definitions of different concepts of deity compared, this is excellent and very helpful.  I'm going to save this part as a quick reference.  Big Kudos!!!  

I guess at some level perhaps its not worse proof texting than any other group does.  But then why do you take issue with my statement that the 1832 account creates a problem for this kind of proof texting.  See the example below as an example of how they would have to change the lesson (Lesson #3 D&C manual)  when discussing what "truths we can learn from the First Vision" if they were using the 1832 account.  

 

I don't agree that that Josephs held that God the Father and God the Son were two persons in a strong sense.   What about the 1830 passages that Joseph later changed from 1 Nephi 11 and 13.  Those passages were clearly talking about Jesus, but the titles were for Father and Everlasting Father.  Also, this is some of the strongest evidence that Joseph's conception of deity was evolving over time.  

Only if you assume that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, a claim which he consistently denied.

[blueglass]

On 12/4/2017 at 4:00 PM, ALarson said:

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....

Stan Larson in his paper speculates who might have cut out the pages and kept them separate.  "We can also surmise that one of the senior members of the Church Historian’s Offce would have been responsible for the decision to keep the pages separate; it was probably Joseph Fielding Smith himself, but could possibly have been Earl E. Olson or A. William Lund.7"  Footnote 7 sends us to a phone call he had with Robin Jensen, lead archivist for The Joseph Smith Papers Project.  Who were Olson and Lund?  This is all I could find, maybe it will help learn about the historians themselves, but not about the saga of cutting joseph smith history pages.  Perhaps we can ask one of their children for a journal and look it up?  

Earl Olson:  http://m.legacy.com/obituaries/saltlaketribune/obituary.aspx?n=earl-olson&pid=147058264&referrer=0&preview=false
Historical Compiler, Supervisor Genealogical Society Archives, Assistant Librarian, Assistant Church Historian to Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith, Church Archivist, Church Historian and Assistant Managing Director.
 

A. William Lund:  https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/03/in-memoriam-a-william-lund-1886-1971?lang=eng
Assistant church historian for 60 years.  Son of Apostle Anthon H. Lund who for  awhile was the only monogamist on the quorum of the twelve, later president of Manti temple, member of 1st presidency with Joseph F, and finally church historian from 1900 - 1921.

Also I remember a small piece in Fiona and Terryl Givens interview on Crucible of doubt where they discuss something about church history and Joseph Fielding Smith.

Mormon stories interview with Fiona and Terryl givens 28 AUGUST 2014 part2, around 31minutes into the interview, Terryl says, 
"we talk exceedingly frankly for example about the kind of history that dominated the 20th century, and we lay the blame firmly at the feet of the historical dept. but at the same time we try to understand the world from which people like joseph fielding smith who was church historian for fifty years came who was one generation removed from the horrors of carthage."  Terryl Givens -  remarks about more difficult negotiations with the senior editors at deseret book when working on the book Crucible of Doubt, “that was the page which made the editors at DB the most uncomfortable”  DB:  “you can't blame the prophet and the church historians for this . . . “  Givens, "we're not blaming we're trying to understand what his perspective was."  Fiona:  “you can either blame him or strive to understand, that he needed to protect his family, so anything that would discredit or make his family appear badly was eradicated from the history".

Personally, i really like the 1832 account of the first vision, and I wish Terryl Givens had asked Jensen about this saga in his interview recently.  
 

Edited December 5, 2017 by blueglass

[hope_for_things]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Orson Pratt, following Tertullian, thinks God is One because of the common substance as well. However he thinks you can and should use polytheistic language to talk about the persons who share this substantial unity. The problem with Pratt's position that Brigham Young attacks him for is that it naturally leads to thinking this spiritual fluid containing the attributes of godness is what we worship rather than the individual persons. For Young (and pretty well every Mormon since) we worship individual persons only. In the 20th century especially with Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie this moves into what's called a nominalist position. The nominalist position says there are only individual things and not a common real unity at all. So you'll see descriptions that the unity of God just consists of having the same purposes, knowledge and values. (Often expressed as one heart, mind, and purpose - but those are understood as mental states rather than a shared substantial mind-like substance) Technically that nominalism isn't Mormon doctrine. However western civilization by the 19th century had become extremely nominalistic so it's unsurprising Mormons are as well. Brigham Young in particular ridiculed the types of platonism in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. So you tend to have a lot of anti-platonism in Mormonism despite there being fair evidence that neoplatonism was a big influence on the early Church.

Wow, this is great stuff Clark, you are really helping put bits and pieces all together for me.  I've read so much over the last few years, but having you put things together this way is really helpful.  I remember reading a lot of the Orson Pratt and BY debates in Conflict in the Quorum, but I didn't fully grasp it, and this helps so much, thank you for taking the time to educate with these last few responses, I really appreciate it.  

I absolutely think the nominalism that you explain here is what I was raised on in Mormonism and seems to be the prevailing way it is still taught today.  When you say it isn't Mormon doctrine technically, that's an interesting comment, since from my observations during my lifetime the current leaders are all heavily influenced by this orientation, and I can't recall different perspectives being taught.  With the recent movements on the teaching of grace, do you think there is opportunity for the concept of deity to evolve as well, especially with the complexities of the multiple different first vision accounts?  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Because we have the 1838 account. Maybe I'm not following you but if a lesson or the like wants a prooftext or even a scripture to start the discussion you use the one that deals with what you want to discuss. In the same way when teaching some doctrine about Christ you use the gospel that addresses that issue. You don't say that Mark somehow undermines it because it doesn't mention that issue.

Its because of how the 1838/39 account is used as "truths we learn from the First Vision".  We can't learn that God the Father and Jesus are separate and distinct beings with bodies of flesh and bone from the 1832 account.  For that matter we shouldn't be able to learn anything about them having bodies of flesh and bone, because nothing in the 1838/39 account tells us that anyway.  Its that underlying literalist assumption that grates at me I guess.  I see what you're saying though.  I pick and choose things from different scriptures that illustrate points that personally resonate with me.  I've personally had comments go sideways in Sunday School for pointing out differences in the four gospels, which is absolutely obvious to anyone who compares them, but yet some people are uncomfortable with it and want to harmonize everything.   

This all goes back to the exclusivity idea with Mormonism.  It's an arrogant position to believe that some scripture or some visionary experience "proves" this or that.  That there is an absolutely correct way to see envision God that is better than other ways.  To use scriptures as evidence that other positions are false.  If Mormonism can learn to soften its language, can become more relativistic and less dogmatic about its positions, I wouldn't feel so uncomfortable with the proof-texting.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Strong sense when? Again by the time of Moses which is just a few months after the end of the Book of Mormon translation process we have a strong sense of two persons. That's well before the 1832 autographed first vision account. I'd say the original versions of 1 Nephi 11 & 13 weren't as strong and so he changed it to make it clearer. But I don't think you can take from that a change in his views. It could just as likely be an issue with people reading the Book of Mormon so he wanted to improve the translation. There's a lot of evidence that his focus with the JST after finishing the initial Genesis work was primarily for clarity. (Last week's LDS Perspectives Podcast had a great episode on that)

Again I think everyone agrees Joseph's understanding of deity changed with time. The question is how they changed. There's no clear evidence he ever held to modalism. At best there are some passages that are ambiguous and open to multiple readings. But that clearly ends by summer of 1830 given Moses 1 & 2. Further I think the emphasis of the voice from heaven introducing Jesus in 1 Nephi 11 indicates he saw them as separate. Again recognizing that modalists accept the similar NT passages - but the point is they are problematic passages for modalists even in the NT. So 3 Nephi wouldn't be as big of a problem if there were an unambiguous passage pushing modalism. Mosiah 15 is the strongest and even that's problematic because it fits not just modalism but also merkabah treatments, adoption of a mortal Jesus treatments, etc. i.e. it's not unambiguously modal. Further the rest of the chapter's use of Isaiah 52 clearly is tied to the explanation of how Jesus is the Father and Son by those who listen becoming Jesus' seed. Modalism makes it difficult to explain those Isaiah 52 passages. If one thinks Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon then that makes it hard to push modalism onto him.

I haven't studied the JST much, but did listen to a couple of those LDS perspective podcasts on the JST and timing of the translation effort along side D&C revelations, and I look forward to learning more about that, I think timing is everything.  I think the 1830 BoM does represent Joseph's perspective at the time he produced the content and it isn't clear to me that they were two separate persons in any of his early work.  I don't buy the changing to make it clearer argument, I think that explanation is precisely an apologetic that Joseph would have used to explain why he changed things, but remember, many of the early members and leaders had big troubles with edits Joseph made to revelations and left the church over those kinds of things. 

Also, I think Joseph's doctrine was constantly evolving and it may have started as soon as the JST project.  I think Rigdon also had a great influence on Joseph's theology on many topics once he got involved.  

On modalism or merkabah or trinitarianism, I don't tend to think that Joseph Smith was systematically copying all his theological ideas from one source or one system of thought.  My observations are that Joseph was copying from a multitude of different influencing concepts in a very non methodical way.  I also don't expect that he could have consistently followed any particular theological strain of thinking because I don't think he was that sophisticated in his approach.  So it not only doesn't surprise me that there are multiple different ideas and contradictions, but that is exactly what fits the model for what I would expect of an untrained seeking type person like Joseph.  

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I should also note that some of the changes to the original text of the Book of Mormon for 3 Nephi were in either the original or printer's manuscript. So the 1830 printed text isn't necessarily correct there. (See the FAIR article for examples) 

None of the material changes that are relevant to this topic about the changing concept of God that Joseph has were in the original printers manuscript, it says on the FAIR article you linked to that those insertions and strikeouts were added by Joseph in 1837.  I find it odd that the preface in the FAIR article gives the impression that it is going to prove that Joseph's theology did not evolve, but then the evidence below the preface shows exactly the opposite thing happening, it is clear evidence that Joseph's theology did evolve because he explicitly changes the text to show a different concept for God than what the original text showed.  I really like this side by side comparison because its really so clear that Joseph was intentionally changing the meaning of the original verses to express something theologically different. 

Joseph does this throughout the D&C as well, sometimes changing the meaning of the original text to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning.  There are so many examples of this, this behavior is really Joseph's MO.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Only if you assume that Joseph wrote the Book of Mormon, a claim which he consistently denied.

Joseph dictated the BoM, there is no question of that.  What % of that dictation was inspired by God vs. what % was from the mind of Joseph is the debatable territory.  I don't think my claim about the original 1830 text being changed for an evolving concept of deity has any bearing on how people view the production.  Even on the FAIR article that Clark linked to earlier they say, "Joseph Smith also made a number of editorial changes to the text, as was his right as the translator of the text."  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Wow, this is great stuff Clark, you are really helping put bits and pieces all together for me.  I've read so much over the last few years, but having you put things together this way is really helpful.  I remember reading a lot of the Orson Pratt and BY debates in Conflict in the Quorum, but I didn't fully grasp it, and this helps so much, thank you for taking the time to educate with these last few responses, I really appreciate it.  

Yeah Conflict in the Quorum was a good book but a big weakness was not getting enough into the philosophical issues. I can understand why, but it really is in some ways a key inflection point in Mormon theology. Typically the way it's covered is in terms of Adam/God and portrayed as Orson Pratt "winning" ultimately. Yet in pretty key ways Brigham Young's whole approach is what wins with only two very minor points of Adam/God that are rejected. (Fallen Adam being the physical father of Jesus and the father of spirits is reasonably swiftly rejected after his death) Orson's idea of atoms of intelligence out of which spirits are made does admittedly persist and is the dominant view in various ways in the 20th century even for those who reject his material atoms. Brigham Young's physicalism despite being partially embraced by McConkie never really catches on in the same way.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I absolutely think the nominalism that you explain here is what I was raised on in Mormonism and seems to be the prevailing way it is still taught today.  When you say it isn't Mormon doctrine technically, that's an interesting comment, since from my observations during my lifetime the current leaders are all heavily influenced by this orientation, and I can't recall different perspectives being taught.  With the recent movements on the teaching of grace, do you think there is opportunity for the concept of deity to evolve as well, especially with the complexities of the multiple different first vision accounts?  

Nominalism ends up being a more complicated issue than it first appears. It's worth noting there are nominalist trinitarians despite the way I explained it. But I didn't want to get into those issues. (Ockham of the famous razor really popularizes nominalism in the medieval era against the realism of people like Duns Scotus -- but it's hard to explain all that in a simple way) The point is that for various complicated reasons near the beginning of modernism there's a big push towards nominalism. There were exceptions of various sorts but that was the main trajectory of western civilization. By the 20th century especially in the US nominalism completely dominates. There are problems with nominalism I should note. I'm pretty anti-nominalist myself although explaining that gets complicated. It's also worth noting that as a practical matter it is debatable how much the nominalist/realist debate really matters. However from a theological perspective it explains a lot of things that seem alien to people today.

Most Mormons don't really think about theology let alone philosophy very deeply. Even fewer have the necessary background to understand structurally what's going on. So most people just pick up the loose views in culture. Since the 19th century Americans adopted a quasi-scientific view that there are individual things (first atoms, then sub-atomic fields, then for those with some scientific sophistication quantum fields). They always think of entities in terms of that kind of materialism.

With regards to grace I'm of the opinion not much has changed beyond the language we use to express the same old ideas. I think wanting to differentiate ourselves from Evangelicals meant devaluing the language of grace much like we devalue the iconography of crosses. Yet just like not having crosses on our churches or jewelry doesn't mean we don't see the crucifixion as important, not expressing things in terms of grace doesn't mean we don't find grace important. We just talk about following the spirit or God helping us.

Even when you get into a more formal theology of grace I'm not sure the nominalist/realist debate matters too much, but that's a whole big topic itself.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

For that matter we shouldn't be able to learn anything about them having bodies of flesh and bone, because nothing in the 1838/39 account tells us that anyway.  Its that underlying literalist assumption that grates at me I guess.  I see what you're saying though.  I pick and choose things from different scriptures that illustrate points that personally resonate with me. 

As a practical matter people don't tend to distinguish what a verse says from their personal interpretation. Since interpretation fills in the parts with meaning from outside the formal text that tends to mean what matters for people are those interpretations when they do proof-texting. It's pretty rare that people have the experience to recognize the range of possible meanings. That's why you'll have people quote a text and not understand why it's not convincing to people. I'd add that's a good reason why people should study a little hermeneutics. But nearly everyone does this on all sides of the debate so it's hard for me to get too frustrated by it.

I'd say this really isn't literalism though so much as an unsophisticated exegesis. ("Literalism" is my pet peeve as I think the term is almost always misused)

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I've personally had comments go sideways in Sunday School for pointing out differences in the four gospels, which is absolutely obvious to anyone who compares them, but yet some people are uncomfortable with it and want to harmonize everything.   

Sunday School is tricky to deal with because people not already familiar with the issues will assume one is embracing the position of a critic against the church. I remember a teacher at the Los Alamos ward which is a very educated ward running into trouble because they mentioned Hebrews as not being written by Paul. That's a fairly uncontroversial position that in no way is a critic of the church's position, but there's the assumption of a traditionalism that makes it seen as critical.

My personal experience is that once you explain possibilities rather than just giving one answer and establish yourself as being faithful to the church that you can actually present a lot of these sorts of things in Sunday School or Priesthood. But I'll admit one has to be careful just because so many members are shockingly ignorant of what the Church actually teaches.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

This all goes back to the exclusivity idea with Mormonism.  It's an arrogant position to believe that some scripture or some visionary experience "proves" this or that.  That there is an absolutely correct way to see envision God that is better than other ways.  To use scriptures as evidence that other positions are false.  If Mormonism can learn to soften its language, can become more relativistic and less dogmatic about its positions, I wouldn't feel so uncomfortable with the proof-texting.

I don't like proof-texting but the Church has rather significantly moved away from it as compared to when I was young in the 80's. That said some experiences are more significant than others and are harder to explain away. I think we can acknowledge that there are many interpretations of events, even interpretations compatible with Mormonism without being relativistic. So to me being more relativistic isn't a good thing.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the 1830 BoM does represent Joseph's perspective at the time he produced the content and it isn't clear to me that they were two separate persons in any of his early work.  I don't buy the changing to make it clearer argument, I think that explanation is precisely an apologetic that Joseph would have used to explain why he changed things, but remember, many of the early members and leaders had big troubles with edits Joseph made to revelations and left the church over those kinds of things. 

Well going to dogma... LOL.

My point is that this must be acknowledged as a distinct possibility. Without Joseph making a clear position at best we can say we don't know. However there are pretty good reasons I think to think he didn't hold to modalism. Further the modalist position requires that he be lying in all the post-1832 first vision accounts. If you already think he's a fraud and a liar then of course that's a reasonable position to take. If you don't think that then of course how one views those later accounts ought affect how you view earlier statements. After all it seems he either did or didn't see two personages in the air.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

None of the material changes that are relevant to this topic about the changing concept of God that Joseph has were in the original printers manuscript, it says on the FAIR article you linked to that those insertions and strikeouts were added by Joseph in 1837.

Look at the chart part way down the page. They list the changes in 3 Nephi with a column with the original, printer's manuscript, 1830 edition and 1837 edition. You can see that in some case the 1837 changes were in either the original or printer's manuscript.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Joseph does this throughout the D&C as well, sometimes changing the meaning of the original text to mean the exact opposite of its original meaning.  There are so many examples of this, this behavior is really Joseph's MO.  

I don't think any of the Book of Mormon changes make the text mean the opposite. Afterall theologically Jesus is the Father and Son. Theologically the whole point about being born again is becoming adopted as Jesus' seed such that he becomes our father spiritually. (Not in the sense of physical spirits but the broader sense of spiritual influence) This aspect of spiritual rebirth is a major theme in the Book of Mormon and has to inform arguments about Jesus as Father implying modalism or even positions close to it.

What Joseph was trying to clarify is that this doesn't imply modalism. Again you might say this is reading in later Nauvoo theology when titles held by multiple beings becomes significant. However one has to acknowledge that this could easily be part of the text of the Book of Mormon. Especially if one doesn't accept Joseph Smith as it's author.

I should also note that an other issue that doesn't get brought up is that people when speaking loose simply aren't careful with terms. I mean I understand the theology and philosophy but when I am speaking quickly I'll mangle identities of deity. Especially with the later theological development of important titles we all pass through then things really, really become confusing. The Joseph F. Smith first presidency statement on God attempts to resolve this by standardizing terms. And that more or less reduced this problem for most of the 20th century. It had the unfortunate problem of thereby confusing other issues. (Which isn't a criticism - I completely understand why they needed to do it)

Edited December 5, 2017 by clarkgoble