The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[Five Solas]

18 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

1829 BOM, vision of God by the Brother of Jared: 1 Person explicitly appears = Christ 

BOM language leans towards trinitarianism or some form of it: Mary the mother of God, Christ is the eternal father and the son, etc.

1830 Book of Moses, vision of God by Moses: 1 Person explicitly appears = Father, also inferred in 1:17 to be the same that called on Moses from the bush, which would be Jehovah, an obvious tension with current LDS theology

1832 First Vision Account: 1 Person explicitly appears = Christ

1832 or 1833 Vision at the school of the prophets: Father and Son explicitly seen, one after the other. Zebedee Coltrin recollects that after seeing the vision, Joseph told them, "Brethren, now you are prepared to be the apostles of Jesus Christ, for you have seen both the Father and the Son and know that They exist and that They are two separate personages."

1832 (Feb.) Vision of the 3 kingdoms (D&C) 76: Father and Son explicitly seen together, verses 20 & 23 

So, if this timeline is correct, then the ability of the Father to appear separate from Christ had already been established in 1830, making the 1832 account’s 1 personage appearing less theologically significant. While, I see Smith’s theology developing over time, it seems like the theology needed for the 1838 account was  either nearly developed in 1832 or already in place.

However, the Moses stuff was only intended for the inner circle as indicated by the last verse of chapter 1. The school of the prophets vision was also clearly an inner circle event, and JS’ commentary can be interpreted as communicating priveleged information. That could signify contrasting public doctrine vs. inner circle doctrine, which is consistent with JS’ development of doctrine among an inner circle, especially well attested in Nauvoo.

I’d like to know when D&C 76 went public. It was apparently not included in the 1833 Book of Commandments.

If all of the above is more or less accurate, then it could be that the 1832 and 1838 accounts of the first vision are both in accordance to the respective public doctrines at the time they were written, but that doesn’t necessarily reveal anything about the root experience.

Appreciate the work here, Benjamin Seeker.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you think it's possible or even likely Joseph Smith had developed/evolved his theology to include multiple embodied gods by 1832, by the time First Vision Account 1 (FVA1) is written.  But of course, FVA1 only makes reference to one. 

This makes the omission of the second god all the more interesting, because now the omission appears to have been deliberate.  He saw what he saw (if you believe him) and he believed in multiple embodied gods and expressed such belief privately (as you appear to argue).  So why not just say so publicly?  Previously I expressed my observation that Smith seemingly "tip-toed" around Christian sensibilities in the writings of his earlier years.  Do you think that's what was going on here?  That Smith didn't want to publicly contradict a Trinitarian understanding of God--because he didn't want to cause a greater offense?  If so, then what caused him to change his mind later in the decade? 

--Erik

______________________________

Karma police
Arrest this man
He talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge
He's like a detuned radio

--Radiohead, 1997

Edited December 15, 2017 by Five Solas
found a better word

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, blueglass said:

Before the 16th year insert, joseph does give his age.  It's confirmed to be in JS handwriting.  It switches to JS handwriting at the phrase, "The kees of the kingdom of God".  Then Joseph says that by searching the scriptures he found contradictions between how they lived their life  d what he found in that "sacred depository this was a grief to my Soul thus from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind"  Then he becomes distressed, convicted of his sins, and studies the scriptures and discovers the apostasy of all the churches which had departed from the New Testament.  The footnote refers to the disciples of christ group and other primitivists which thinking prevailed at the time.   

However to be a stickler this isn't when he claims the vision. It's likely how the addition comes up with 16th year but that's an inference. What the 1832 account says is that from "from the age of twelve years to fifteen I pondered many things in my heart concerning the sittuation of the world of mankind the contentions and divi[si]ons the wicke[d]ness and abominations and the darkness which pervaded the of the minds of mankind." He could of course still continue to be focused on that even after his vision. Now I think he just got the year wrong when writing it, but we should acknowledge as well that the age might just not be when he had the vision.

[clarkgoble]

7 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

This makes the omission of the second god all the more interesting, because now the omission appears to have been deliberate.  He saw what he saw (if you believe him) and he believed in multiple embodied gods and expressed such belief privately (as you appear to argue).  So why not just say so publicly?  Previously I expressed my observation that Smith seemingly "tip-toed" around Christian sensibilities in the writings of his earlier years.  Do you think that's what was going on here?  That Smith didn't want to publicly contradict a Trinitarian understanding of God--because he didn't want to cause a greater offense?  If so, then what caused him to change his mind later in the decade? 

Just to be a stickler but a trinitarian view has three persons not one. A modalist view has one. So as I mentioned if we look at other contemporary visions some see one being and some see two but all think the Father and Son are separate persons.

As for why, there's no real way of knowing given the data we have. I think it reasonable to think Joseph started a history, was a real bad writer, didn't like what he wrote and it became forgotten. He emphasized Christ since all the Father does (as in 3 Nephi 11) is introduce the Son. If the focus is the content then the Son is what gets focused on. And, as critics have noted, Charles Finney in his vision only mentions the Son with a focus on repentance and a few other similarities. So it may well be that he's borrowing the common rhetoric and expectations of the day to explain what he saw in a few short sentences.

[Benjamin Seeker]

5 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the work here, Benjamin Seeker.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you think it's possible or even likely Joseph Smith had developed/evolved his theology to include multiple embodied gods by 1832, by the time First Vision Account 1 (FVA1) is written.  But of course, FVA1 only makes reference to one. 

This makes the omission of the second god all the more interesting, because now the omission appears to have been deliberate.  He saw what he saw (if you believe him) and he believed in multiple embodied gods and expressed such belief privately (as you appear to argue).  So why not just say so publicly?  Previously I expressed my observation that Smith seemingly "tip-toed" around Christian sensibilities in the writings of his earlier years.  Do you think that's what was going on here?  That Smith didn't want to publicly contradict a Trinitarian understanding of God--because he didn't want to cause a greater offense?  If so, then what caused him to change his mind later in the decade? 

--Erik

______________________________

Karma police
Arrest this man
He talks in maths
He buzzes like a fridge
He's like a detuned radio

--Radiohead, 1997

I’m not pretending to know what root experience there was to the first vision. I do agree with you that the appearance of Christ and absence of the father does seem purposeful as it aligns with JS’ single published text at the time, the BOM (all physical visible manefestations of God are Christ in the BOM, with the possible exception of the Holy Spirit in Nephi’s vision). Add to that the fact that the doctrine for multiple embodied (spirit body or otherwise) personages had developed, at least in private circles, by 1832/1833, and it makes the 1832 history stick out like a sore thumb, at least to me.

So, if he is tiptoeing, it’s probably around some modal-like version of the trinity. Dan Vogel recently put out some videos on the first vision, and I believe he addresses the historical context for this type of belief.

[kiwi57]

7 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the work here, Benjamin Seeker.  If I'm understanding you correctly, you think it's possible or even likely Joseph Smith had developed/evolved his theology to include multiple embodied gods by 1832, by the time First Vision Account 1 (FVA1) is written.  But of course, FVA1 only makes reference to one. 

This is amazing. Do you actually read threads before you start pontificating on them?

Ten days ago, in this post I addressed that very question. The 1832 account clearly "makes reference to" the Father.

 

[clarkgoble]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

This is amazing. Do you actually read threads before you start pontificating on them?

Ten days ago, in this post I addressed that very question. The 1832 account clearly "makes reference to" the Father.

I think the issue isn't whether Joseph believed there was a father but how the 1832 account views the father. Is he unseeable? Is he the same person as the son? (Modalism) Or are the father and son two persons? The argument by some (and it is extremely weak) is that Joseph originally held to modalism which seems unsupportable. The next question is over the embodiment of the father. I don't think the 1832 account helps too much there, although as I argued, judged in terms of contemporary similar accounts we shouldn't assume even Trinitarians think you can't see both the father and son. i.e. the 1832 account just can't do the work put forward for it.

[clarkgoble]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

So, if he is tiptoeing, it’s probably around some modal-like version of the trinity. Dan Vogel recently put out some videos on the first vision, and I believe he addresses the historical context for this type of belief.

What is a "modal-like version of the trinity"? Either the persons are the same or they're not. It's not really a position with a lot of middle ground. The difference between the later Mormon belief and the Trinity is over the nature of the ousia (and even then Mormon theology is open to a shared ousia of some sort). There's the resurrected body of the father as a later doctrine but that's not really something that any vision could establish and even Joseph's later theology requires touching not seeing to discern that difference. i.e. all accounts of the First Vision are compatible with all trinitarian conceptions. 

8 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I’m not pretending to know what root experience there was to the first vision. I do agree with you that the appearance of Christ and absence of the father does seem purposeful as it aligns with JS’ single published text at the time, the BOM (all physical visible manefestations of God are Christ in the BOM, with the possible exception of the Holy Spirit in Nephi’s vision). Add to that the fact that the doctrine for multiple embodied (spirit body or otherwise) personages had developed, at least in private circles, by 1832/1833, and it makes the 1832 history stick out like a sore thumb, at least to me.

The Moses translation is two years before the 1832 account. So I don't think we can say it aligns with his texts. Published texts yes, but that seems less of a concern since Moses was being prepared with the presumption of publication. We know that he stopped working on Genesis and switched to the NT by command (D&C 45). That's March 7, 1831. While we don't know when he reached John, the JST for John probably shapes how he conceives of his earlier experience.  The JST for John 1:18 suggests that Joseph by then had a conception of the relationship of seeing the Father and Son. "No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son."  That's a fairly significant revision and most likely occurs well before the 1832 account. Also note that John 6:46 emphasizes that "he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." There's no JST revision to this, but it is an important context here. (It's even quite plausible that it's in the summer of 1832 when he's going through John since he finishes the NT by February 1833)

The point is that even if Joseph were historically and theologically extremely ignorant (as I think he was) the work on the JST seems designed to educate him. By early spring 1831 we know he's emphasizing against the KJV a plurality of Gods. (Moses 4:28 against Genesis 3:22 -- he changes it to the Father addressing the son possibly to make sense of "us" but possibly to emphasis both persons were present) He also emphasizes the two persons later in the initial 1831 work such as in the expansions in Moses 7. Modalist readings also have to account with Moses 8 which seems to make an anti-modalist take on divine unity.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

What is a "modal-like version of the trinity"? Either the persons are the same or they're not. It's not really a position with a lot of middle ground. The difference between the later Mormon belief and the Trinity is over the nature of the ousia (and even then Mormon theology is open to a shared ousia of some sort). There's the resurrected body of the father as a later doctrine but that's not really something that any vision could establish and even Joseph's later theology requires touching not seeing to discern that difference. i.e. all accounts of the First Vision are compatible with all trinitarian conceptions. 

As Kiwi points out, in the 1832 first vision, JS prays to the Lord and the Lord appears. I’m not sure what’s going on there. whenever God appears in the BOM it’s Christ, and as many others have pointed out the BOM gives a theology for Son and Father being manifestations of a single God. I’m not sure what’s going on, but I do know the BOM and 1832 account present a similar underlying theology for the physical manifestation of God. 

Quote

The Moses translation is two years before the 1832 account. So I don't think we can say it aligns with his texts. Published texts yes, but that seems less of a concern since Moses was being prepared with the presumption of publication.

It would be great to know the date that Moses began to be prepared for publication. That would shed some serious light on this. Like I stated earlier, Moses was an insider’s text, at least at first, which is clearly indicated by the couple verses at the end of chapters which say show these things to no one except those that believe.

Quote

We know that he stopped working on Genesis and switched to the NT by command (D&C 45). That's March 7, 1831. While we don't know when he reached John, the JST for John probably shapes how he conceives of his earlier experience.  The JST for John 1:18 suggests that Joseph by then had a conception of the relationship of seeing the Father and Son. "No man hath seen God at any time except he hath borne record of the Son."  That's a fairly significant revision and most likely occurs well before the 1832 account. Also note that John 6:46 emphasizes that "he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." There's no JST revision to this, but it is an important context here. (It's even quite plausible that it's in the summer of 1832 when he's going through John since he finishes the NT by February 1833)

That’s another fantastic point. My personal feeling is that JS’ revelations and translations are always on the cutting edge of his theology. Clearly his histories are not. As we’re discussing ad nauseum, the 1832 account doesn’t make the doctrine of the Father and Son as separate beings explicit, something that seems pretty clear JS was believing in at that point. A second example, is how the 1838 history nearly completely omits the priesthood restoration by Peter James and John.

Quote

The point is that even if Joseph were historically and theologically extremely ignorant (as I think he was) the work on the JST seems designed to educate him. By early spring 1831 we know he's emphasizing against the KJV a plurality of Gods. (Moses 4:28 against Genesis 3:22 -- he changes it to the Father addressing the son possibly to make sense of "us" but possibly to emphasis both persons were present) He also emphasizes the two persons later in the initial 1831 work such as in the expansions in Moses 7. Modalist readings also have to account with Moses 8 which seems to make an anti-modalist take on divine unity.

I agree with your comments here. I don’t think a modalist reading of Moses is possible. The BOM on the other hand is much less cut and dry. The 1832 history has a similar ambiguity, especially with JS praying to the “Lord” and the “Lord” appearing.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

It turns out that Moses 1, significant because of its very explicit visual manifestation of God the Father, was not published until 1843. Meanwhile parts of the Enoch portion of Moses were published under JS’ direction beginning in August of 1832 and other parts of the JST were included in the 1835 D&C.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/01/how-we-got-the-book-of-moses?lang=eng#note1-

Edited December 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

I'm not quite following your distinction between public/inner circle here. If we're concerned with Joseph's beliefs doesn't that distinction not matter at all?

[Benjamin Seeker]

31 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not quite following your distinction between public/inner circle here. If we're concerned with Joseph's beliefs doesn't that distinction not matter at all?

If we use Nauvoo as the example, there are some doctrines that are taught in private that are not taught in public, and polygamy is of course denied in public. My guess is that the practice of JS sharing doctrines with those he most trusted but not to the public predates Nauvoo. Certainly the last verse in Moses 1 is consistent with the idea of a priveledged inner circle who get knowledge before others.

Significantly, privately taught doctrine sometimes conflicted with what came before. The plurality of Gods, which as you pointed out was denied in the JST, was taught in Nauvoo with insiders hearing about it as early as 1841 I believe. Another example is the validity of David and Solomon’s plural wives, denied in the BOM but then reversed by D&C 132.

Given the public nature of the BOM and its unclear teachings about the nature of God, I think it’s possible that the Book of Moses and Joseph’s comments to the school of the prophets after their 1832(3) vision demonstrates an insider’s reversal of the understanding of God on display in the BOM (that also seems to be happening in the 1832 history).

Edited December 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

If we use Nauvoo as the example, there are some doctrines that are taught in private that are not taught in public, and polygamy is of course denied in public. My guess is that the practice of JS sharing doctrines with those he most trusted but not to the public predates Nauvoo. Certainly the last verse in Moses 1 is consistent with the idea of a priveledged inner circle who get knowledge before others.

The problem in this case is that it is modalism that's controversial and heretical whereas what you are calling only inner circle is straitforward trinitarianism which everyone including Joseph's opponents were espousing. That's why I don't quite understand your reasoning. It's not until the doctrines of the Father's physical embodiment and rejection of creation ex nihilo that things become more controversial. Deification, while technically a Protestant doctrine, wasn't a doctrine that was really emphasized much. Further it's deification combined with a rejection of creation ex nihilo that really gets the differences going. But there's nothing here remotely as controversial as polygamy except the Book of Mormon and that he preached openly. So I just don't think your thesis works.

52 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Significantly, privately taught doctrine sometimes conflicted with what came before. The plurality of Gods, which as you pointed out was denied in the JST, was taught in Nauvoo with insiders hearing about it as early as 1841 I believe. Another example is the validity of David and Solomon’s plural wives, denied in the BOM but then reversed by D&C 132.

But all this requires that we first have Joseph accepting modalism which is never clearly annunciated. If we had unambiguous modalism you might have a point. However the only quasi-modalistic passage is Mosiah 15 and even it can be read in other ways. Further there's just no indication modalism was Joseph's private belief nor the belief of his followers. So again I just don't quite understand the argument. It seems at minimum to depend upon a fairly controversial premise.

Further as you note, Moses was published in 1833 and clearly had intended to be published back in 1831-32. (Note again the issue isn't Moses 1, but Moses 3 where the plurality of the persons is so clearly made)

Edited December 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

27 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The problem in this case is that it is modalism that's controversial and heretical whereas what you are calling only inner circle is straitforward trinitarianism which everyone including Joseph's opponents were espousing. That's why I don't quite understand your reasoning. It's not until the doctrines of the Father's physical embodiment and rejection of creation ex nihilo that things become more controversial. Deification, while technically a Protestant doctrine, wasn't a doctrine that was really emphasized much. Further it's deification combined with a rejection of creation ex nihilo that really gets the differences going. But there's nothing here remotely as controversial as polygamy except the Book of Mormon and that he preached openly. So I just don't think your thesis works.

But all this requires that we first have Joseph accepting modalism which is never clearly annunciated. If we had unambiguous modalism you might have a point. However the only quasi-modalistic passage is Mosiah 15 and even it can be read in other ways. Further there's just no indication modalism was Joseph's private belief nor the belief of his followers. So again I just don't quite understand the argument. It seems at minimum to depend upon a fairly controversial premise.

Further as you note, Moses was published in 1833

1843! 

Quote

and clearly had intended to be published back in 1831-32.

Not intended, unless you know something I don’t. Just Enoch stuff gets published. It takes JS another decade to finally publish Moses 1 despite earlier opportunities. 

Quote

(Note again the issue isn't Moses 1, but Moses 3 where the plurality of the persons is so clearly made)

For my thesis, more clearly formed now, Moses 1 is the bigger issue. Forget modalism for a second, as that’s a pretty big question mark for me. Would a vision of God the Father would have been controversial? I think yes, and you’ve already presented evidence of that today in JST of the New Testament scripture that says man can’t see God (the revision clarifies an exception to the then understood rule). That’s what is consistent about the public doctrine (BOM and possibly 1832 history but who knows since it went unused), when diety appears it’s Christ, in line with the New Testament prohibition. Only in the early inner circle do we get visions of God the Father.

Sorry it took me a while to get to this most recent clear explanation. The discussion in this thread helped me get some clarity.

So, if I revised my earlier post I’d now say that if JS was tiptoeing around something in the 1832 account it was the doctrine that God the Father couldn’t be seen by man and live (I think that’s how the scripture goes).

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

1843! 

Nope. Quoting from the Ensign article you linked to: "Thus, the earliest publication of the materials now identified as the book of Moses was in the Evening and Morning Star, with the first installment being in August 1832, another in March 1833, and a third in April 1833." So maybe that is partially what's leading you to your thesis? (Although the modalism premise remains problematic)

30 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

For my thesis, more clearly formed now, Moses 1 is the bigger issue. Forget modalism for a second, as that’s a pretty big question mark for me. Would a vision of God the Father would have been controversial? I think yes, and you’ve already presented evidence of that today in JST of the New Testament scripture that says man can’t see God (the revision clarifies an exception to the then understood rule).

But we know that's false because there are other contemporaries of Joseph Smith who claim to have seen the father as part of their spiritual rebirth during the second great awakening. Now certainly there was a degree of controversy in that the tent revivals often required an ecstatic experience which many (such as Alexander Campbell) found distasteful. But they weren't controversial the way the Book of Mormon was controversial. They were part and parcel of Joseph's environment and fairly accepted. I've even linked to examples such as the Norris Stearns vision that was in a 1815 book. (See Bushman's The Visionary World of Joseph Smith) So the thesis that seeing in vision the Father and Son was controversial seems false. There's basically a bifurcation in Christianity over this issue. Those who see the heavens continually open become the Evangelical movement who see continuing visions. Joseph of course claims that the Methodist minister he encountered was in the opposing camp. But it was Lutheran doctrine for example that such visions were possible. Technically what was objectionable was the claim that one could see God in his essence. But that's the subtle theological point that really isn't relevant to figures like the early Joseph Smith or early major figures in tent Evangelicalism like Charles Finney. (See here for the doctrinal issue)

Part of the problem is that Mormons tend to have erroneous ideas about the range of mainstream Christianity at the time of Joseph Smith. We tend to privilege accounts of more academic Christian thinkers who don't like the interventionist aspects of God. We downplay the fairly large movement that developed into the Evangelical movement. To such an extent a surprising number of Mormons are quite ignorant of mainstream Protestantism.

Edited December 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Nope. Quoting from the Ensign article you linked to: "Thus, the earliest publication of the materials now identified as the book of Moses was in the Evening and Morning Star, with the first installment being in August 1832, another in March 1833, and a third in April 1833." So maybe that is partially what's leading you to your thesis? (Although the modalism premise remains problematic)

Keep reading. Moses 1 itself wasn’t  published until 1843. The article specifies which portions are published when.

Quote

But we know that's false because there are other contemporaries of Joseph Smith who claim to have seen the father as part of their spiritual rebirth during the second great awakening.

That is not an indication that it wasn’t controversial, just that other people had the idea before JS.

Quote

Now certainly there was a degree of controversy in that the tent revivals often required an ecstatic experience which many (such as Alexander Campbell) found distasteful. But they weren't controversial the way the Book of Mormon was controversial. They were part and parcel of Joseph's environment and fairly accepted. I've even linked to examples such as the Norris Stearns vision that was in a 1815 book. (See Bushman's The Visionary World of Joseph Smith) So the thesis that seeing in vision the Father and Son was controversial seems false.

Here is Martin Harris on the subject: “I never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat, because Moses said that "no man could see God and live," and we could see anything we wished by looking into them; and I could not keep the desire to see God out of my mind.”

Exodus 33:20 reads, ““And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.”

JST of this reads “And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.”

I think clearly there is tension here between how a group of 19th century Christians read the Bible and JS’ idea that visions of God the Father were possible. Martin Harris parrots the see-God-and-die doctrine, and JS is clearly aware of it with his changes in the JST.

I believe this is one of the reasons Moses 1 was meant only for those who believe.

Quote

There's basically a bifurcation in Christianity over this issue. Those who see the heavens continually open become the Evangelical movement who see continuing visions. Joseph of course claims that the Methodist minister he encountered was in the opposing camp. But it was Lutheran doctrine for example that such visions were possible. Technically what was objectionable was the claim that one could see God in his essence. But that's the subtle theological point that really isn't relevant to figures like the early Joseph Smith or early major figures in tent Evangelicalism like Charles Finney. (See here for the doctrinal issue)

Part of the problem is that Mormons tend to have erroneous ideas about the range of mainstream Christianity at the time of Joseph Smith. We tend to privilege accounts of more academic Christian thinkers who don't like the interventionist aspects of God. We downplay the fairly large movement that developed into the Evangelical movement. To such an extent a surprising number of Mormons are quite ignorant of mainstream Protestantism.

I think we have plenty of evidence from JS’s texts to see that even among those who believed the heavens were open, seeIng God the Father was questionable at best and fatal at worst.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

48 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Nope. Quoting from the Ensign article you linked to: "Thus, the earliest publication of the materials now identified as the book of Moses was in the Evening and Morning Star, with the first installment being in August 1832, another in March 1833, and a third in April 1833." So maybe that is partially what's leading you to your thesis? (Although the modalism premise remains problematic)

But we know that's false because there are other contemporaries of Joseph Smith who claim to have seen the father as part of their spiritual rebirth during the second great awakening. Now certainly there was a degree of controversy in that the tent revivals often required an ecstatic experience which many (such as Alexander Campbell) found distasteful. But they weren't controversial the way the Book of Mormon was controversial. They were part and parcel of Joseph's environment and fairly accepted. I've even linked to examples such as the Norris Stearns vision that was in a 1815 book. (See Bushman's The Visionary World of Joseph Smith) So the thesis that seeing in vision the Father and Son was controversial seems false. There's basically a bifurcation in Christianity over this issue. Those who see the heavens continually open become the Evangelical movement who see continuing visions. Joseph of course claims that the Methodist minister he encountered was in the opposing camp. But it was Lutheran doctrine for example that such visions were possible. Technically what was objectionable was the claim that one could see God in his essence. But that's the subtle theological point that really isn't relevant to figures like the early Joseph Smith or early major figures in tent Evangelicalism like Charles Finney. (See here for the doctrinal issue)

Part of the problem is that Mormons tend to have erroneous ideas about the range of mainstream Christianity at the time of Joseph Smith. We tend to privilege accounts of more academic Christian thinkers who don't like the interventionist aspects of God. We downplay the fairly large movement that developed into the Evangelical movement. To such an extent a surprising number of Mormons are quite ignorant of mainstream Protestantism.

Also:

D&C 84 (September 1832) provides an explanation for how man can see God the Father and live. Verse 22 explains that the priesthood is needed: “For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live.” The revelation goes on to attribute this teaching to Moses.

This example and the JST examples make the most sense against the backdrop of a common understanding that the original biblical passages were literal. Martin Harris’ comments likely represent a common belief of the time.

[Benjamin Seeker]

Here is commentary from Adam Clarke, famous Methodist biblical commentator, on the Exodus 33:20: 

“No man see me, and live - The splendor would be insufferable to man; he only, whose mortality is swallowed up of life, can see God as he is. See  1 John 3:2. From some disguised relation of the circumstances mentioned here, the fable of Jupiter and Semele was formed; she is reported to have entreated Jupiter to show her his glory, who was at first very reluctant, knowing that it would be fatal to her; but at last, yielding to her importunity, he discovered his divine majesty, and she was consumed by his presence. This story is told by Ovid in his Metamorphoses, book iii., table iii., 5” 

This, I believe, was published in 1831. I’m not suggesting that JS read this, but simply that it represents a mainstream view.

[clarkgoble]

29 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Keep reading. Moses 1 itself wasn’t  published until 1843. The article specifies which portions are published when.

Right but Moses 1 is irrelevant for the question. In 1843 it's pointless relative to the nature of God due to revelations in the intervening years. But more importantly Moses 4 is the key text for the plurality of persons as I've been stating.

30 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

That is not an indication that it wasn’t controversial, just that other people had the idea before JS.

It was common. Again there was a bifurcation on this point in American Christianity. Theologically though it's just not controversial for major groups. As I said it was a big deal for some - Campbell being a great example. But most of those have trouble with what today we'd call Evangelicalism. So you have various groups sending people to spy on Charles Finney.

Now I think Joseph Smith tells us why he thought it was controversial in the 1838 account. He told a Methodist minister and that minister was part of the school that saw the heavens closed. Apparently he berated Joseph enough that Joseph perceived it as controversial. But I think the evidence is, especially if you look at similar phrasings, that Joseph's way of describing such accounts comes out of this broad visionary culture that was part of the tent revival movement. But it's hardly surprising that Joseph, particularly in the 1820's and early 1830's was largely ignorant of the range of views in the US.

34 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Here is Martin Harris on the subject: “I never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat, because Moses said that "no man could see God and live," and we could see anything we wished by looking into them; and I could not keep the desire to see God out of my mind.”

The issue would then be the vision/corporeal distinction that people continue to make to this day. But I actually agree Harris doesn't know of the first vision from what I can tell. Even his late 1859 account doesn't mention the first vision. Even in his own vision of the plates, he only hears the voice of God.

But I'm not sure how that's tied to your argument. That some people didn't think one could see God doesn't mean Joseph wasn't aware that others did see God. Indeed, the stronger argument is that the extremely similar phraseology between accounts suggests Joseph was aware of just such claims. (Indeed many critics claim Joseph didn't just follow the language but plagiarized the accounts as part of a fraud)

I think though if you're going to use this line of argument it inverts your whole line of reasoning. The inner circle (or at least Harris) didn't think you could see God so Joseph keeps it quiet. But by the end of 1830 Harris is out of favor and he doesn't need to be silent anymore so he can share what he thinks. But it would seem this supports the traditional view of the First Vision not a changing view. That is Joseph keeps silent about what he saw because some people opposed it - possibly including Harris himself whom Joseph needed for the Book of Mormon. This doesn't mean he didn't tell others (such as his family) nor that his own beliefs changed.

36 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

This example and the JST examples make the most sense against the backdrop of a common understanding that the original biblical passages were literal. Martin Harris’ comments likely represent a common belief of the time.

Certainly it was a common belief. I don't think I've ever stated otherwise. The question was whether it was controversial in a strong way to see God. It just wasn't. People disagreed upon it of course. But that's a rather different view. My point is that in the environment of Joseph Smith there were fairly mainstream figures seeing God. That would determine Joseph's expectations. That Joseph thought some people opposed it and thus kept silent about it is part and parcel of the 1838 account.

So let's be clear what we're arguing. If by "semi-modal" you simply mean the Father is unseeable then that's certainly one position among a fairly wide variety of doctrines in 1820's and 30's America. If you mean Joseph must have believed this himself, that's a much stronger claim that you've thus far not provided any evidence for. Further it sounds like you agree that by 1832 it's not even a held position. (I honestly still can't figure out how Moses 1 plays into this) Clearly in the JST Joseph is altering many passages to go against such a theology. (Say JST Ex 33 among many others)

Even if you argue Joseph is leaving out seeing the Father in the 1832 account because of fears, it seems you aren't really addressing his beliefs at all. Rather you're just providing a fairly reasonable explanation for why he'd not mention it even if he did see the Father.

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

By the way, Moses 7, which is what got published in August 1832, has Enoch conversing with God in vision. Enoch petitions Him, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ  (verse 50), asking Him to never flood the earth again. Then after seeing the coming of the Son of man, verses 59-60 read:

“And Enoch beheld the Son of Man ascend up unto the Father; and he called unto the Lord, saying: Wilt thou not come again upon the earth? Forasmuch as thou art God, and I know thee, and thou hast sworn unto me, and commanded me that I should ask in the name of thine Only Begotten; thou hast made me, and given unto me a right to thy throne, and not of myself, but through thine own grace; wherefore, I ask thee if thou wilt not come again on the earth. And the Lord said unto Enoch: As I live, even so will I come in the last days, in the days of wickedness and vengeance, to fulfil the oath which I have made unto you concerning the children of Noah;”

Enoch implies that this being he is conversing with is Jesus Christ, which makes his petition to this being (O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ) significantly redundant, and I think shows us what’s going on in the 1832 history prayer to and vision of the Lord.

[clarkgoble]

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Here is commentary from Adam Clarke, famous Methodist biblical commentator, on the Exodus 33:20: 

“No man see me, and live - The splendor would be insufferable to man; he only, whose mortality is swallowed up of life, can see God as he is. See  1 John 3:2. From some disguised relation of the circumstances mentioned here, the fable of Jupiter and Semele was formed; she is reported to have entreated Jupiter to show her his glory, who was at first very reluctant, knowing that it would be fatal to her; but at last, yielding to her importunity, he discovered his divine majesty, and she was consumed by his presence. This story is told by Ovid in his Metamorphoses, book iii., table iii., 5” 

This, I believe, was published in 1831. I’m not suggesting that JS read this, but simply that it represents a mainstream view.

But that's getting at the more subtle distinction between seeing God in his essence versus seeing God corporeally. I provided a link earlier to the historic theological issue of that. It's interesting that this is a place where the JST breaks with the Clarke commentary rather, than as was typically the case following it and likely used it as an aid for his revision of the Bible.

Again though, it'd be helpful to clarify exactly what your thesis is. It honestly seems like you're shifting what you're arguing for. In particular there are the following claims, each of which needs dealt with separately.

1. Did Joseph believe God the Father and Jesus separate persons. If his views changed, when did they change?

2. Did Joseph think God the Father could be seen in vision. If his views changed, when did they change?

3. Did Joseph believe he saw God the Father and Jesus separately. If his views changed, when did they change?

It seems to me these are getting muddled a fair bit.

If I'm following you, you think in the 1820's Joseph shared Martin Harris beliefs that the Father couldn't be seen. But I just don't see any evidence for it. Certainly by 1832 he explicitly doesn't believe it given the JST and D&C 76.

Edited December 15, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Benjamin Seeker]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right but Moses 1 is irrelevant for the question. In 1843 it's pointless relative to the nature of God due to revelations in the intervening years. But more importantly Moses 4 is the key text for the plurality of persons as I've been stating.

I don’t know that we are communicating very clearly here. Moses 1 is super important to my argument. I’m saying that it would have been controversial or at least controversial to some to see God the Father. I think you agree with this basic idea. Therefore Moses 1, which more or less upends Ex. 33:20, with it’s instruction to keep it in the circle and late publication are all significant.

I’m not sure what’s going on with the multiple persons meaning I don’t really have a clear idea of what JS’ conception of the Godhead was early on. Clearly he’s got multiple persons in Moses 4. Agreed. Of course that also not published early on (I don’t know that it was published in JS’ life time).

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It was common. Again there was a bifurcation on this point in American Christianity. Theologically though it's just not controversial for major groups. As I said it was a big deal for some - Campbell being a great example. But most of those have trouble with what today we'd call Evangelicalism. So you have various groups sending people to spy on Charles Finney.

Now I think Joseph Smith tells us why he thought it was controversial in the 1838 account. He told a Methodist minister and that minister was part of the school that saw the heavens closed. Apparently he berated Joseph enough that Joseph perceived it as controversial. But I think the evidence is, especially if you look at similar phrasings, that Joseph's way of describing such accounts comes out of this broad visionary culture that was part of the tent revival movement. But it's hardly surprising that Joseph, particularly in the 1820's and early 1830's was largely ignorant of the range of views in the US.

These are two separate issues. 1. Heavens closed vs open and 2. Beholding God in vision. Martin Harris clearly believes the heavens are open but holds to the man can’t see god thing.

This also probably plays a part in why JS’ discussion of angels predate discussion of the first vision.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The issue would then be the vision/corporeal distinction that people continue to make to this day. But I actually agree Harris doesn't know of the first vision from what I can tell. Even his late 1859 account doesn't mention the first vision. Even in his own vision of the plates, he only hears the voice of God.

But I'm not sure how that's tied to your argument. That some people didn't think one could see God doesn't mean Joseph wasn't aware that others did see God. Indeed, the stronger argument is that the extremely similar phraseology between accounts suggests Joseph was aware of just such claims. (Indeed many critics claim Joseph didn't just follow the language but plagiarized the accounts as part of a fraud)

JS’ can be aware of these accounts and still feel the tension of a common belief against the ability of man to see God.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think though if you're going to use this line of argument it inverts your whole line of reasoning. The inner circle (or at least Harris) didn't think you could see God so Joseph keeps it quiet.

Martin Harris was somewhat on the outside of the inside. Remember the revelation that sends people to sell the copyright to the BOM but not Martin Harris know. We can’t take the inner circle to literally. It could change according to the issue of discussion, similar to how you maybe wouldn’t tell your mom about that annoying thing she does but you might tell your brother despite having confided in your Mom previously and will later on.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But by the end of 1830 Harris is out of favor and he doesn't need to be silent anymore so he can share what he thinks. But it would seem this supports the traditional view of the First Vision not a changing view. That is Joseph keeps silent about what he saw because some people opposed it - possibly including Harris himself whom Joseph needed for the Book of Mormon. This doesn't mean he didn't tell others (such as his family) nor that his own beliefs changed.

It could support that view, yes. I’ve stated that I’m not making a claim about JS’ original experience. I’m just discussing the tension between the 1832 and 1838 account in light of the doctrinal developments of the early 30s.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Certainly it was a common belief. I don't think I've ever stated otherwise. The question was whether it was controversial in a strong way to see God. It just wasn't.

I don’t think your right here. JST of Exodus 30:22, the New Testament passage you brought up, and D&C 84:22 all suggest that it was a significant issue.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

People disagreed upon it of course. But that's a rather different view. My point is that in the environment of Joseph Smith there were fairly mainstream figures seeing God. That would determine Joseph's expectations.

I don’t doubt these shaped his expectations, but I also don’t doubt that a literal interpretation of the Bible also had a strong  influence.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That Joseph thought some people opposed it and thus kept silent about it is part and parcel of the 1838 account.

Agreed.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

So let's be clear what we're arguing. If by "semi-modal" you simply mean the Father is unseeable then that's certainly one position among a fairly wide variety of doctrines in 1820's and 30's America.

Again, I’m not clear on the modal part of it, so let’s set that aside for now. I’m simply focusing on the Father being unseeable, which seems to shake the BOM and the 1832 history.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If you mean Joseph must have believed this himself, that's a much stronger claim that you've thus far not provided any evidence for.

Again, I don’t know and I haven’t tried to address this.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Further it sounds like you agree that by 1832 it's not even a held position.

At least privately the doctrine of a seeable Father has been established as early as 1830, but it’s very unclear when that becomes a publically embraces doctrine. The 1832 history, if it was intended for publication which I think was the original idea, would seem to indicate that it the doctrine was not public.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

(I honestly still can't figure out how Moses 1 plays into this)

Moses 1 seems to directly counter the idea that the Father is unseeable. All indications point to this being an inner circle revelation including its instruction to keep it in the circle and it’s late publication date.

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Clearly in the JST Joseph is altering many passages to go against such a theology. (Say JST Ex 33 among many others)

Even if you argue Joseph is leaving out seeing the Father in the 1832 account because of fears, it seems you aren't really addressing his beliefs at all. Rather you're just providing a fairly reasonable explanation for why he'd not mention it even if he did see the Father.

More or less correct. However, we don’t have any way to know what JS’ original experience was. The earliest published translations all have visions of Christ alone as typical. I think it’s possible that those reflect JS earliest belief which then changed over time, or it could be that JS played it safe and just published the less controversial visions of God (of the Son), keeping the more controversial ones private at first, an idea that the early reception date of Moses 1 backs up.

[Benjamin Seeker]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

But that's getting at the more subtle distinction between seeing God in his essence versus seeing God corporeally. I provided a link earlier to the historic theological issue of that. It's interesting that this is a place where the JST breaks with the Clarke commentary rather, than as was typically the case following it and likely used it as an aid for his revision of the Bible.

Interesting!

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again though, it'd be helpful to clarify exactly what your thesis is. It honestly seems like you're shifting what you're arguing for.

I did shift! I tried to clarify in the post where I came to a new conclusion in light of the discussion and evidence being laid out in the thread. Sorry for the confusion.

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

In particular there are the following claims, each of which needs dealt with separately.

1. Did Joseph believe God the Father and Jesus separate persons. If his views changed, when did they change?

I don’t know :), though I did just get a little more clarity from reading Moses 7.

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

2. Did Joseph think God the Father could be seen in vision. If his views changed, when did they change?

This is very unclear. The early date of the Moses 1 is one of our biggest indicators that he believes man could see God the Father early on. The brother of Jared’s vision of God, who turns out to be Christ offers an interesting counterpoint to that. I’d like more evidence for either position.

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

3. Did Joseph believe he saw God the Father and Jesus separately. If his views changed, when did they change?

This is obviously partially tied to question 2, and I think more evidence for either answer to that question would help us have a better chance at answering this question.

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

It seems to me these are getting muddled a fair bit.

If I'm following you, you think in the 1820's Joseph shared Martin Harris beliefs that the Father couldn't be seen. But I just don't see any evidence for it. Certainly by 1832 he explicitly doesn't believe it given the JST and D&C 76.

Hopefully it’s clearer now. I don’t know if he originally shared that belief or not, but it seems at the very least the existence of this belief in JS’ time shaped the texts he published and the 1832 history.

[Benjamin Seeker]

Assuming that my recent commentary is clear now (hopefully), but possibly wrong or incomplete, let’s discuss the original possibility that JS understood God differently early on. Having reread Moses 7, I came across that odd bit with Enoch addressing God in the name of Jesus Christ, and then after seeing the coming of the Son of Man asking that same God when he would return to earth. Not only that, but that God gives us his name, “Man of Holiness,” in contrast to the “Son of Man” who was to come in the “meridian of time” according to that God.

Enoch’s question of God’s return to earth essentially equates the God he is speaking with and the Son of Man. That is highly consistent with the Brother of Jared seeing God as the pre-existent Christ. This is also consistent with JS praying to the Lord and seeing the Lord (echoing Enoch’s prayer) in his 1832 history. Lastly, it also plays very nicely with the Mosiah passages on Christ as Father and Son. We could also add Amulek’s assertion that there is one God and that the Son of God who comes will be the very Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth. We could also add Ether 3:14, “I am the Father and the Son.”

Moses 7 seems to suggest that God can take Father form or Jesus form. As God in Moses 7 refers to the Son of Man, it could very well be that Moses 1 is also intended to be understood as Christ in Father form referring to his Christ form when he talks about the Only Begotten (again, Enoch prayed, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten” in Moses 7).

All of this is super consistent with Trinitarianism, right? It’s also consistent with Modalism so far with Moses 4 being the only chronological exception that I know of.

What about that school of the prophets 1832/33 vision? Significantly it has Christ passing through the room and then later the Father passing through the room. In other words 2 different persons appearing at separate times, again consistent with modalism.

What we don’t have are any explicit statements from JS on the modal nature of God.

What we do have is the equation of the Father and the Son in Moses 7 which works with modalism or trinitarianism, a doctrinal explanation consistent with that in Mosiah and other consistent BOM passages, and a weak but present inference of the same in the 1832 history.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

Of course, if Moses 7 has Enoch conversing with God the Father, who is one with Christ in either a trinitarian or modal sense, then that totally obliterates my earlier claim that the question of whether seeing God the Father shapes JS’ texts or publication choices, and it also makes all of the early texts/experiences more consistent. The outliers would be section 76 and Moses 4, both of which you could make justifications for.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

JST Luke 10:23 should also be considered along side the earlier examples: 

“no man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.”