Where in the Bible did Joseph learn this?

[mburgess1982]

On 9/12/2024 at 9:17 AM, Tacenda said:

You apparently know your Bible, I'm thinking.

Plug that question into Chat GPT and it spits out John 8:56

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/17/2024 at 10:12 AM, the narrator said:

He did this with scripture in his personal letters and writings. Why not elsewhere?

At what point in his career?

[the narrator]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

At what point in his career?

Whatever point you consider December 1830 to be.

[Dario_M]

Is there nothing about that in the Book of Mormon or so?

[Frank11]

On 9/12/2024 at 7:02 PM, aw.smoot said:

The Book of Mormon, produced in 1830's amidst Protestant Christianity then radically reasserts that the Father and Son are two separate and distinct beings ...

Which scripture in the BoM indicates this?

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/21/2024 at 3:05 PM, Frank11 said:

Which scripture in the BoM indicates this?

2 Nephi 31

[Frank11]

On 9/12/2024 at 7:02 PM, aw.smoot said:

The Book of Mormon, produced in 1830's amidst Protestant Christianity then radically reasserts that the Father and Son are two separate and distinct beings

If you read the last concluding explanatory sentence in 2 Nephi 31 (as you suggested), I still can't find any radical doctrine that necessarily portrays the Father and Son as two separate distinct beings.

And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

If you then also look at the other passages from the 1830 edition, which were later changed, and the fact that Joseph Smith only saw one being in his first vision of 1832, I don't think he gave much thought to the nature of the deity back then.

[webbles]

4 hours ago, Frank11 said:

If you read the last concluding explanatory sentence in 2 Nephi 31 (as you suggested), I still can't find any radical doctrine that necessarily portrays the Father and Son as two separate distinct beings.

And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

If you then also look at the other passages from the 1830 edition, which were later changed, and the fact that Joseph Smith only saw one being in his first vision of 1832, I don't think he gave much thought to the nature of the deity back then.

Skousen speculates that the reason Joseph changed those 4 verses was to remove a complaint that it was too "Catholic".  Alexander Campbell mentioned it in on of his critics of the Book of Mormon.  There are lots of other verses that also had Christ named as the Father and weren't changed.  And there are lots of verses that do explicitly separate them.  So these 4 changes don't change the doctrine of deity that the Book of Mormon taught.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:05 PM, Frank11 said:

Which scripture in the BoM indicates this?

 

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

2 Nephi 31

Can you point out the text in that chapter that contradicts trinitarian doctrine?

[aw.smoot]

7 hours ago, Frank11 said:

If you read the last concluding explanatory sentence in 2 Nephi 31 (as you suggested), I still can't find any radical doctrine that necessarily portrays the Father and Son as two separate distinct beings.

It's honestly astounding that people still fall back on this CES Letter schtick without feeling the need to address the following glaring details:

1) What was Joseph's motive for making these four in 1 Nephi 11/13? The typical response is that Joseph had shifted from a "Protestant Trinitarian" view to a "LDS Godhead" view. The problem is this is not supported by the data. Joseph made several changes to the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon including in passages that appear to conflate Jesus Christ with the title of "God" or "Father", yet those verses are not revised at all. Are we really supposed to chalk this up to sheer laziness on Joseph's part? After he dictated an over 500k word text over the course of a summer? The historical Joseph Smith can be described a lot of things, but "lazy" isn't one of them. If this is a con, he's been incredibly thorough. Likewise, scholarship today can demonstrate that Joseph specifically modified these particular verses that you've pointed to at Oliver's request because there were allegations that it made the text sound "too Catholic", NOT "too trinitarian".

2) How does referring to Jesus as "God" or "the Father" constitute Trinitarianism? This demonstrates an extremely shallow understanding of the Protestant notion of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Father. No Christian holding a trinitarian view would ever refer to Jesus Christ as "the Father". So let's at least first recognize that your examples of the Son being referred to as "the Father" does not reflect Joseph's 1830 Protestant worldview. Additionally, it's very clear the the Book of Mormon is not a univocal text. Different authors and different passages treat the topic of deity differently. The typical critical response here is that Joseph's conception of God transformed from Mosiah through Moroni, then the Small Plates (as if Joseph went through a complete paradigm shift over the course of a summer while translating the Book of Mormon). This is again, is a critical talking point that is not supported by the data. In Mosiah, we see the Messiah/Christ as holding the title of the Father & the Son (as if there is a singular God). But in 3 Nephi, when resurrected Jesus Christ sermonizes to the Nephites, he clearly and repeatedly distinguishes himself as being separate from the Father. There are two divine beings (three, if you include "the Spirit"). Then, in Ether it reverts back to a singular divine being -- the Premortal Jesus Christ. And then in 1 Nephi, we see both Lehi and Nephi reverting back to the view that the Father and Son are two separate beings. Both divine, but not "one being/essence". At best, we could argue that perhaps the descriptions of Jesus as "the Father" or "the Eternal God" as constituting "modalism". One person that assumes the divine profile of three different figures. But again, this is undermined by the text as we see in 2 Nephi 31.

Example:

Quote

2 Nephi 31:

[11] And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son. 

[12] And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do. 

[13] Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism -- yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel. 

[14] But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me. 

[15] And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

Nephi, who is living centuries before an incarnate Jesus is hearing the voice and testimony of both the Father and the Son as separate voices, witnessing for the other and bearing their own declarations.

Perhaps even more striking is the allegory of Jacob 5, where the Father is represented as the Master of the Vineyard and the Son as the chief Servant. Two separate and distinct persons bearing different roles and status throughout the history of Israel. It's remarkably ignorant to assert the cherry-picked one liners somehow negate the very glaring passages and ideologies that present two figures. Yes, Christ is presented as both the Creator and Father of the earth, while also depicted as the Servant and the Son. This isn't trinitarianism. This isn't even modalism. This is Jesus bearing the divine name of the Father, as critical biblical scholars like Dan McClellan have demonstrated to be an authentic conception of ancient Israel and predates any notions of the Trinity by several centuries. Jesus takes on the role of the Father and the Son, but is not God the Father. He bears the divine name of the Everlasting God, but this is consort with the Father. Neither the Trinitarian view, nor the modalist view is sustainable throughout the text. Nor is the position that the conception of God "progressing" during the translation in a linear way. Rather, we see that Pre-Christian views hold that there is One God of Israel, and it is Jesus Christ (as we see in Mosiah and Ether), and those that hold a forward post-Israelite view are those that have seen the resurrected Savior, in which Jesus distinguishes the Father and the Son as separate deities (3 Nephi and 1 Nephi). The position that this falls in line with the order of translation is undermined by Ether's record and Nephi's vision.

3) The phrase "the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God," is not an affirmation of the trinity. This is an anachronistic reading, and an ignorant talking point from Protestant apologists. The authors of the Gospels repeatedly refer to Jesus referring to he and the father as being One. Scholars today would unequivocally affirm that this is not a prooftext for the trinity. But rather, Jesus' claim to posses the divine name and being "the anointed" of the Father. Jesus repeatedly draws a distinction between himself and the Father, and the authors of the NT recognized that distinction. But you assert that this phrase "the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is one God" as an affirmation of the Trinitarian view. This again is a problem as your earlier example is (at best) a modalist view, not a trinitarian view. Additionally, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer likewise utilized this phrase in their Testimony of the 3 Witnesses and we have undeniable evidence that Martin Harris was adamantly anti-Trinitarian. Christians throughout history across the spectrum of Christology and creeds have utilized this phrase to refer to the Godhead, not exclusive to Trinitarian Christians. Again, this critical position lacks any evidence outside and relies solely on modern dogmas in order to take this position.  

What we're seeing in the Book of Mormon are competing conceptions and ideologies of Christ throughout the Book of Mormon. A strange element if this text was purportedly contrived by a single 23-YO farm boy over the course of a single Summer. This assertion that the Book of Mormon utilizes 19th language and engages with 19th century ideas is demonstrated, but this shallow assertion that the Book of Mormon holds a Protestant Trinitarian view, or that Joseph attempted to erase this detail by tweaking a small handful of verses is simply no longer sustainable. It's an ignorant position considering more recent scholarship today. The CES Letter talking point simple no longer holds water, @Frank11.

[Frank11]

13 hours ago, Frank11 said:

If you then also look at the other passages from the 1830 edition, which were later changed, and the fact that Joseph Smith only saw one being in his first vision of 1832, I don't think he gave much thought to the nature of the deity back then.

Actually, I did not claim anything about the doctrine of the Trinity and stick to what I said above.

[InCognitus]

On 9/23/2024 at 2:41 AM, Frank11 said:

the fact that Joseph Smith only saw one being in his first vision of 1832

Joseph Smith didn't say he saw only one being in his 1832 account.  He simply said the Lord opened the heavens upon him and he "saw the Lord".  

But given that Joseph Smith was said to have "seen God frequently and personally" in 1831, I believe the facts would indicate that he did give a lot of thought to the nature of deity back then.

[Frank11]

4 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Joseph Smith didn't say he saw only one being in his 1832 account.  He simply said the Lord opened the heavens upon him and he "saw the Lord".  

But given that Joseph Smith was said to have "seen God frequently and personally" in 1831, I believe the facts would indicate that he did give a lot of thought to the nature of deity back then.

Absolutely unthinkable.

If I were to experience something so unique, both personages speaking to me, then I would be extremely accurate in my reproduction of this unique event. 
If what was written down in 1838 actually happened, it is impossible for what he wrote down in 1832 to come out.

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

Absolutely unthinkable.

If I were to experience something so unique, both personages speaking to me, then I would be extremely accurate in my reproduction of this unique event. 
If what was written down in 1838 actually happened, it is impossible for what he wrote down in 1832 to come out.

That's just nonsense.  What you say above doesn't reflect reality at all.  There are many reasons that people refrain from giving deep details of spiritual experiences, especially initially (the recent talk in the April General Conference from Elder Holland comes to mind). 

Additionally, there may be other factors that cause people to be cautious about what they put in writing.  Speaking of him and Oliver Cowdery being baptized and receiving the priesthood, Joseph Smith wrote the following in his 1838 history:

"In the meantime we were forced to keep secret the circumstances of our having been baptized, and having received this priesthood; owing to a spirit of persecution which had already manifested itself in the neighborhood. We had been threatened with being mobbed, from time to time, and this too by professors of religion".

In addition, the scriptures are full of examples where individuals experienced healings, revelations, visions, or visitations from heavenly beings and did not provide details, or were told to not discuss it until later for various reasons, such as when Jesus told Peter and the apostles "that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ" in Matthew 16:20, or when Jesus took Peter, James, and John up with him on the mount of transfiguration, they saw the "vision" of Moses and Elias ministering unto Jesus, and Jesus warned them, saying "Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead" (Matt 17:9).

There are just so many reasons that what you say may not be an accurate portrayal of reality.

[Frank11]

If you can make it so credible for yourself, I don't want to talk you out of it.

I would have thought it would have made more sense to be more secretive about the Golden Plates.
But God's ways are, as always, inexplicable.

[InCognitus]

32 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

If you can make it so credible for yourself

It has nothing to do with making it "credible for [myself]", your depiction of how things should be simply does not fit reality, especially when it comes to communicating significant experiences to others, whether it be verbally or in written form.

[Bernard Gui]

On 9/23/2024 at 11:42 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point out the text in that chapter that contradicts trinitarian doctrine?

The whole part of the chapter talking about baptism. It is easier to accept the fact that there are three distinct individuals, speakers, covenant makers, beings, entities, what-have-you, in the Trinity that to dance around

it as Trinitarians do. There would be a whole lotta dancin' goin' on to explain this from the traditional Trinitarian point of view, notwithstanding the final statement which LDS doctrine easily explains.

Quote

4 Wherefore, I would that ye should remember that I have spoken unto you concerning that prophet which the Lord showed unto me, that should baptize the Lamb of God, which should take away the sins of the world.

5 And now, if the Lamb of God, he being holy, should have need to be baptized by water, to fulfil all righteousness, O then, how much more need have we, being unholy, to be baptized, yea, even by water!

6 And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

7 Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

8 Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

9 And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

10 And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

11 And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

14 But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.

15 And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endure thto the end, the same shall be saved.

16 And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

17 Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

18 And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

 

[Kevin Christensen]

On 9/23/2024 at 9:49 AM, webbles said:

Skousen speculates that the reason Joseph changed those 4 verses was to remove a complaint that it was too "Catholic".  Alexander Campbell mentioned it in on of his critics of the Book of Mormon.  There are lots of other verses that also had Christ named as the Father and weren't changed.  And there are lots of verses that do explicitly separate them.  So these 4 changes don't change the doctrine of deity that the Book of Mormon taught.

Good points.  Translation must needs be

Quote

given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

25 And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;

26 And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;

And beyond this, we have the issue of pre-exilic Theology that Margaret Barker explores here:

https://www.theway.org.uk/back/431Barker.pdf

And in far more detail in The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God.

Quote

there were many in first-century Palestine who still retained a world-view derived from the more ancient religion of Israel in which there was a High God and several Sons of God, one of whom was Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. Yahweh, the Lord, could be manifested on earth in human form, as an angel or in the Davidic king. It was as a manifestation of Yahweh, the Son of God, that Jesus was acknowledged as Son of God, Messiah, and Lord.

The insight that she uses to begin her detailed exploration is this:

Quote

All the texts in the Hebrew Bible distinguish clearly between the divine sons of Elohim/Elyon and those human beings who are called sons of Yahweh. This must be significant. It must mean that the terms originated at a time when Yahweh was distinguished from whatever was meant by El/Elohim/Elyon. A large number of texts continued to distinguish between EI Elyon and Yahweh, Father and Son, and to express this distinction in similar ways with the symbolism of the temple and the royal cult. By tracing these patterns through a great variety of material and over several centuries, Israel’s second God can be recovered.

Brant Gardner notably draws on Barker (and others such as Mark Smith) to account for the Book of Mormon picture. 

Quote

In his Second Witness commentaries, which Hardy commends,¹²⁵ Brant Gardner applied this observation to the Book of Mormon in his “Excursus: The Nephite Understanding of God”:

There are two “fathers” here. In the stories or myths (to use the anthropological term) the sons of one father are heavenly, and the sons of the other are human. The two fathers operate in different realms . . . .

When the context is a horizontal relationship in the heavens, the “father” is El Elyon, and Yahweh is his son. When the context crosses the boundaries of the heavens to create a relationship with humanity, the father is defined by this vertical deity-to-human sphere. In the vertical context, the father is Yahweh . . . .

The Book of Mormon defines the various divine personages in the same way. In the Book of Mormon as in the Old Testament, the heavenly or earthly context serves as the defining field of operation which informs the reader (or listener) about the appropriate definitions of “father” and “son.” This variation works for all the texts I have examined in the Book of Mormon.¹²⁶

And as to what Joseph Smith saw during his first vision, the 1832 account begins with this:

Quote

he doeth in the name of Jesus Ch[r]ist the son of the living God of whom he beareth record

That is, two beings, Jesus being the Son in this context, which does not contradict Jesus being the Father of those humans who enter into covenantal relationships with him.  Early in the Book of Mormon, an angel commends Nephi, saying "And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God (1 Nephi 11:6).   So Jesus in the Book of Mormon is the son of El Elyon, God Most High, and is also Yahweh, the God of Israel, who is the Son of El Elyon, God Most High. In 3 Nephi:

Quote

And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning. ...

Arise and come forth unto me, that ye may thrust your hands into my side, and also that ye may feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet, that ye may know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world.

Matthew Brown had noticed the the 1832 account has this in the first paragraph:

Quote

<firstly> he receiving the testamony from on high

The mention of "testamony from on high" in 1832 alludes to the words of the Father in the 1838 account, 

Quote

When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!

And this <testamony from on high) in Joseph Smith's accounts is consistent with the behavior and words of the Father in 3 Nephi 11 "Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him." and in the New Testament at the Mount of Transfiguration, "While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him."

Another aspect of the 1832 account that was pointed out by James Allen in the 1972 publication of the accounts in The Improvement Era is that in the 1832 history manuscript, the first appearance of the word "Lord" is an insert above the line.

Quote

and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord16 and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world 

Just who inserted <Lord> there, is an issue, and what it actually implies, is an issue, as is the fact that the two being exactly resembled one another and that the title can be applied to more than one person if the title is appropriate.  And it is a human record, with human imperfection involved in both the recording and in the interpretation.  Just a few lines later we have:

Quote

behold and lo I come quickly as it [is?] written of me in the cloud <clothed> in the glory of my Father

Which is also consistent with the notion that Jesus is both the God of the Old Testament and the Son of El Elyon, God Most High.

While it is almost a cliche in critical circles to assert contradiction in Joseph's visionary accounts and the Book of Mormon, I think a very plausible and sensible response calls for careful reading of both in a broader context., rather than setting up stakes on a narrow focus and a desire to "make a man an offender for a word." 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited September 25, 2024 by Kevin Christensen

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The whole part of the chapter talking about baptism. It is easier to accept the fact that there are three distinct individuals, speakers, covenant makers, beings, entities, what-have-you, in the Trinity that to dance around

it as Trinitarians do. There would be a whole lotta dancin' goin' on to explain this from the traditional Trinitarian point of view, notwithstanding the final statement which LDS doctrine easily explains.

 

Just for reference, I don’t think the trinity has any basis in scripture. It was made up after the fact to preserve monotheism (which is found nowhere in the Hebrew Bible so preserve is probably the wrong word). So I will agree with you that a straight forward reading of the New Testament and the Book of Mormon will not give you the trinity unless you really want it to be there. 
 

With that said, I don’t think a single word in your bolded summary that contradicts trinitarian theology. 

[aw.smoot]

On 9/25/2024 at 2:58 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With that said, I don’t think a single word in your bolded summary that contradicts trinitarian theology. 

Except that Ether speaks to an embodied, corporeal Jesus Christ prior to the incarnation of his mortal ministry. We also have a visible Father that is seen, separate and apart from the Son. We also have Jacob 5, an Allegory about Israel that has the Master of the Vineyard (the Father) and the Chief Servant (the Son) dedicated as separate anthropomorphic, corporeal beings tending to the tree one beside the other. These alone challenge basic notions of the Trinity. We simply have to overlook these aspects in order to force a trinitarian view onto the text. The doctrine of the trinity holds that the Father is Spirit, and therefore invisible. And that Jesus is the visible image of that invisible God. Two persons of one single will and mind because they are of one essence. We also have passages of Mosiah ascribing the titles of the Father and the Son onto Jesus Christ. No Trinitarian would ever accept that as the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are three persons of one essence. We can all agree that Evangelicals today attempt to anachronistically read in the concepts of the Trinity into NT and OT passages, which is not supported by most scholars today, but to assert that the Book of Mormon doesn't present real challenges to any person attempting to do the same is patently false. If one singular author wrote the Book of Mormon, they offered numerous conceptions of God throughout its pages, but they certainly did not agree with Protestant Christian notions of the trinity. At best, the language is there, but the conceptions are entirely undermined and challenged again and again.  

[aw.smoot]

On 9/23/2024 at 2:41 AM, Frank11 said:

If you then also look at the other passages from the 1830 edition, which were later changed, and the fact that Joseph Smith only saw one being in his first vision of 1832, I don't think he gave much thought to the nature of the deity back then.

The notion that Joseph must not have thought much about the nature of deity back then is just a shallow attempt to avoid having to face the Book of Mormon head-on. In reality, we're presented with numerous conceptions of deity throughout the text depending on the author and their context. And yet not once do we get anything that aligns with Joseph's 19th century Protestant environment. In one passage, we see in Mosiah that Christ can appropriately bear the title of the Father and the Son. In Ether, we see an anthropomorphic and visible pre-corporeal Christ. With Nephi, he hears the voice of the Father testifying of the things he had seen in his vision, followed by a separate and distinct voice of the Son likewise bearing testimony. And in Jacob, we are presented with an extended allegory that present the Father and the Son as two separate and distinct corporeal beings pruning the branches of Israel. With the Father bearing the title of the Master of the vineyard and the Son presented as the chief Servant. If we are to hold to the idea that Joseph hadn't given much thought about the nature of deity back then, we have a real problem because the Book of Mormon is obsessed with the topic. 

There's much that could be said about the First Vision, but that's simply a red herring in this thread to avoid facing the entirety of the text head-on.

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, aw.smoot said:

If we are to hold to the idea that Joseph hadn't given much thought about the nature of deity back then, we have a real problem because the Book of Mormon is obsessed with the topic.

I can’t upvote you but think this is an excellent observation.