Lesson 11 - False Doctrines of the Last Days

[marineland]

I'm into lesson 11 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions.

"False prophets and false teachers ... also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead,..."

What are some examples of false views of the nature of the Godhead? 

Prior to Jesus and the Holy Ghost being born of heavenly parents, did the Godhead consist solely 
of Heavenly Father?

[InCognitus]

8 minutes ago, marineland said:

"False prophets and false teachers ... also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead,..."

What are some examples of false views of the nature of the Godhead? 

False views of the nature of the Godhead include the idea that God is "wholly other", a term used to describe the difference between God and everything else.  This view makes it impossible to view God as our "Father", since if we are really nothing at all like God then there's no way we could be his children.   The Bible on the other hand, teaches that we are all the very genos of God (Acts 17:28-29), making it impossible for us to view the Godhead as anything like gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. 

15 minutes ago, marineland said:

Prior to Jesus and the Holy Ghost being born of heavenly parents, did the Godhead consist solely of Heavenly Father?

We all existed with God eternally, and God the Father has always been the greatest of all, so being "born of heavenly parents" doesn't mean coming into existence, but it does mean that we become his children.  The Godhead is like the "First Presidency" of the church, and was likely formed to bring about our Heavenly Father's plan of salvation for all his children.

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 11 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions.

"False prophets and false teachers ... also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead,..."

What are some examples of false views of the nature of the Godhead? 

Prior to Jesus and the Holy Ghost being born of heavenly parents, did the Godhead consist solely 
of Heavenly Father?

A redefining of the Godhead would counter the following: https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng&adobe_mc_sdid=SDID=5259339A754B6B29-17A5BE8AAD9F5412|MCORGID=66C5485451E56AAE0A490D45%40AdobeOrg|TS=1662924110

This Godhead is the one we talk about, so any deviation from this would constitute a false teaching or view of the nature of the Godhead. Speculation as to when it was assembled into this present constitution may or may not support false views about it.

Elder Ballard's article from which the above quote, "False prophets and false teachers ... also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead,..." came: https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/11/beware-of-false-prophets-and-false-teachers?lang=eng

 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 11 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions.

"False prophets and false teachers ... also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead,..."

What are some examples of false views of the nature of the Godhead? 

Prior to Jesus and the Holy Ghost being born of heavenly parents, did the Godhead consist solely 
of Heavenly Father?

This sound like an orthodox Christian criticism  of Mormonism  and Joseph Smith.  And Smith certainly did redefine the nature of the godhead.  Not only from the view of orthodox Christian definitions but of his own from 1830 to 1844. Lots of changes over 14 years

Edited September 11, 2022 by Teancum

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

I'm into lesson 11 of the manual (Religion 275) now and have some questions.

"False prophets and false teachers ... also attempt to redefine the nature of the Godhead,..."

What are some examples of false views of the nature of the Godhead? 

Prior to Jesus and the Holy Ghost being born of heavenly parents, did the Godhead consist solely 
of Heavenly Father?

The Adam God doctrine would be such a false teaching as well.  Probably the doctrine of God in Lecture on Faith 5 would be considered such today as well.  But McConkie sure loved it and praised it.

Edited September 11, 2022 by Teancum

[sunstoned]

I think it is a big assumption that these are the last days.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

This sound like an orthodox Christian criticism  of Mormonism  and Joseph Smith.  And Smith certainly did redefine the nature of the godhead.  Not only from the view of orthodox Christian definitions but of his own from 1830 to 1844. Lots of changes over 14 years

Nope

Christianity was bogged down for centuries by substance theology.

Remember the word "consubstantial"?  Joseph restored the Jewish notion of physicality

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think it is a big assumption that these are the last days.

It depends on how old you are. 😜

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

This sound like an orthodox Christian criticism  of Mormonism  and Joseph Smith.  And Smith certainly did redefine the nature of the godhead.  Not only from the view of orthodox Christian definitions but of his own from 1830 to 1844. Lots of changes over 14 years

 If the understanding of the nature of God had been screwed up for a very long time, to fix it would require a repair or redefining to get it where it should be.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I think it is a big assumption that these are the last days.

Last days = the time following the Restoration of the gospel. 

[sunstoned]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Last days = the time following the Restoration of the gospel. 

Paul thought it was the last days.

[Pyreaux]

9 hours ago, Teancum said:

This sound like an orthodox Christian criticism  of Mormonism  and Joseph Smith.  And Smith certainly did redefine the nature of the godhead.  Not only from the view of orthodox Christian definitions but of his own from 1830 to 1844. Lots of changes over 14 years

You find that odd that two opposing theologies must be followed by some accusation about the other.🙄

Good thing that the discoveries of recent decades have all gone in our favor since the Oxford Movement. The Early Christian Fathers, the Ugartic Texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls; combined they all paint a most LDS picture of the Godhead. 

[marineland]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

"born of heavenly parents" doesn't mean coming into existence, but it does mean that we become his children. 

How did Jesus and the Holy Ghost become children of their heavenly parents?

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Paul thought it was the last days.

Paul prophesied of the last days. 

[Kevin Christensen]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

This sound like an orthodox Christian criticism  of Mormonism  and Joseph Smith.  And Smith certainly did redefine the nature of the godhead.  Not only from the view of orthodox Christian definitions but of his own from 1830 to 1844. Lots of changes over 14 years

See Bruening, Ari B., and David L. Paulsen. "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths." FARMS Review of Books 13, no. 2 (2001): 109-169. 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol13/iss2/13/

It begins: 

Quote

"I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods."Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, Illinois, 16 June 1844

The authors cite a range of proponents of the developmental theory and observe at the end of footnote 3 that "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts."

Their article was written in response to a critic who had claimed a change from early "modalism."

Quote

What use, then, does Widmer make of the Book of Commandments in his reconstruction of the earliest Mormon understanding of
God? Surprisingly, almost none. While acknowledging the evidentiary relevance of the Book of Commandments and even asserting
that it continues to promote the early Mormon modalistic view of God (see p. 36), Widmer fails entirely to consider its contents.~ As a result,
his reconstruction of what Joseph and the early Saints likely believed about God in the early 1830s fails to take account of the most critical
evidence of all-evidence that decisively refutes his thesis. 

It's a long, detailed essay, and for all its length and detail, looking closely at passages in the Book of Mormon and early revelations, condensed from a book-length study with even more detail, which I read many years ago.  One thing that remains with me after reading is that the famous and oft-reprinted, very influential essay, Thomas G. Alexander, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," strikes me as not a go-to source for understanding the topic, nor for paradigmatically defining a viable approach, but is, rather, an artifact of the history of history, not a reliable approach.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

How did Jesus and the Holy Ghost become children of their heavenly parents?

The exact way that we become the children of God the Father has not been revealed (for Jesus, the Holy Ghost, and all of us).  But as the Bible teaches us, we are his offspring (Greek: γένος / génos - Acts 17:28-29), and God is the "Father of spirits" (Heb 12:9).

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Paul thought it was the last days.

Paul, at first, thought the second coming would happen during his life time (i.e. 1 Cor 15:51-52, 1 Thes 4:13-17).  He changed that thinking once he received further revelation on the matter (2 Thes 2 makes that clear).  Besides, what Paul thought is irrelevant to whether or not we are actually in the "last days" now, and several events have taken place since the time of Paul to indicate that we are in the "last days".  Such as:

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.  And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."  (Isaiah 2:2–3)

And the gathering of Israel is taking place now, which is also part of what happens in the latter days.

Edited September 12, 2022 by InCognitus

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

You find that odd that two opposing theologies must be followed by some accusation about the other.🙄

Did I say it was odd? Nope.  Just said it sounds like a criticism I heard tenn as a LDS hobby apologist.  In changing nature of the Godhead in Mormonism was one of my favorite topics to defend at one point in time.  I was constantly bombarded with that stoicism that Joseph Smith was a false prophet because he changed his the doctrine of God from one  more orthodox to onehereticall,  but he started out close to orthodox  according to the critics.  And then there is Brigham Young.

15 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Good thing that the discoveries of recent decades have all gone in our favor since the Oxford Movement. The Early Christian Fathers, the Ugartic Texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls; combined they all paint a most LDS picture of the Godhead. 

Yes I think you can cherry pick on this one and it is quite an overstatement to say The Early Christian Fathers all agreed with what is now LDS doctrine on the subject.  Quite an over reach.   but even if that is the case so what?

[Pyreaux]

22 hours ago, Teancum said:

Did I say it was odd? Nope.  Just said it sounds like a criticism I heard tenn as a LDS hobby apologist.  In changing nature of the Godhead in Mormonism was one of my favorite topics to defend at one point in time.  I was constantly bombarded with that stoicism that Joseph Smith was a false prophet because he changed his the doctrine of God from one  more orthodox to onehereticall,  but he started out close to orthodox  according to the critics.  And then there is Brigham Young.

Yes I think you can cherry pick on this one and it is quite an overstatement to say The Early Christian Fathers all agreed with what is now LDS doctrine on the subject.  Quite an over reach.   but even if that is the case so what?

No, the Early Christian Fathers read as a whole and other sources would cause one to agree with the LDS accusation. I'm not saying all ECFs agree, but they can be used to trace doctrines back, the closer you get back to the first century, a proto-LDS Godhead emerges. We find an age in which the Christian Fathers could openly say God the Father is adorned with "human members", that Jesus is a "second god", and the Holy Ghost a "third god" and/or an "angel", as there was no Neo-Platonic philosophers yet pressuring them to conform to their foreign and innovated brand of monotheism of, "The One".

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Masoretic texts our Bibles were translated from is whitewashed of the references to the Lord God of Israel's relationship with his Father, the Most High God, and some references to the council of the gods. Thanks to the Ugartic texts, we now understand that the Israelites had a pantheon not unlike the Canaanites, there was God the Father and Mother, and their preeminent first born Son who was King of the divine council of gods. The only form of Christianity smelling like a rose after these revelations is the modern LDS church.

All this together shows no matter how much people whine over how chaotic and untidy Joseph Smith's methods seem, I dare say he is the only man in his time that knew what he was talking about, and remained so for over a hundred years before archeology vindicated his claim, whether or not he were a false prophet. Any criticism LDS level against the so-called 'book keepers' who obscured the true nature of the Godhead is far from out of line.

Yes "So what", so what the Jewish, Christian and even Islamic efforts to burn and bury the past to manipulate the future has lead to modern willful ignorance of the subject of the Godhead, so what.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Pyreaux]

8 hours ago, marineland said:

How did Jesus and the Holy Ghost become children of their heavenly parents?

In the law of Adoption, non-begotten become begotten. Like the calling of the Seventy Sons of El and the Davidic Kings and Christians though they existed become begotten sons of the Lord-Christ. It doesn't require one to return to the womb to be born of God.

When Christ was not yet born, was he not still the Son of God?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

In the law of Adoption, non-begotten become begotten. Like the calling of the Seventy Sons of El and the Davidic Kings and Christians though they existed become begotten sons of the Lord-Christ. It doesn't require one to return to the womb to be born of God.

When Christ was not yet born, was he not still the Son of God?

Yes as we all are

[sunstoned]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Paul, at first, thought the second coming would happen during his life time (i.e. 1 Cor 15:51-52, 1 Thes 4:13-17).  He changed that thinking once he received further revelation on the matter (2 Thes 2 makes that clear).  Besides, what Paul thought is irrelevant to whether or not we are actually in the "last days" now, and several events have taken place since the time of Paul to indicate that we are in the "last days".  Such as:

"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.  And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."  (Isaiah 2:2–3)

And the gathering of Israel is taking place now, which is also part of what happens in the latter days.

Very convincing.

[Teancum]

12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

No, the Early Christian Fathers read as a whole and other sources would cause one to agree with the LDS accusation. I'm not saying all ECFs agree, but they can be used to trace doctrines back, the closer you get back to the first century, a proto-LDS Godhead emerges. We find an age in which the Christian Fathers could openly say God the Father is adorned with "human members", that Jesus is a "second god", and the Holy Ghost a "third god" and/or an "angel", as there was no Neo-Platonic philosophers yet pressuring them to conform their foreign and innovated brand of monotheism of, "The One".

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the Masoretic texts our Bibles were translated from is whitewashed of the references to the Lord God of Israel's relationship with his Father, the Most High God, and some references to the council of the gods. Thanks to the Ugartic texts, we now understand that the Israelites had a pantheon not unlike the Canaanites, there was God the Father and Mother, and their preeminent first born Son, and King of the divine council. The only form of Christianity smelling like a rose after these revelations is the modern LDS church.

All this together shows no matter how much people whine over how chaotic and untidy Joseph Smith's methods seem, I dare say he is the only man in his time that knew what he was talking about, and remained so for over a hundred years before archeology vindicated his claim, whether or not he were a false prophet. Any criticism LDS level against the so-called 'book keepers' to obscure the true nature of the Godhead is far from out of line.

Yes "So what", so what the Jewish, Christian and even Islamic efforts to burn and bury the past to manipulate the future has lead to modern willful ignorance of the subject of the Godhead, so what.

Can you provide a statement that from the early Christian Fathers that says God was once a man and lived on a world like we do?  ANd that we can become gods and create worlds as well?

[teddyaware]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Can you provide a statement that from the early Christian Fathers that says God was once a man and lived on a world like we do?  ANd that we can become gods and create worlds as well?

One only needs to appeal to the New Testament to find answers your last question. Here’s just one verse of several:

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3)

Being seated on the divine throne of Jesus Christ as a king who has overcome all things is a clear reference to deification.

Edited September 13, 2022 by teddyaware

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

See Bruening, Ari B., and David L. Paulsen. "The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths." FARMS Review of Books 13, no. 2 (2001): 109-169. 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol13/iss2/13/

It begins: 

The authors cite a range of proponents of the developmental theory and observe at the end of footnote 3 that "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts."

Their article was written in response to a critic who had claimed a change from early "modalism."

It's a long, detailed essay, and for all its length and detail, looking closely at passages in the Book of Mormon and early revelations, condensed from a book-length study with even more detail, which I read many years ago.  One thing that remains with me after reading is that the famous and oft-reprinted, very influential essay, Thomas G. Alexander, "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine," strikes me as not a go-to source for understanding the topic, nor for paradigmatically defining a viable approach, but is, rather, an artifact of the history of history, not a reliable approach.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Kevin thank you for the resources. I have spent significant time reading about the development of the doctrine of the Godhead in LDS teachings over time.  As a former hobby apologist.  It was a key issue of concern for me for a long time and there was a time where these explanations were satisfactory but they ceased to be.  I honestly cannot see how anyone can take JS's comments about teaching the plurality of gods for 16 years as anything but disingenuous.  The BoM and early D&C certainly do not teach a plurality of gods at least in the sense JS was referring to.  At least not in my lengthy studies and research. Others, likely smarter than me have reached different conclusions seemingly.