1829-32 Doctrine of the Nature of God

[clarkgoble]

To the March 1832 it's worth noting here the Pratt's theology which is reasonably significant in the early 1840's. It's Parley who preaches a theology where our spirits are made out of the spirit of God literally. In other words we're parts of God. With the revelation that spirits are matter you then get the more Stoic take on the same from Orson Pratt. 

Now if Parley and Orson weren't getting this only from figures like Emerson then it would make sense that there's something like Pratt's spirit aether as God. That corresponds somewhat the idea of the Father in essence as the soul of Jesus in Swedenborg. But these ideas were coursing around. The main difference is that Orson and Parley see this not as the Father but more as the ousia or shared essence of God. With Brigham Young that whole conception gets cast aside. Even though Orson's theology in some ways triumphs over Brigham's, Brigham's idea that theology is anthropology and just focused on individual persons triumphs.

No time to say more right now. Maybe tomorrow.

[Benjamin Seeker]

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Not quite sure what you're asking for here. Clearly Joseph Smith presents the Book of Mormon as ancient. Figuring out how much ancient Judaism is in it tends to be difficult for several reasons. First Nephi and Lehi off the bat have visions and doctrinal innovations breaking with religion in Jerusalem. Second, they appear to have connections to the Northern Tribes which may have had a form of Judaism compared to the South - especially after the reforms of Josiah. Finally outside of 1 Nephi - Jacob most of the text is written by Mormon 1000 years later. Given how much Judaism changed in Israel from the point of the exile onward to the end of late antiquity, we should assume Nephite Judaism does the same. So we have to read with a certain hermeneutics of suspicion. Throw in the problem of a loose translation heavily influenced by the KJV and ancient judaic parallels will always be somewhat problematic.

I simply mean, you gave an ancient Jewish justification for the Moses 7 conflation of the Father and Son and I'm suggesting you find an articulation of that justification in the JS' revelations/translations.

Just now, clarkgoble said:

However I do think that if we're going to look at the text, we have to pay close attention to its claimed providence and origin. We can't only look at 19th century sources such as Arminianism, Swedenborg or the like. 

To me what's interesting about the Book of Mormon is how closely many elements are to Jewish Binatarianism. We have to be careful pushing things too far since the most pronounced elements of binatarianism are from the Hellenistic period. However elements of the targums likely go back to the early Aramaic era prior to the strong Hellenistic period with logos speculation from middle platonism. The theory is as a context for the Book of Mormon is that the targums represent an earlier tradition going back to pre-exilic times. This is Margaret Barker's claims. So the claim by many is that, if only as a possibility that needs to be addressed, Barker's reconstruction of pre-exilic Judaism should be a context for the Book of Mormon.

Fair points. So far, I'm trying to stick as close to the texts as I can and let them speak for themselves as much as possible.

Just now, clarkgoble said:

 

Right, but I guess what I'm saying is that if we want to move beyond it just being ambiguous we have to have a coherent model. If it's not modalism or Swedenborgism we have to describe it in some way. Thus far we have passages that seem to contradict - unless we read them in the more traditional theological model where whether you think it correct or not it is at least a coherent theology for the Book of Mormon. i.e. Jesus is both the Father and Son due to function, due to our being adopted by Christ by the atonement, and due to divine investiture of God's essence. The titles become roles setting things up for Nauvoo theology. In this case that theology is already present in the Book of Mormon simply not emphasized.

I think the pure language sample revelation gives us the model, and its coherent if a little simplistic. I was posting it while you posted this.

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Christ's baptism and transfiguration are just traditional problems for this view. They are primarily why the trinity developed. Again, to be clear, the main Mormon issues with the Trinity aren't the doctrine proper but the associated doctrine of the Father not being resurrected and creation ex nihilo. As I've argued many times the creed of the Trinity I have zero problem with (beyond certain logical issues if one pushes the language literally).

I think if one believed the Father and Son are different versions of the same person (which is modalism proper) that one must ask why on earth God would even bother talking like that. It really makes zero sense and a natural way of reading it is as two persons.

Fair point. I was just doing my best to put the apparent theology into words. Again, I think the sample of pure language gives us the best model. Christ is a part of the Father, allowing for some conflation and separate existence all at the same time.

Just now, clarkgoble said:

I'd say D&C 109 & 110 is a classic example of confusing things. That's 1836 at the Kirtland Temple dedication. There the figures get conflated and not addressed clearly.

I've been meaning to go back to that. I'll go check it out.

Just now, clarkgoble said:

But the issue of someone speaking as God but not being God has a long history. So Rev 22:8-9 has John falling down to worship the angel. Interestingly the angel then responds saying he's a fellow prophet (an indication this may be Enoch as Metatron or the Lesser YHWH). So this sort of thing happens in that ancient Jewish tradition I mentioned.

Right. I'd like to know JS thoughts on this kind of thing if he ever gave them, or what any of his revelations/translations say about it. That would be informative.

Just now, clarkgoble said:

 

Bits of Moses as well as D&C 93 (1833) seem very similar to Mosiah 15. Particularly the latter. I've argued that Mosiah 15 is a Merkabah like text similar to how Enoch becomes Metatron thereby being the Father and a Son in a sense. Moses 7 starts out with "behold, our father Adam taught these things, and many have believed and become the sons of God." So this speech in Moses 6-7 is tied to becoming a son of God. In Mosiah 15 you have how Jesus is the Father and Son but the key is an exegesis of Isaiah 52 on how we become saviors. So it's setting up a parallel where people become prophets and become sons (or daughters). So what's described as happening to Jesus is supposed to happen to each of us.

 

Just now, clarkgoble said:

This is then re-emphasized in 3 Nephi 11:27 which may be paraphrasing John 14:11;20 and 1 John 3:2-3 (// Moroni 7:48)  So I've long argued you can't keep the exegesis of Isaiah 52 by Abinadi out of the discussion of the unity of God. The question of "who shall be his seed" is asking who will be sons of God. 

This usage persists up through D&C 76:58. "...they are gods, even the sons of God..." Again that's 1 John 1-3. "we should be called the sons of God." There's a pretty pronounced theory of theosis in the Book of Mormon. This is a phrase that pops up not only in Joseph's revelations but his revisions of the Bible. (Compare say John 1:12 to D&C 11:30) This unity is emphasized in D&C 35:2 as well. "...as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even done in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one." Note that's dated to Dec 1830. 

So regardless of the metaphysical questions (and from what I can tell Joseph just didn't care much about them) the emphasis of theosis seems to be an important context for understanding the relationship of the Father and Son.

This is fantastic. I've been interested in early mormon doctrine on divinization since I set foot here in the forum. I really like how these documents address the nature of God in context of man's relationship with Him.

Just now, clarkgoble said:

Ah. OK. I misunderstood your argument there. Yeah that is more muddled there.

 

 

[Physics Guy]

The Book of Moses texts from the OP sure sound Patripassionistic to me (the Father and the Son are one person, such that it would be correct to say that "the Father suffered" on the cross). Some of the attempts to explain this away, by making "Father" into a title or a legal status, seem awfully tenuous and far-fetched. "Father" may be a role that could be filled by many different people, but the definite article in "the Father" implies that there is only one possible referent for this instance of "Father".

Sometime passages in Mormon Scriptures sound polytheistic; others sound unitarian to the point of Patripassionism. Before plunging in to try to reconcile them all somehow in one coherent theology, could one first just collect some more data about the different passages, to see what factors might be making them different? Time of publication or of purported revelation is one factor to consider, but another might just be context.

In passages where Jesus is speaking to or about the Father, for example, the two are obviously more likely to come out sound like two distinct beings. In passages where the whole gospel message is being condensed into a few lines of preaching or prophecy, on the other hand, one is apt to find headlines like "God is one" and "God became human" which imply that Jesus and the Father must in some sense be one single being. So I can imagine some patterns like this showing up in the Mormon texts. Do they really? Are there other patterns? 

Whatever patterns there are, they may do nothing to resolve the apparent inconsistencies; but maybe they will suggest some resolution in terms of using different language about God in different contexts, or progressive revelation in which Moses was confused about some things and was corrected by later prophets, or something. My own bet is that Smith was just flip-flopping because he was imitating things he'd heard and the things he'd heard fit the context-dependent patterns I've mentioned.  But surely the more faithfully Mormon thing to do, instead of trying to save Smith from inconsistency by imposing some external theory on him, would be to lay out everything his revelations did say about God and see what patterns show up in the data. What text features correlate with different views about God?

[Kevin Christensen]

In The Great Angel, page 4 in a key chapter where she surveys Biblical texts that refer to sons of El and sons of Yahweh, Barker observes a telling distinction:

Quote

those called sons of El Elyon, sons of El or Elohim, all clearly heavenly beings, and there are those called sons of Yahweh or the Holy One who are human. This distinction is important for at least two reasons; Yahweh was one of the sons of El Elyon; and Jesus in the Gospels was described as a Son of El Elyon, God Most High.

So it helps to consider not just the word Father, but to consider how that title applies in a particular context.  I found that it makes all the difference in my reading of the Book of Mormon.

For instance, a section of Paradigms Regained here:

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=2694&index=4

And Brant Gardner, here:

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

And in considering the possibility of just letting "a text speak for itself", Barker notes:

Quote

All the texts in the chosen canon would have had an original context, which presupposed a certain pattern of shared beliefs within which the text was set.

The context was as much a part of the meaning as the words themselves. Set in a new context, the same text would soon acquire a new meaning.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/TextAndContext.pdf

If we don't contextualize consciously,  we tend to do it unconsciously, defaulting to our own cultural preconceptions of what a word means, as though words have an inherent meaning, the same to all observers and without regard to context and culture and ideology, without any self awareness that we are doing so.

And there is, from Paulson and Bruening on the Modalism hypothesis and contextualization.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Benjamin Seeker]

8 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The Book of Moses texts from the OP sure sound Patripassionistic to me (the Father and the Son are one person, such that it would be correct to say that "the Father suffered" on the cross). Some of the attempts to explain this away, by making "Father" into a title or a legal status, seem awfully tenuous and far-fetched. "Father" may be a role that could be filled by many different people, but the definite article in "the Father" implies that there is only one possible referent for this instance of "Father".

Sometime passages in Mormon Scriptures sound polytheistic; others sound unitarian to the point of Patripassionism. Before plunging in to try to reconcile them all somehow in one coherent theology, could one first just collect some more data about the different passages, to see what factors might be making them different? Time of publication or of purported revelation is one factor to consider, but another might just be context.

In passages where Jesus is speaking to or about the Father, for example, the two are obviously more likely to come out sound like two distinct beings. In passages where the whole gospel message is being condensed into a few lines of preaching or prophecy, on the other hand, one is apt to find headlines like "God is one" and "God became human" which imply that Jesus and the Father must in some sense be one single being. So I can imagine some patterns like this showing up in the Mormon texts. Do they really? Are there other patterns? 

Whatever patterns there are, they may do nothing to resolve the apparent inconsistencies; but maybe they will suggest some resolution in terms of using different language about God in different contexts, or progressive revelation in which Moses was confused about some things and was corrected by later prophets, or something. My own bet is that Smith was just flip-flopping because he was imitating things he'd heard and the things he'd heard fit the context-dependent patterns I've mentioned.  

I’d considered this possibility. Because JS’ texts carefully address the subject in multiple ways (doctrinal exposition and narrative), I think thqt JS likely had some underlying theology that justified all of it. The 1832 Sample of Pure Language certainly suggests one. The question from there is, was this what undergirds the BOM, Moses and JST of is it something that came after that fits with it all.

8 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

But surely the more faithfully Mormon thing to do, instead of trying to save Smith from inconsistency by imposing some external theory on him, would be to lay out everything his revelations did say about God and see what patterns show up in the data. What text features correlate with different views about God?

 

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The Book of Moses texts from the OP sure sound Patripassionistic to me (the Father and the Son are one person, such that it would be correct to say that "the Father suffered" on the cross). Some of the attempts to explain this away, by making "Father" into a title or a legal status, seem awfully tenuous and far-fetched. "Father" may be a role that could be filled by many different people, but the definite article in "the Father" implies that there is only one possible referent for this instance of "Father".

In some places, but in other places in Moses they're not. Further there's not a linear development so we're not seeing an evolution of Joseph's thought. That's why I think Moses 4 with the Father and Son speaking in the garden is so significant. As I said to me it's much closer to traditional Jewish binatarianism than patripassonism. I also continue to think that one can't divorce out the notion of theosis that Joseph has from the nature of God. Both have to be addressed at the same time.

I'd add that more neoplatonic emanation fits well also since that's similar to the earlier middle platonic influenced binatarianism that was common in the Judaism of the targums or the platonic Judaism of Philo or others. While the extent of platonic influence on Joseph Smith hasn't been nailed down yet, there are reasons to think it forms an important background.

10 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

In passages where Jesus is speaking to or about the Father, for example, the two are obviously more likely to come out sound like two distinct beings. In passages where the whole gospel message is being condensed into a few lines of preaching or prophecy, on the other hand, one is apt to find headlines like "God is one" and "God became human" which imply that Jesus and the Father must in some sense be one single being. So I can imagine some patterns like this showing up in the Mormon texts. Do they really? Are there other patterns? 

The question here is why on earth have them talk to one an other? For that matter why adopt a language where Jesus goes to the father or gets commands from the father if they're the same person? Even with modalism where they're two formal modes or function that is hard to buy. With something even stronger than modalism then that makes very little sense. However if it reflects Jewish binatarianism then that's easy to explain.

When aping KJV language it makes sense to borrow texts that use such language. However a lot isn't aping the KJV or is outright modifying it . So I'm not sure that explains everything. 

10 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

My own bet is that Smith was just flip-flopping because he was imitating things he'd heard and the things he'd heard fit the context-dependent patterns I've mentioned.

I think we have to allow for Joseph simply adopting phrases either directly or paraphrased from the KJV or popular theological texts to crouch his ideas. So the passages from John and 1 John clearly influence passages in the Book of Mormon. Then teasing out what is content from what is the accident of translation becomes tricky. Yet there do seem to be larger scaled arguments. While there's nothing really in the JST or Book of Mormon focusing on the questions of the nature of God, there are lots of things about theosis. The evolution of pre-mortality tends to arise out of these same passages we've been discussing as well. Not just the Awman text but even examples of speaking in tongues where the interpretation when mentioned relates to these things. There are indications the Awman text originates with Sidney Rigdon interpreting tongues - and they seem influenced by Moses 6-7. See Kirtland Revelation Book 2 Feb 27, 1833.

One thing that I don't think historians have done adequately is look at the loosely neoplatonic conception of God and spirits in early 19th century America and compared it to the development in Mormonism. Famously platonism of this sort not only offers an emanation theory, such as we see in Mormonism in the mid 1830's through mid 1840's, but also ties this explicitly with theosis. That's particularly true in theurgical platonism.

 

Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And there is, from Paulson and Bruening on the Modalism hypothesis and contextualization.

https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12

While I largely agree with Paulson, I don't think they grapple well with the obvious counter arguments. Admittedly most modalist arguments are poorly and superficially made. In terms of engaging with the arguments as formed, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. However if we think through the arguments one could make for modalism then one has to as a starting point assume the NT as it exists is modalistically interpreted. That means that you can't use similarity to NT passages that are marshalled against modalism as evidence the Book of Mormon or Book of Commandments are anti-modalistic. Of course the charge against that is why someone who is modalistic would quote passages usually seen as anti-modalistic. At that stage we're quickly into the "what difference makes a difference" territory. That is how do we make a thesis that is in theory falsifiable. If we can't, then the theory isn't too useful. 

The problem ultimately is that none of the early texts really are focused on the concerns that the battles between modalists, trinitarians and others are concerned with. As such there's a certain ambiguity about what is a significant content claim about the nature of God versus what is mere rhetorical flourish picked up from the NT. That's why I think the issue of theosis becomes so important. Since theosis clearly is a big concern and many key passages like Mosiah 15 seem tied to a doctrine of theosis I think theosis can illuminate the content on the persons in the texts.

Now that admittedly only gets us so far. Of course apologists and theologicans have been bringing up how Mormon theosis is so similar to the theosis of the early Fathers - especially in the more eastern traditions. The common rejoinder is that this is inappropriate since most of these Fathers also accept creation ex nihilo which gives a rather different meaning to theosis. So, as is so often the case, things hinge upon the ontology of creation itself. While the development of Mormonism's anti-ex nihilo position takes time, elements are there from an early period. Unfortunately early is still after the Book of Mormon and JST. So the beginnings are with the Awmen texts we've been discussing. By Nauvoo pre-existence and eternity of entities is well established making creation ex nihilo somewhat negated.

I say somewhat since of course the early Saints weren't exactly philosophically sophisticated. Even those treated as sophisticated, like Orson Pratt, really are far from being so. Thus the main problem with pre-Utah texts is that none of them really engage with the difference between temporal eternity and ontological ordering. Something could be temporally eternal after all yet still created ontologically "before" time. So despite being taken as implying the falsity of creation ex nihilo the various passages on eternity, especially in Joseph's Nauvoo sermons, technically don't do it. One might say that his plurality of gods and regress of gods does it, but again that avoids the question of whether there's something like an ousia to God. Pratt thinks there is but interprets it Stoicly (possibly by reading brief overviews of Tertullian's Stoic treatment of the Trinity). Anyway there remain a lot of ontological issues here that Mormons traditionally just avoid engaging.

Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

The Book of Moses texts from the OP sure sound Patripassionistic to me (the Father and the Son are one person, such that it would be correct to say that "the Father suffered" on the cross). Some of the attempts to explain this away, by making "Father" into a title or a legal status, seem awfully tenuous and far-fetched. "Father" may be a role that could be filled by many different people, but the definite article in "the Father" implies that there is only one possible referent for this instance of "Father".

Sometime passages in Mormon Scriptures sound polytheistic; others sound unitarian to the point of Patripassionism. Before plunging in to try to reconcile them all somehow in one coherent theology, could one first just collect some more data about the different passages, to see what factors might be making them different? Time of publication or of purported revelation is one factor to consider, but another might just be context.

In passages where Jesus is speaking to or about the Father, for example, the two are obviously more likely to come out sound like two distinct beings. In passages where the whole gospel message is being condensed into a few lines of preaching or prophecy, on the other hand, one is apt to find headlines like "God is one" and "God became human" which imply that Jesus and the Father must in some sense be one single being. So I can imagine some patterns like this showing up in the Mormon texts. Do they really? Are there other patterns? 

Whatever patterns there are, they may do nothing to resolve the apparent inconsistencies; but maybe they will suggest some resolution in terms of using different language about God in different contexts, or progressive revelation in which Moses was confused about some things and was corrected by later prophets, or something. My own bet is that Smith was just flip-flopping because he was imitating things he'd heard and the things he'd heard fit the context-dependent patterns I've mentioned.  But surely the more faithfully Mormon thing to do, instead of trying to save Smith from inconsistency by imposing some external theory on him, would be to lay out everything his revelations did say about God and see what patterns show up in the data. What text features correlate with different views about God?

Not really a problem

My son's name is Adam.  I am a father as a role.  I am THE father of Adam

I am THE son to Ed making me " a" father in a different context.

I am THE brother, father, son, uncle, bishop and neighbor within other contexts and I am ONE person.

Gosh that even is more than the trinity!

No inconsistencies, just multiple perspectives.  That is why we have words and tenses like first second and third person.

That is why physical descriptions of "Bukowski's brain activity" is not experienced by Bukowski as Bukowski's brain activity (third person) but as MY brain activity which might include many SUBJECTIVE experience.  The third person description "The Watsis scope indicates Bukowski is having brain activity at location xyz" is not logically the same as "Bukowski is listening to Beethoven's Fifth", the difference is point of view

I do not observe my subjective experiences, I experience them.  You may describe my smelling chicken soup as my brain activity, but I experience it as smelling chicken soup.

A statement about a father or a son or the father or the son is the same thing.  My father is not your father, yet both may be described as "THE father of PG or The father of MB."

Both are A father as both are a son.

Perspectives and terminology.

I don't know why this is so hard.  No inconsistency.   All of these are simply the "SAME THING" described from different perspectives including the authors of the statement confusing the issue by conflating one usage with the other.

Don't think that  grammatical mistakes create entities.

Just because someone says "He wears the badge of courage" to mean that there is a thing out there in the world called a "badge of courage"

Just because someone says "Juliette is the Sun" doesn't mean that they are saying that she's full of burning gasses.

Language is the problem.   Don't reify expressions into entities or think there are conflicts where none exist.

[blueglass]

We were just reading in Helaman and 3Nephi1 yesterday as a family to read up on the american "Guatemala" Christmas story from the book of mormon.  My kids on their own asked about why Nephi was praying to the Lord, and if this was Jesus?  It parallels closely with the 1832 first vision account with Joseph praying to the Lord, and then the Lord appears and says, "I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life".

3Nephi1:12-14

12 And it came to pass that he cried mightily unto the Lord all that day; and behold, the voice of the Lord came unto him, saying:

13 Lift up your head and be of good cheer; for behold, the time is at hand, and on this night shall the sign be given, and on the morrow come I into the world, to show unto the world that I will fulfil all that which I have caused to be spoken by the mouth of my holy prophets.

14 Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given."

The kids love this story, because I asked where baby Jesus was, and they laugh and say - "he's in the belly of Mary!" .  So Nephi is praying to baby Jesus in the belly of Mary?  and he's answering Nephi's prayer while he's living in "guatemala". 

 

 

[blueglass]

On 12/17/2017 at 6:43 AM, cdowis said:

Eloheim is the spiritual father of ALL those who have received a spirit body.  

Father of spirits, here is usually pulled from Hebrews 12:9, "we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live!", but the concordance references Numbers 27:16,  “Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation".   

Also for Elohim, mormons are distinct from the 1916 exposition that this refers to a unique father God.  As Elohim means gods, and the LORD refers to himself as superior to all the elohim.  For example in Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god."  In wordcruncher, god refers to h430, and there is no distinct personality referring to elohim as superior to yhwh (h3068).  The only reference I have found referring to a god higher in authority than yhwh, is in the old psalm of moses in Deut 32:8-9 where "most high" h5945 assigns a stewardship and inheritance to the LORD.  

Edited December 19, 2017 by blueglass

[blueglass]

Another reference here that the LORD is Elohim,  "that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other."  1Kings8:60  Also notice there is no distinction between the corrupt plurality of elohim of Isaiah 44:6, or the supreme elohim of 1Kings8:60 - same h430 with a monotheist declarative.  

Edited December 19, 2017 by blueglass

[Physics Guy]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

The question here is why on earth have [Father and Son] talk to one an other? For that matter why adopt a language where Jesus goes to the father or gets commands from the father if they're the same person? Even with modalism where they're two formal modes or function that is hard to buy. With something even stronger than modalism then that makes very little sense. However if it reflects Jewish binatarianism then that's easy to explain.

It makes no sense to me for one person to go and talk to himself. I guess you could get one mode of God sending messages to God in another mode, if you took the sending and receiving as anthropomorphic metaphors for some general sense in which the one God's intentions were expressed in multiple modes. If the specifically Mormon Scriptures have passages that are seemingly contradictory on this point, I'd like to see the pattern of passages analyzed more neutrally before assuming that any one coherent doctrine was being expressed. Perhaps Mormon theology is itself a sort of modalism, with one concept appearing differently in different places, but I'm rather inclined to see it as a polytheology, with distinct concepts acting and interacting.

What on earth is "Jewish binatarianism"? I'd have said that Judaism is as unitarian as one can possible get. Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one.

Trinitarianism, by the way, is certainly not the view that Jesus and the Father are one person. In the New Testament Gospels the Father is not walking around in a humanoid body, but is "the father in the heavens," a being on a cosmic scale. Jesus prays just as we do. Trinitarian theology has never overlooked that; it has always been supposed to be consistent with the doctrine.

At least on my own understanding, if Christology were on Jeopardy and the two answers "human" and "God" showed up, then the correct questions would be "What was Jesus?" and "Who was Jesus?", respectively. If you also went with "What?" for the "God" answer, then if I were one of Alex's judges I would judge you as wrong.

God is a being far vaster than any human personality could be, so not all of God can be human, but the mainstream Christian belief is that the question, "What kind of a person would God be, if God were a human?" is answerable, in kind of the way that one can answer the question, "What kind of a cat would you be, if you were a cat?" Part of the Christian answer is that as a human being God would be a devout servant of God. At least if you think about it in a certain way, that makes perfect sense.

[Five Solas]

On 12/17/2017 at 11:41 PM, Physics Guy said:

The Book of Moses texts from the OP sure sound Patripassionistic to me (the Father and the Son are one person, such that it would be correct to say that "the Father suffered" on the cross). Some of the attempts to explain this away, by making "Father" into a title or a legal status, seem awfully tenuous and far-fetched. "Father" may be a role that could be filled by many different people, but the definite article in "the Father" implies that there is only one possible referent for this instance of "Father".

Sometime passages in Mormon Scriptures sound polytheistic; others sound unitarian to the point of Patripassionism. Before plunging in to try to reconcile them all somehow in one coherent theology, could one first just collect some more data about the different passages, to see what factors might be making them different? Time of publication or of purported revelation is one factor to consider, but another might just be context.

In passages where Jesus is speaking to or about the Father, for example, the two are obviously more likely to come out sound like two distinct beings. In passages where the whole gospel message is being condensed into a few lines of preaching or prophecy, on the other hand, one is apt to find headlines like "God is one" and "God became human" which imply that Jesus and the Father must in some sense be one single being. So I can imagine some patterns like this showing up in the Mormon texts. Do they really? Are there other patterns? 

Whatever patterns there are, they may do nothing to resolve the apparent inconsistencies; but maybe they will suggest some resolution in terms of using different language about God in different contexts, or progressive revelation in which Moses was confused about some things and was corrected by later prophets, or something. My own bet is that Smith was just flip-flopping because he was imitating things he'd heard and the things he'd heard fit the context-dependent patterns I've mentioned.  But surely the more faithfully Mormon thing to do, instead of trying to save Smith from inconsistency by imposing some external theory on him, would be to lay out everything his revelations did say about God and see what patterns show up in the data. What text features correlate with different views about God?

Happily, it feels like we've got a bit of a start already, between kiwi57's "The 1832 First Vision Account: Needed to be Hidden?" (the last few pages, especially) and Benjamin Seeker's extension/expansion with this one.  But I completely agree - more work on this ought to be done and a bottoms up/data-driven approach would be the best way of doing it.   

I'll own that I had a pretty simplistic notion of Joseph Smith's evolving view of deity coming in to this & the dialogue between these threads has challenged that view considerably.  And I keep being surprised.  That "revelation on pure language"-- just, wow.  Smith appears to have taught a quite a number of things contemporary LDS don't actually believe.   

Perhaps Benjamin Seeker and clarkgoble will jointly take up the subject and make a study or perhaps even a book for us. 

:0)

--Erik

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

What on earth is "Jewish binatarianism"? I'd have said that Judaism is as unitarian as one can possible get. Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one.

During the Hellenistic period it's the idea that God proper is hidden and that all interaction is done by intermediaries representing him. This quickly became tied into the Platonic notion of Logos as an intermediary between the One and individuals such as in Philo. However even with early Aramaic targums and peshers (roughly loose translations from Hebrew into Aramaic and expansive commentary on the same somewhat akin to the JST) you have the rise of the Memra who is an intermediary. Most passages with God acting replace it with the Memra in these translations. There are other intermediaries especially in Merkabah texts. So Enoch becomes Metatron through an ascent to heaven where he's deified. He then becomes the Lesser YHWH and speaks as YHWH. These three intermediaries Memra, Metatron, and Logos are ubiquitous in the Hellenistic period although the exact relationship to the NT where Jesus has similar functions is controversial.

I'd linked to one recent paper on this earlier in this thread. But it's a fairly well discussed part of history.

In later Judaism they obviously do more work to distinguish themselves from Christianity who were often their persecutors. However even in medieval Kabbalism you have the hidden God of the En-sof and then various manifestations of it often represented by Adam Kadmon or the cosmic Adam. That's really just embracing the theurgical platonism of late antiquity and then pushing it along various mystic lines yet maintaining a common ground with certain tree of life traditions out of Babylon and classic texts reinterpreted. So you have a slow move from merkabah and heklhalot to full bodied platonic mysticism. But the roots are likely the mixing of various traditions out of Babylon including angelology with Platonism (first middle platonism and then later the type of theurgical platonism popular at the end of Roman paganism).

All of this is significant to the Book of Mormon and arguably up through Nauvoo Mormonism due to parallels with how Jesus is the Father and the Son but also the development of theosis in Mormonism up to the temple rite which is a type of heavenly ascent to become like god. So the Merkabah/Hekhalot literature in particular is quite important. Although Mormons, particularly in the 20th century are fairly anti-platonist. (Nibley being the odd case)

Edited December 19, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

I'll own that I had a pretty simplistic notion of Joseph Smith's evolving view of deity coming in to this & the dialogue between these threads has challenged that view considerably.  And I keep being surprised.  That "revelation on pure language"-- just, wow.  Smith appears to have taught a quite a number of things contemporary LDS don't actually believe.   

Out of curiosity what do you think he believed that modern LDS don't believe? Of course there was even according to the most McConkie styled orthodoxy a view that Joseph's views changed with time as new things were revealed. The revelation on materialism being one huge issue for example.

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Trinitarianism, by the way, is certainly not the view that Jesus and the Father are one person. In the New Testament Gospels the Father is not walking around in a humanoid body, but is "the father in the heavens," a being on a cosmic scale. Jesus prays just as we do. Trinitarian theology has never overlooked that; it has always been supposed to be consistent with the doctrine.

You may have missed the thread where we discussed this a bit as the context for Joseph's time. There are different theologies regarding the Father particularly in Protestantism which rejected some of the accumulated theology in Catholicism. So at the time of Joseph there was a debate over whether the Father could be seen "corporeally" or not. Typically the theology of those who said he could was that they weren't seeing the Father in his essence. I'll confess I'm a little fuzzy on what essence means here - whether the essence of the Father as hypostasis or the ousia. But I'll admit I don't have a great grasp of all the varieties of protestantism and their theological debates. One link I gave was the book Reformed Dogmatics that goes through some of the issues.

I think the debate relative to Mormonism is that it appears that while the nature of Christ is fairly well established early on, the nature of the Father is not. It's fairly late by the time the Father is seen as material and not just immaterial spirit. I'd argue that to this day the Holy Ghost is not well theorized about and from a purely linguistic perspective few Mormons are careful there. So spirit ambiguiously is used to refer to the person the Holy Ghost, the influence of the Holy Ghost, any communication or influence from God, or less commonly some nebulous unity of the godhead. (That latter more for followers of Orson Pratt's theology which is still influential) Early on prior to Nauvoo I think you get a blurring between what you'd call the person of the Father and the ousia of God. With time the significance of the ousia is downplayed and the person of the Father becomes quite similar to the nature of the person of Jesus.

But I agree with you that the same arguments against modalism in the NT work with the Book of Mormon.

[Josh Khinder]

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2017 at 11:12 PM, Bobbieaware said:

In Lehi’s firtst vision, he sees the Father and the Son as two separate and distinct human personages:

8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God.

9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day.

10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament.

11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read. (1 Nephi 1)

The Trinity does teach separate and distinct persons 

 

[juliann]

http://www.justindeeter.com/archives/1753

3. The Trinity is Like a Three-Leaf Clover

How the analogy goes:

The trinity is a like a Three-Leaf Clover. There are three different cloves that represent the three different persons of the trinity.

The problem with this analogy is it denies the unity of the God-head. The analogy breaks down because the three cloves are overly distinct and cannot represent the unity of God. As a result, this analogy can easily lead to tritheism in which there are three different gods which might share some like substance.

[Five Solas]

On 12/19/2017 at 9:44 AM, clarkgoble said:

Out of curiosity what do you think he believed that modern LDS don't believe? Of course there was even according to the most McConkie styled orthodoxy a view that Joseph's views changed with time as new things were revealed. The revelation on materialism being one huge issue for example.

Work off of the example I cited from earlier in the thread, clarkgoble--Smith's "Revelation on pure language."  Do you think contemporary LDS would recognize it as an expression of their belief?  Supposing I stopped an LDS missionary pair in the street (which would be increasingly hard to do in Seattle, as it seems to be getting a lot less attention that it did a decade ago) and read them this "revelation" without telling them it was given to Joseph Smith.  Do you think they'd recognize & embrace it's contents?  I think they'd just stare at me like I'd lost my mind.  And when I disclosed the author as Joseph Smith, I think that would just make them really uncomfortable & that would be the end of our time together.

Maybe I'm wrong.  But instead of responding with yet another question back to me, kindly tell us how you imagine they'd react. 

--Erik 

[Calm]

"And when I disclosed the author as Joseph Smith, I think that would just make them really uncomfortable & that would be the end of our time together."

Since it would be an attempt at a "gotcha", I would expect exactly that.

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Work off of the example I cited from earlier in the thread, clarkgoble--Smith's "Revelation on pure language."  Do you think contemporary LDS would recognize it as an expression of their belief?

Lots of lay people in all religions are surprisingly ignorant of their own beliefs. Talk to the average Evangelical and get them to describe what God is like and 90% of the time you'll get an expression of modalism or tri-theism. So I'm not sure that's a good test. Further the more the obscure the teaching the less they'll recognize it. In this case since the only thing not fairly ubiquitous well known doctrine is the word "Awman" I'm not sure people would be surprised. They might be surprised by the spelling of course. (Usually the spelling is standardized to Ahman such as in D&C 78:20 - and that actually is taught regularly. I teach the 11 year olds and it was part of a lesson in the lesson manual)  Although this actually is a better known text than I think you let on.

 

[cdowis]

On 12/19/2017 at 12:44 AM, blueglass said:

Father of spirits, here is usually pulled from Hebrews 12:9, "we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of spirits and live!", but the concordance references Numbers 27:16,  “Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, appoint a man over the congregation".   

Also for Elohim, mormons are distinct from the 1916 exposition that this refers to a unique father God.  As Elohim means gods, and the LORD refers to himself as superior to all the elohim.  For example in Isaiah 44:6, "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god."  In wordcruncher, god refers to h430, and there is no distinct personality referring to elohim as superior to yhwh (h3068).  The only reference I have found referring to a god higher in authority than yhwh, is in the old psalm of moses in Deut 32:8-9 where "most high" h5945 assigns a stewardship and inheritance to the LORD.  

We believe in ALL the word of God, including the Bible, which you quoted, as well as modern revelation, which gives us additional information , especially for those who believe in the "one substance entity" of the Nicene Creed.

[cdowis]

On 12/20/2017 at 9:31 PM, Five Solas said:

Work off of the example I cited from earlier in the thread, clarkgoble--Smith's "Revelation on pure language."  Do you think contemporary LDS would recognize it as an expression of their belief?  Supposing I stopped an LDS missionary pair in the street (which would be increasingly hard to do in Seattle, as it seems to be getting a lot less attention that it did a decade ago) and read them this "revelation" without telling them it was given to Joseph Smith.  Do you think they'd recognize & embrace it's contents? 

 

Let me help you.

Joseph Smith is giving a language lesson, the meaning of words and names, and not teaching specific doctrine.  Basically you are asking whether missionaries are taught the Adamic language, and unlikely to be familiar with the details of this language.

There is nothing to "embrace here, but to sit back and learn from a prophet.

If I told you that you can divide by zero, would you embrace that?  Only if you have a knowledge of math above arithmetic and algebra, using calculus where you can approximate it.  And you want us to embrace the Adamic language and understand the obscure details of that language.

Edited December 22, 2017 by cdowis

[Benjamin Seeker]

11 hours ago, cdowis said:

Let me help you.

Joseph Smith is giving a language lesson, the meaning of words and names, and not teaching specific doctrine.  Basically you are asking whether missionaries are taught the Adamic language, and unlikely to be familiar with the details of this language.

There is nothing to "embrace here, but to sit back and learn from a prophet.

If I told you that you can divide by zero, would you embrace that?  Only if you have a knowledge of math above arithmetic and algebra, using calculus where you can approximate it.  And you want us to embrace the Adamic language and understand the obscure details of that language.

He’s not only referencing the language. The revelation also offers some doctrine on the relationship between God, Jesus, and man. I addressed it in the post I introduced the revelation in. 

[cdowis]

48 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

He’s not only referencing the language. The revelation also offers some doctrine on the relationship between God, Jesus, and man. I addressed it in the post I introduced the revelation in. 

I cannot agree with your understanding of the doctrinal aspects of this language lesson.  Not interested in teaching you calculus, but you might spend a year or two forgetting what the  theologians and modern Pharasees say, and then figuring out what Eloheim means, according to prophet.

You might also try to gain an understanding what is meant by "inheritance" in the scriptures (see patrimony  -  undivided estate among all the heirs, and power of attorney  -- Heb 1:2, Rom 8:17 (joint heir)  check out John 17:19-23, Rev 3:21, Heb 5:8-9, John 5:19

 

Edited December 22, 2017 by cdowis