The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?

[Benjamin Seeker]

I found an interesting discussion of Joseph Smith and expansionalist modalism here. Below is the most pertinent paragraph: 

“The question then becomes, what happened to Jesus’ spirit body when he took on flesh? The answer might be either that (1) it “put on” the fleshly body, or (2) it remained separate somehow in heaven. In the former case the process might be describe as an expansionism of layering. Perhaps at some time in the distant past (the Book of Mormon does not say) the God that is Jesus took on a spirit body (layer one) and now he takes on a body of flesh (layer 2), as one might put on a shirt and then an overcoat. In the latter case we are dealing with an expansionism of duplication. Jesus first occupies the spirit body, but then expands to occupy a second fleshly body as well. On the other hand we might think of Jesus continuing to dwell in the spirit body in heaven as God the Father, while at the same time ministering in the fleshly body on earth as the Son. Thus the reduplication of bodies would also allow for a separation of roles and attributes between the spirit body of Jesus as Father and the fleshly body of Jesus as Son. Henceforth for example, the title Eternel Father might be reserved for the spirit body in heaven. This latter understanding would also resolve the problem of Jesus’ ascending to the father and sitting at his right hand.”

[Benjamin Seeker]

OK! I retract the secret vs. public doctrine idea regarding the 1832 account. It was a nice idea, but D&C 76, which has JS and Sidney seeing the Father and the Son together, is published in the Morning Star in July of 1832, so there is no secret or insider nature to the doctrine of being able to see God the Father or being able to see the Father and the Son simultaneously. Sorry!

[Five Solas]

15 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

OK! I retract the secret vs. public doctrine idea regarding the 1832 account. It was a nice idea, but D&C 76, which has JS and Sidney seeing the Father and the Son together, is published in the Morning Star in July of 1832, so there is no secret or insider nature to the doctrine of being able to see God the Father or being able to see the Father and the Son simultaneously. Sorry!

The "likes" you got for it notwithstanding, I think your apology was premature, Benjamin Seeker.

The words in D&C 76:20 are lifted nearly verbatim from the anthropomorphic language found in Acts 7:55 (anthropomorphisms are not uncommon in the Bible).  There's simply nothing in 76 that would have caused the contemporary 1830's Christian reader to look askance vis-a-vis the doctrine of the Trinity.  (There's plenty to raise the eyebrows, don't misunderstand me, it's just that it doesn't explicitly declare multiple embodied gods.)  Nothing in D&C 76 suggests the overt polytheism (sorry, kiwi, that's just how the folks at Google define it--your beef is with them, not me) found in Smith's later writings is coming.  

If you can substantiate the private doctrine part of it - your "secret vs. public doctrine idea" has merit.  Meanwhile your previous finding/post is quite extraordinary in light of all this--

23 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.”

I had hitherto thought the modalism expressed in the BoM (Mosiah 15) attributable to mere carelessness on Smith's part.  Something he really didn't intend as a doctrine for his followers to appreciate & follow.  Appears there was a bit more to it than that.  I'm honestly not sure what to make of this.  

Keep doing the good & interesting work.  I appreciate your candor and your tendency to type your thoughts as they emerge and "shift" and as you discover new information.  Refreshing!

:0)

--Erik

___________________________________________

I'm sorry, sorry, sorry
I'm feeling very sorry in the Thirsty Dog

I'm sorry, sorry, sorry
I'm feeling very thirsty in the Sorry Dog

--Nick Cave, 1994

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

The "likes" you got for it notwithstanding, I think your apology was premature, Benjamin Seeker.

The words in D&C 76:20 are lifted nearly verbatim from the anthropomorphic language found in Acts 7:55 (anthropomorphisms are not uncommon in the Bible).  There's simply nothing in 76 that would have caused the contemporary 1830's Christian reader to look askance vis-a-vis the doctrine of the Trinity.  (There's plenty to raise the eyebrows, don't misunderstand me, it's just that it doesn't explicitly declare multiple embodied gods.)  Nothing in D&C 76 suggests the overt polytheism (sorry, kiwi, that's just how the folks at Google define it--your beef is with them, not me) found in Smith's later writings is coming.  

If you can substantiate the private doctrine part of it - your "secret vs. public doctrine idea" has merit.  Meanwhile your previous finding/post is quite extraordinary in light of all this--

I had hitherto thought the modalism expressed in the BoM (Mosiah 15) attributable to mere carelessness on Smith's part.  Something he really didn't intend as a doctrine for his followers to appreciate & follow.  Appears there was a bit more to it than that.  I'm honestly not sure what to make of this.  

Keep doing the good & interesting work.  I appreciate your candor and your tendency to type your thoughts as they emerge and "shift" and as you discover new information.  Refreshing!

:0)

--Erik

___________________________________________

I'm sorry, sorry, sorry
I'm feeling very sorry in the Thirsty Dog

I'm sorry, sorry, sorry
I'm feeling very thirsty in the Sorry Dog

--Nick Cave, 1994

Thanks for the encouragement. Yeah, 76 plays very well with Trinitarianism.

I didn’t give all the goods away in my retraction. What I think is really happening in 76 is one of the first statements of expansionalist modalism, which has the Father and the Son as versions of the same being, but allows them to also be present at the same time. This idea isn’t original to Smith, but was first voiced by Swedenborg who JS could have learned about through Sidney Rigdon (see https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/joseph-smith-emanuel-swedenborg-and-section-76). 

The other pretty enlightening discovery was Moses 7’s ultra clear equation of the Father and the Son, which I learned was the first portion of the Book of Moses revelation to ever be published and right on the heels of 76. With the 1832 history being written in the midst of this, I now see it as essentially aligning with doctrine laid out in the BOM, Moses, Luke 10:22, and D&C 29. Now that I have a way to address D&C 76, addressing the school of the prophets is very easy. First, I think it’s significant that they see the Son and Father one at a time. Also, Joseph uses the word “personage” to describe them, which is often used in trinitarianism, and the 1828 Webster’s 2nd and 3rd definitions read: 

“2. Character assumed.

The Venetians, naturally grave, love to give in to the follies of such seasons, when disguised in a false personage

3. Character represented.

Some persons must be found, already known in history, whom we may make the actors and personages of this fable.”

So, maybe expansionalist modalism is newish in 1832, but it’s the modalist nature of the doctrine that would have been most controversial to mainstream Christians anyhow, and that controversial bit is what JS chooses to highlight with his Moses 7 publication in August of 1832.

Basically, the 1832 history is tamer than Moses 7, and Moses 7 gets published, which is why my theory lost its teeth.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[kiwi57]

On 12/16/2017 at 12:15 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

I found an interesting discussion of Joseph Smith and expansionalist modalism here. Below is the most pertinent paragraph: 

“The question then becomes, what happened to Jesus’ spirit body when he took on flesh? The answer might be either that (1) it “put on” the fleshly body, or (2) it remained separate somehow in heaven. In the former case the process might be describe as an expansionism of layering. Perhaps at some time in the distant past (the Book of Mormon does not say) the God that is Jesus took on a spirit body (layer one) and now he takes on a body of flesh (layer 2), as one might put on a shirt and then an overcoat. In the latter case we are dealing with an expansionism of duplication. Jesus first occupies the spirit body, but then expands to occupy a second fleshly body as well. On the other hand we might think of Jesus continuing to dwell in the spirit body in heaven as God the Father, while at the same time ministering in the fleshly body on earth as the Son. Thus the reduplication of bodies would also allow for a separation of roles and attributes between the spirit body of Jesus as Father and the fleshly body of Jesus as Son. Henceforth for example, the title Eternel Father might be reserved for the spirit body in heaven. This latter understanding would also resolve the problem of Jesus’ ascending to the father and sitting at his right hand.”

Benjamin, please be aware of the following:

1. IRR, the so-called "Institute for Religious Research" - formerly known as "Gospel Truths Ministries" - is not what it calls itself. In reality, it is an anti-Mormon proselytizing outfit. This is not to say that you should automatically reject everything they say, but it does mean that you should be aware of the source and wary of what they are selling.
2. If "Expansionalist modalism" can accommodate a vision in which two distinct and glorious figures are seen standing side by side, engaging in dialogue and referring to one another in the third person, then what, exactly, can it be said to assert? What, if anything, does it explain? And what evidence, of any kind, could possibly count against it?
3. Please note that everything in that "pertinent paragraph" is absolutely speculative, drawing its conclusions completely out of thin air. And those conclusions are bogus. In every strand of authentic Mormon thought - and especially in every known scriptural context of which Joseph Smith was a conduit - spirit bodies inhabit physical ones. The notion of a physical body walking around and doing stuff while the spirit body is elsewhere is as absurd as the old internet joke about a patient practicing law while his brain is in a jar on the pathologist's desk. (Or maybe he's carrying on an anti-Mormon ministry somewhere.) The only time they are separate is when the body is dead. The notion of the physical body being raised up to sit next to the spirit body might be an entertaining one, but whatever else it might be, it is assuredly not Mormon.

[kiwi57]

11 hours ago, Five Solas said:

The "likes" you got for it notwithstanding, I think your apology was premature, Benjamin Seeker.

The words in D&C 76:20 are lifted nearly verbatim from the anthropomorphic language found in Acts 7:55 (anthropomorphisms are not uncommon in the Bible).

And the Bible is, allegedly, your one and only infallible source of faith. But instead of pausing to wonder whether the Bible has very good reasons to describe deity in anthropomorphic terms, you simply dismiss it as "anthropomorphic language."

IOW, you wrest the Bible in order to rescue your incoherent and extra-scriptural doctrine of an ontological trinity.

What does that tell us?

[clarkgoble]

I didn't address the expansionalist model in the new thread you started. So I'll discuss it here. If this reduces to two bodies for one God one has to ask how we distinguish it from two persons. Now of course Swedenborg and his followers can address this, but there's nothing in Joseph's situation to address it. I'm not even convinced he was sophisticated to even see how on earth that isn't two persons since bodies are the usual way of distinguishing persons. If you're going to pursue this, it'd seem ockham's razor requires at a minimum a passage that can't be explained any way but modalism or Swedenborg's three parts in one person. Thus far you've not been able to do that. 

Swedenborg had to deal with the obvious attacks on his model (which were frequently made - I linked to one such book in the other thread). The problem for those postulating this as the basis for Joseph's view is fleshing out Joseph's view enough to be able to distinguish from Trinitarianism, Platonic Trinitarianism with no creation ex nihilo (held by the Pratts in early 1840's), modalism, or Swedenborgism. To merely raise that something is compatible with a view is not the same as saying the person held that view.

The main problem is that Joseph shows no sign of even caring about such subtle distinctions.

Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

On 12/15/2017 at 2:45 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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 think you've moved away from the inner/outer distinction in later posts so I won't push that too much. I just want to reemphasize a few distinctions you've been conflating.

First we have to distinguish being able to see God versus the issue of the persons. Most people (including Swedenborg) think the Father can't be seen in his essence. He's essentially spirit. Some, like the Lutherans (see that link I posted Friday going through the theological dispute), allow the Father to be seen, just not seen in his essence. (Swedenborg responding to critics moves more or less in that direction although for him since the Father is the spirit of Christ this is a virtual appearance) While this is a point of dispute in early America, I think saying it's controversial has to be unpacked.

With regards to Joseph's early followers, so far as I am aware only Martin Harris objects to the issue (that we know of). However Martin Harris' beliefs tell us nothing about Joseph's beliefs. At best they explain why Joseph might have been reluctant to talk about it during that period. But that would have been true both publicly and privately in Harris' presence. By the time of Cowdery's work on the Book of Mormon I'm not sure how relevant that is.

Again we have to be careful distinguishing between what Joseph believes and what he expresses. I think we all agree he didn't talk much about the First Vision. I don't think that follows he didn't talk at all - especially to his family. 

On 12/15/2017 at 4:05 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.”

 But given that other parts of the JST are anti-modalistic doesn't that actually undermine your argument? After all it means Joseph takes Jesus as the Father in a non-modalistic way (much as the later belief). I think you need to be clear in your thesis and what happens when.

On 12/15/2017 at 3:47 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

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.

To re-emphasize those aren't the only choices. But I also think you're just misreading Moses 7. 

Again if we read this in light of ancient Judaism then whenever God speaks it comes through the manifestation of God who typically was the angel of the Lord or something similar. (Metatron, Memra or other intermediaries) I think most scholars see this as the background for the later theology in the New Testament.

[Benjamin Seeker]

39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think you've moved away from the inner/outer distinction in later posts so I won't push that too much. I just want to reemphasize a few distinctions you've been conflating.

First we have to distinguish being able to see God versus the issue of the persons. Most people (including Swedenborg) think the Father can't be seen in his essence. He's essentially spirit. Some, like the Lutherans (see that link I posted Friday going through the theological dispute), allow the Father to be seen, just not seen in his essence. (Swedenborg responding to critics moves more or less in that direction although for him since the Father is the spirit of Christ this is a virtual appearance) While this is a point of dispute in early America, I think saying it's controversial has to be unpacked.

EDIT: I wasn’t dealing with the essence and don’t know much about it. I was just talking about the general concept of seeing the Father.

Quote

With regards to Joseph's early followers, so far as I am aware only Martin Harris objects to the issue (that we know of). However Martin Harris' beliefs tell us nothing about Joseph's beliefs. At best they explain why Joseph might have been reluctant to talk about it during that period. But that would have been true both publicly and privately in Harris' presence. By the time of Cowdery's work on the Book of Mormon I'm not sure how relevant that is.

I think Moses 7 being published in 1832 pretty much destroys my argument, but it is of course possible that the common belief that man cannot see God the Father shaped how JS related his experience. I used Martin Harris as an example from the time/place to show the belief existed, not to represent JS’ belief or that of his inner circle. I’m sure that belief varies from person to person. From my recent reading it seem clear that JS believed man could see God the Father, as detailed in Moses. In fact I’ve come 180, to the conclusion that the Brother of Jared’s vision of God is a modalistic version of the Father.

Quote

Again we have to be careful distinguishing between what Joseph believes and what he expresses. I think we all agree he didn't talk much about the First Vision. I don't think that follows he didn't talk at all - especially to his family. 

Sure. Who knows. I’ve stated multiple times that I wasn’t making claims about JS’ root experience.

Quote

 But given that other parts of the JST are anti-modalistic doesn't that actually undermine your argument? After all it means Joseph takes Jesus as the Father in a non-modalistic way (much as the later belief). I think you need to be clear in your thesis and what happens when.

I would love some examples of the JST being anti-modalistic. The more data the better (you’ve already seen the main data points im dealing with in the 1829-32 thread where I’ve put out the newest version of my thoughts).

Quote

To re-emphasize those aren't the only choices. But I also think you're just misreading Moses 7. 

I think it’s the most straight forward reading in light of the doctrinal explanations offered in the BOM. Let’s move this discussion to the other thread. I’d like to put further developments there, if that’s cool.

Quote

Again if we read this in light of ancient Judaism then whenever God speaks it comes through the manifestation of God who typically was the angel of the Lord or something similar. (Metatron, Memra or other intermediaries) I think most scholars see this as the background for the later theology in the New Testament.

I think that’s a great alternative, but I personally lean towards what JS wrote/revealed in the time near Moses 7, like the passage in Mosiah, Alma, and Ether.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

EDIT: I wasn’t dealing with the essence and don’t know much about it. I was just talking about the general concept of seeing the Father.

Right but my point is that this issue of essence vs. corporeal non-essence is key to the debate in the 19th century over seeing the Father. You can't just ignore it theologically. Now of course the typical American wasn't educated on such issues so they'd hear the rhetoric and just latch on to one bit. However the theological background is important here - particularly in understanding how things are controversial.

9 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I think Moses 7 being published in 1832 pretty much destroys my argument, but it is of course possible that the common belief that man cannot see God the Father shaped how JS related his experience.

I definitely think that's true. But then the 1838 account makes that explicit. After the vision he says he met with a Methodist preacher who was of the camp that such things weren't happening in the modern era. If he's truthful in that (even if somewhat distorted by time and persecution) then it makes complete sense why he'd only tell a few people about it. Further if Martin Harris held to that view, it'd make sense why he'd not push it until Harris is out of the picture.

11 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

From my recent reading it seem clear that JS believed man could see God the Father, as detailed in Moses. In fact I’ve come 180, to the conclusion that the Brother of Jared’s vision of God is a modalistic version of the Father.

Well we can talk about that more later, but I don't think that works either. But I'd agree that Ether 3 is very much opposed to the Swedenborg model. However that makes 3 Nephi translated only a little bit earlier even more problematic since you have to explain the voice. But I think the key issue remains 3 Nephi 19:23 especially as tied to Mosiah 15.

I'll leave the rest to the other thread.

[Benjamin Seeker]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Right but my point is that this issue of essence vs. corporeal non-essence is key to the debate in the 19th century over seeing the Father. You can't just ignore it theologically. Now of course the typical American wasn't educated on such issues so they'd hear the rhetoric and just latch on to one bit. However the theological background is important here - particularly in understanding how things are controversial.

Sure, I’ll have to educate myself, but I think the most important issues are made bare in JS’ texts, which is where I gleaned the issue in the first place. If JS’ texts aren’t mentioning the essence of God, my guess is that it’s less significant to him and those around him.

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I definitely think that's true. But then the 1838 account makes that explicit. After the vision he says he met with a Methodist preacher who was of the camp that such things weren't happening in the modern era. If he's truthful in that (even if somewhat distorted by time and persecution) then it makes complete sense why he'd only tell a few people about it. Further if Martin Harris held to that view, it'd make sense why he'd not push it until Harris is out of the picture.

This makes the 1832 history even more odd though. If he is publishing explicit visions of the Father (Moses 7 published August 1832), why wouldn’t his 1832 history include the Father explicitly if his original experience did?

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well we can talk about that more later, but I don't think that works either. But I'd agree that Ether 3 is very much opposed to the Swedenborg model. However that makes 3 Nephi translated only a little bit earlier even more problematic since you have to explain the voice. But I think the key issue remains 3 Nephi 19:23 especially as tied to Mosiah 15.

There is similar doctrinal exposition of man becoming one with God in the Ammon narrative. I think you’re right. This doesn’t fit modalism.

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'll leave the rest to the other thread.

Sounds good. I’m about to put something up there to move the discussion along.

[clarkgoble]

19 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

Sure, I’ll have to educate myself, but I think the most important issues are made bare in JS’ texts, which is where I gleaned the issue in the first place. If JS’ texts aren’t mentioning the essence of God, my guess is that it’s less significant to him and those around him.

Well I think it's not significant to him. Whether it's significant to Harris really depends upon Harris' faith tradition. And I'll confess I don't know much there. I'm just saying that if we start raising the "no one can see the father" then suddenly those things are significant. So if they aren't significant to Joseph that's an indication (IMO) that the whole issue of not seeing the father isn't significant to him.

But by and large I don't see any sign Joseph cared about metaphysics or subtleties tied to that. Even when he broaches such issues such as his comments on spirits, it honestly seems to me more a phenomenology (how such things are experienced) rather than ontology. Joseph doesn't go as far as Brigham Young does where theology becomes anthropology of a sort. But neither does he really go the direction the Pratts do either that I can see. That's important if we attempt to analyze loose neoplatonic influences since they often are concerned with metaphysics.

Edited December 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Physics Guy]

I have to apologize for not having enough time right now to think carefully about esoteric Judaism or fine distinctions in doctrine among Protestant denominations. My main reaction when Clark or others raise these points, however, is that although they may be interesting and relevant we should not let them distract us from what to me is an elephant in the room.

Suppose that instead of theologians talking about God, this thread had historians talking about Ulysses S. Grant. Some historians think Grant was an alcoholic; some think he was an Abolitionist; some think that as President he was soft on corruption. Others hold different views on those important points. None of those mainstream historians, however, would have much to say to any historian who denied that U.S. Grant had ever been a general in the Union Army during the Civil War.

If somebody does for some reason deny that U.S. Grant was a general, then they might still have something worthwhile to say to mainstream historians about, for example, Grant's alleged alcoholism. Conversely a convention of revisionist scholars who aren't sure whether Grant served in the army might still have something to learn about Grant's political views from a mainstream scholar. In either case, however, it would be important to preface the whole discussion with a frank acknowledgement that the issue of Grant's military career is an enormous division which makes any other discussion between the two Grant camps a rather quixotic exercise in distinguishing gnats after swallowing camels.

Even then, the discussion would be tricky. For mainstream historians the main issues involved in whether Grant was an alcoholic or an Abolitionist or corrupt have to do precisely with his role in command of huge armies. When mainstream historians argue about whether Grant was a drunk, for example, they're not arguing over whether some random guy was a drunk. They're arguing over whether the commanding general was a drunk, and that makes a big difference even on a quite detailed level.

Ultimately the gulf between these two camps about Grant would not even just be a matter of orthodoxy and revisionism rejecting each other. The problem would be that for mainstream historians it is Grant's career as a Union general that makes him significant. There might have been a less significant man who was called by that name, but people who were interested in Grant the great general would not maintain interest in that lesser figure just because of his name. The mainstream historians may dispute passionately whether or not Grant was a drunk, but they cannot meaningfully argue at all about whether he was a general. Ulysses S. Grant was a Union general, to them, by definition: if Grant was not a Union general then he was not Grant. Or rather, if Grant was not a general, then the figure that mainstreamers mean to mention, when they say "U.S. Grant", did not really exist. No wonder no-one is buried in his tomb.

To return to theology, Mormons are welcome to take the role of mainstream historians in my U.S. Grant analogy, and let the transcendent theists be the revisionists. My point is that the two sides here differ on something fundamental, and not just on detail. The entity to which mainstream Jews, Christians, and Muslims mean to refer, when they say "God", is by definition the one supreme author and editor of all of reality. Regardless of how much the Old Testament may in places reflect more anthropomorphic conceptions of God, this transcendent understanding of God has been the mainstream belief for many centuries now. For Mormons that transcendency of God seems at least to be up for debate; if the notion that there are multiple exalted former mortals with the status of God is not Mormon orthodoxy, neither does it seem to be Mormon orthodoxy to reject that view as absurd. As mainstream theists would define the term, therefore, some Mormon views would simply count as atheistic, because if God the Father were an exalted former mortal then the being to whom mainstream theists mean to refer, when they speak about God, would not exist.

Arguably the only really mainstream Christian theology is a firmly transcendent but otherwise vague trinitarianism. Heretical or not, though, all the significant non-Mormon Christian views of God have been transcendent first and foremost by explicit stipulation. Any dissensions from simple unitarianism have always had it as their first task to cope with that; transcendent monotheism has always been a "third rail" that could never be touched. Hence, of course, all the convoluted Christian quibbling that is so baffling to Jews and Muslims. The threeness is unavoidably tricky because the oneness is so non-negotiable.

If Joseph Smith said he saw Jesus and God the Father as two separate but similar corporeal entities, then he crossed a wide Rubicon. Fine, okay; God didn't strike Smith himself dead for saying that, so it must be all right to keep discussing Smith's views. I just think we have to be careful about tossing around comparisons with various exotic variants of transcendent monotheism, because I think that if we're not careful that can tend to conceal, or distract from, a basic difference that should not be ignored.

[clarkgoble]

Physics Guy, I confess I don't quite follow the analogy although I do agree there are some fundamental disagreements over God. I think there's two typical trends. One is what I'd call the more philosophical approach which is to take what the term "god" is supposed to mean and ask if it exists. The other is what I'd call a more phenomenological approach which is to look at our experience and try to extend from that. These two approaches in some ways are fundamentally at logger heads. 

I note that one of the thorniest theological problems in traditional Christianity is the two natures of Christ. Further it often seems to me that among the intellectual class it's the more philosophical sense of God that's appreciated while the more interventionist aspects of God that are devalued. 

I'd also be careful say Mormons don't emphasize transcendence. However what transcendence that gets focused on is different since it tends to be experiential transcendence rather than say the remnants of the platonic One in God's ousia. Among Mormon thinkers transcendence does get a kind of focus. So Pratt's spirit fluid as a kind of Stoic ousia (likely following Tertullian) is one example. Adopting Levinas' transcendence of God to all minds was popular in the 90's onward. More recently Adam Miller's secular grace is an other example. While I'd argue that the McConkie wing of Mormon thinking in the mid to late 20th century was anti-transcendence in certain ways and tended to be rather nominalistic there were always other intellectual trends even then. However there's no real clear doctrine of transcendence beyond rather banal senses.

Edited December 21, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Five Solas]

On 12/20/2017 at 6:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

...

If Joseph Smith said he saw Jesus and God the Father as two separate but similar corporeal entities, then he crossed a wide Rubicon. Fine, okay; God didn't strike Smith himself dead for saying that, so it must be all right to keep discussing Smith's views. I just think we have to be careful about tossing around comparisons with various exotic variants of transcendent monotheism, because I think that if we're not careful that can tend to conceal, or distract from, a basic difference that should not be ignored.

I'll confess I find myself, on occasion, suspecting the goal of some really is distraction & concealment.  You pretty much took down the late Hugh Nibley's whole modus operandi with that previous post.  His work/legacy has a lot of fans on this forum, so suggest you sleep with one eye open...

;0)

--Erik

[kiwi57]

On 12/21/2017 at 3:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

I have to apologize for not having enough time right now to think carefully about esoteric Judaism or fine distinctions in doctrine among Protestant denominations. My main reaction when Clark or others raise these points, however, is that although they may be interesting and relevant we should not let them distract us from what to me is an elephant in the room.

Suppose that instead of theologians talking about God, this thread had historians talking about Ulysses S. Grant. Some historians think Grant was an alcoholic; some think he was an Abolitionist; some think that as President he was soft on corruption. Others hold different views on those important points. None of those mainstream historians, however, would have much to say to any historian who denied that U.S. Grant had ever been a general in the Union Army during the Civil War.

If somebody does for some reason deny that U.S. Grant was a general, then they might still have something worthwhile to say to mainstream historians about, for example, Grant's alleged alcoholism. Conversely a convention of revisionist scholars who aren't sure whether Grant served in the army might still have something to learn about Grant's political views from a mainstream scholar. In either case, however, it would be important to preface the whole discussion with a frank acknowledgement that the issue of Grant's military career is an enormous division which makes any other discussion between the two Grant camps a rather quixotic exercise in distinguishing gnats after swallowing camels.

Even then, the discussion would be tricky. For mainstream historians the main issues involved in whether Grant was an alcoholic or an Abolitionist or corrupt have to do precisely with his role in command of huge armies. When mainstream historians argue about whether Grant was a drunk, for example, they're not arguing over whether some random guy was a drunk. They're arguing over whether the commanding general was a drunk, and that makes a big difference even on a quite detailed level.

Ultimately the gulf between these two camps about Grant would not even just be a matter of orthodoxy and revisionism rejecting each other. The problem would be that for mainstream historians it is Grant's career as a Union general that makes him significant. There might have been a less significant man who was called by that name, but people who were interested in Grant the great general would not maintain interest in that lesser figure just because of his name. The mainstream historians may dispute passionately whether or not Grant was a drunk, but they cannot meaningfully argue at all about whether he was a general. Ulysses S. Grant was a Union general, to them, by definition: if Grant was not a Union general then he was not Grant. Or rather, if Grant was not a general, then the figure that mainstreamers mean to mention, when they say "U.S. Grant", did not really exist. No wonder no-one is buried in his tomb.

Interesting analogy, if rather long. The question is, how far do you take it? But I suggest that something much closer to the real difference between Mainstream Christians and LDS Christians would not come anywhere close to denying that Grant was General-in-chief of the Federal army in the Civil War; it's much more closely analogous to one camp saying that Generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were three distinct beings, while the other asserts that they were three aspects (hypostases) of the same being.

On 12/21/2017 at 3:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

To return to theology, Mormons are welcome to take the role of mainstream historians in my U.S. Grant analogy, and let the transcendent theists be the revisionists. My point is that the two sides here differ on something fundamental, and not just on detail. The entity to which mainstream Jews, Christians, and Muslims mean to refer, when they say "God", is by definition the one supreme author and editor of all of reality.

And also "mainstream" generically theistic philosophers. The God of the philosophers, which you have described, is not particularly Christian, nor even scriptural at all. Latter-day Saints worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

The ontological trinity is an attempt to use the tools of philosophy to shoehorn the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost into Plato's abstract Divine, which is necessarily alone and metaphysically simple.

On 12/21/2017 at 3:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

Regardless of how much the Old Testament may in places reflect more anthropomorphic conceptions of God,

And the New Testament,

On 12/21/2017 at 3:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

this transcendent understanding of God has been the mainstream belief for many centuries now.

And potentially an artifact of the Apostasy.

On 12/21/2017 at 3:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

 For Mormons that transcendency of God seems at least to be up for debate; if the notion that there are multiple exalted former mortals with the status of God is not Mormon orthodoxy, neither does it seem to be Mormon orthodoxy to reject that view as absurd. As mainstream theists would define the term, therefore, some Mormon views would simply count as atheistic, because if God the Father were an exalted former mortal then the being to whom mainstream theists mean to refer, when they speak about God, would not exist.

But that definition of "atheistic" is simply absurd. To apply it to your Grant analogy, it is functionally equivalent to arguing that anyone who says Grant was clean-shaven instead of having a salt-and-pepper beard is denying that Grant even existed. Atheism is the denial of the existence of a Supreme Being, not a disagreement about some formulations that try to describe His nature. The accusation (because that is what it is) that LDS theology is "atheistic" is not merely absurd; it is an illegitimate attempt to win the argument by radically redefining the terms in which the discussion is allowed to proceed.

On 12/21/2017 at 3:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

Arguably the only really mainstream Christian theology is a firmly transcendent but otherwise vague trinitarianism. Heretical or not, though, all the significant non-Mormon Christian views of God have been transcendent first and foremost by explicit stipulation. Any dissensions from simple unitarianism have always had it as their first task to cope with that; transcendent monotheism has always been a "third rail" that could never be touched. Hence, of course, all the convoluted Christian quibbling that is so baffling to Jews and Muslims. The threeness is unavoidably tricky because the oneness is so non-negotiable.

Yes, and the oneness is equally tricky because the threeness is likewise non-negotiable.

On 12/21/2017 at 3:24 AM, Physics Guy said:

If Joseph Smith said he saw Jesus and God the Father as two separate but similar corporeal entities, then he crossed a wide Rubicon. Fine, okay; God didn't strike Smith himself dead for saying that, so it must be all right to keep discussing Smith's views. I just think we have to be careful about tossing around comparisons with various exotic variants of transcendent monotheism, because I think that if we're not careful that can tend to conceal, or distract from, a basic difference that should not be ignored.

While I think we have to be careful about tossing around hysterical terms like "atheistic," because that will quite clearly make the real differences seem much greater than they actually are.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

I'll confess I find myself, on occasion, suspecting the goal of some really is distraction & concealment.

Thank you for that confession. It's refreshing to see an anti-Mormon admit that he approaches believing Latter-day Saints with a presumption of bad faith, because they usually try to weasel out of it when confronted with that fact.

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

You pretty much took down the late Hugh Nibley's whole modus operandi with that previous post.

Oh, don't you just wish that were true!

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

  His work/legacy has a lot of fans on this forum, so suggest you sleep with one eye open...

;0)

--Erik

And of course, that sly insinuation that LDS defenders get violent in defense of their faith is just a "joke," right?

Well, given that that "joke" comes from an American Protestant, I suppose you'll wait until winter before stealing my stuff and throwing me out of my house at gunpoint, the way your co-religionists do, right?