Who is God? Today Mormons believe Jesus Christ to be Jehovah, God of the old testament, Elohim is God the Father, father of Jehovah and the entire human race. Joseph Smith did not believe this, and never taught it. This is a perfect example of line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little (2 Nephi 28:30, see also Isaiah 28:13)
The nature of God changed throughout Joseph’s life, and continued to change up until his death. His earliest words and scriptures describe a very trinitarian God, and the first addition of the Book of Mormon talks of only one God, who could manifest himself either as the Father or the Son (1), and several passages show that Smith had no problem in having one god be simultaneously the Father who created Jesus, and Jesus himself. Ether 4:12 plainly states
He that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father.
Joseph also changed the Bible in his translation (JST) to further clarify that the Father and the Son were the same god. For Example, the original Luke 10:22 reads
All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.
Now look at the JST
All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father; and the Father is the Son, and him to whom the Son will reveal it.
By 1835 there began to be some separation between the roles and nature of the Father and the Son. The best example of this is the Lectures on Faith, which where part of the 1935 Doctrine and Covenants (2). In Lecture Five the Godhead was described as “two personages”, “the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle” (3). After this time, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever referred to Jesus as the Father.
As far as the names Elohim and Jehovah, Joseph never used Jehovah to refer to Jesus, or as the son of Elohim. Jehovah was mostly referred to as the Father, and used interchangeably with Elohim as in the following
trusting in the arm of Jehovah, the Elohim, who sits enthroned in the heavens (4)
Towards the end of his life during the Nauvoo period, he changed his view again. He rejected the notion of the trinity altogether. Now God the Father and his Son both had tangible bodies of flesh and bones (D&C 130:22) . This is also the same time that he introduced the plurality of gods and that humans could become gods, and that God himself had a father. The culmination of these concept were summed up in the King Follett Discourse given in 1844.
During this same time period, the temple endowment was given, with three Gods involved in the creation: Elohim, Jehovah and Michael. Jesus was never identified by Joseph as participating in the creation in the endowment, which is curious because he produced several scriptures that clearly identified Jesus with a role in the creation. (5) Before Joseph could clear this up he was killed, leaving Brigham Young to figure it out (what could go wrong with that!)
Do any of these changes surprise you or concern you? How does Joseph learning about the nature of God “line upon Line” affect your view of the First Vision? Could our view of God change again with further light and knowledge?
[Note: this post is a summation of the first part of an essay “The Development of the Mormon Doctrine of God” by Boyd Kirkland. It is found in “Line Upon Line, Essays on Mormon Doctrine” by Gary Bergera Signature Books, SLC 1989. ]
(1) Book of Mormon, 1830 ed., 1 Ne. 11:21, 28
(2) The Lectures on Faith were the “Doctrine” part of the Doctrine and Covenants. They were removed in 1921.
(3) The Holy Ghost was not part of the God Head at this time, and yes, I know that there is a good argument that Joseph Smith did not write the Lectures, but he was on the committee that approved them, and was there when they were presented with the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants to the church body for approval.
(4) Joseph Smith, Jr., History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. B. H. Roberts, 2d ed. Chapter 5, page 94 , see also page 127
(5) See for example Moses 1:32-33, 2:1
Wheat & Tares 
Surprised? No. I’ve read a lot of Mormon history. Nothing surprises me anymore.
An obvious point here is that “the evolution of God” could mean (1) God himself, however conceived and in however many Persons, changing or evolving over time; and (2) our understanding of God changing over time. Now there are theologies that posit (1) and there is some merit to them. The idea of God that developed Christian theology posits — an eternally changeless being who exists outside of time — is not the only way to think of God and not the only way Christians have thought of God.
But plainly any talk of the evolution of God in popular contexts is talking about our understanding of God changing. As noted in the OP, the Mormon understanding of God has plainly changed, however much the current orthodoxy of our or any period wants to cover its tracks. What is surprising is how vehemently LDS leadership wants to erase any indication of those tracks. They seem locked into a mentality that resists any notion that LDS doctrine changes over time, or could possibly change, while at the same time trumpeting continuous revelation as a central feature of doctrinal formation. That tension alone leads to mental gymnastics, even without examining the historical record like Boyd Kirkland did in his essay.
I wonder how Joseph’s changing understanding of the God head lines up with the various accounts of the first vision…?
It’s been years since I read Kirkland‘s paper but as I recall it was deeply, deeply problematic. I couldn’t find an online version but just your summary showed problems with it. First D&C 109 has Jehovah explicitly as Christ. There are a few other places where Joseph uses it that way as well. Second the Lecture on Faith about the godhead explicitly has the Holy Ghost as part of the godhead. Given those two huge errors alone that might be a big reason to be distrustful of that paper as illuminating the evolution. Joseph’s understanding certainly evolved but not the way Kirkland portrays.
Clark, Where does D&C 109 explicitly have “Jehovah” as “Christ”? As I just read it, searching all its references to “Jehovah” it seemed, though not explicit, to use that name for the “Holy Father” and not for the Son. That reading would be consistent with other usage of the time including Hymn 56 in the 1835 hymnal, I think first available in early 1836, the year of Section 109:
Hymn 56 • Salem’s bright King, Jesus by name
3.Down in old Jordan’s rolling stream;
The prophet led the holy Lamb,
And there did him baptize:
Jehovah saw his darling Son,
And was well pleas’d in what he’d done,
And own’d him from the skies.
…
5 This is my Son, Jehovah cries,
The echoing voice from glory flies,
O, children, hear ye him; [p. 73]
Hark! ’tis his voice, behold he cries,
Repent, believe, and be baptiz’d,
And wash away your sin.
It is by no means clear that Joseph had a significant hand in the Lectures on Faith. But in any event while lecture 5 does explicitly state:
“We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” and “…these three constitute the Godhead…”, as published at least, it also includes questions and answers such as:
“Question 3: How many personages are there in the Godhead?
Two: the Father and the Son.”
The confusion is natural. BTW, these comments on your reported “two huge errors” are not a defense of the Kirkland paper, but I don’t currently think it can be quite so easily dismissed. An online version of a Kirkland paper on part of the same subject is here:
Click to access 044-36-44.pdf
BoM as modalism is a vast oversimplification.
In Harell’s “This Is My Doctrine,” he goes through the development of the Mormon understanding of the godhead and the plurality of gods (along with many other theological positions). From chapter 6: “Joseph’s teachings regarding the members of the godhead appear to have progressed from essentially a trinitarian three-in-one God with a modalistic flavor, to a godhead consisting of “two personages” united by the indwelling Holy Spirit, to a godhead consisting of “three personages,” and finally to a godhead consisting of “three Gods.” (Harell, p. 114)
He goes on to say: “The current LDS understanding of the godhead is primarily based on Joseph Smith’s later tritheistic teachings, although … tritheism wasn’t uniformly taught in the Church until the early 1900s. Until that time, a variety of teachings were in circulation. Modern LDS doctrinal expositors have had the task of reconciling the current tritheistic doctrine of the godhead with earlier LDS trinitarian teachings of the Book of Mormon and the pronounced monotheism of the Bible. Early LDS references to the Father and Christ being “one God” are now interpreted as meaning they are one godhead.”
I was taught that the First Vision was so revolutionary in part, because Joseph was clearly shown the true nature of the godhead at that time, with God the Father and Jesus as two distinct personages with bodies. In fact, we were instructed to teach that on our mission. Unfortunately, that nice little narrative doesn’t quite pan out.
Sorry – was typing on my iPhone which isn’t ideal for comments. That was supposed to be D&C 110:3-4 “His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying: I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.” That’s undeniably Christ speaking as Jehovah. So I’d say Joseph at best is inconsistent in usage in the 1830’s and more likely sees it as a title many can share.
For Lectures on Faith, certainly initially they don’t see the Holy Ghost as a person with a personality and embodiment. But it’s part of the godhead from the beginning. Even after the essential embodiment develops the earlier view of the spirit as a kind of aether – perhaps picked up from more platonic conceptions of Christianity – persists in say Orson Pratt’s theology. There the more platonic conception becomes a more stoic notion of an interpenetrating fluid that allows God to be in and through all things. While I think it fair to say Joseph saw the Holy Ghost initially in something akin to that he certainly develops seeing it as person by Nauvoo.
As I said, I certainly don’t deny their understanding developed. Just that the way Kirkland deals with it isn’t terribly good. Thanks for providing the link. I’ll check it out in more depth later tonight. A good rejoinder to Kirkland is David Paulson’s. Again, I’ve not read Paulson’s in a while so I’m not prepared to say I agree with all of it – also this is responding to the Signature version and not the Sunstone version. I don’t know if they are the same.
Just to be a little pedantic too, I’d not that the Trinity is technically an ontological set of claims of the unity of the godhead. Whether or not the father is or could be embodied is technically separate from the formal doctrine of the Trinity. Honestly depending upon what form you bring up, the Trinity is compatible with Mormon theology since many people (myself included) think there’s a substantial unity to the godhead. Indeed Pratt’s odd stoic like treatment probably comes out of reading about Tertullian’s stoic treatment of the Trinity. There’s some hints that his brother, Parley, held to a more explicitly neoplatonic conception prior to this and that Orson transformed this with the revelation on matter.
Tom, I think Mormon theologians tend to think through the issue in complex ways typically privileging scripture yet trying to reconcile the writings commonly held. So Pratt maintains a view more akin to the Lectures on Faith pretty far into the Utah period despite Joseph’s later Nauvoo teachings simply because they weren’t held in common circulation. Yet the idea of three persons certainly is emphasized by most. How much of that comes from later Nauvoo and how much because scripture simply talks about a unity of gods and treats the three as separate persons is debatable. Certainly Nauvoo emphasizes individual gods (and more than three) and doesn’t emphasize the unity in the language of the early 1830’s. How much of that is a change in theology and how much is a change in rhetoric is debatable. I’d argue that the later Nauvoo theology makes complete sense in terms of the Book of Mormon and D&C. Even places where the D&C uses a more platonic rhetoric such as D&C 88 or 93.
To Harrell’s point, I think an argument could easily be made that Joseph’s texts transcend his understanding. So Joseph will contradict his texts to the degree his misunderstands them. I recognize that’s not a popular view for those who see Joseph as sole author, but it certainly works better than trying to fit the Book of Mormon text (even Mosiah 15) into a modalistic reading. Now many people who have little formal theological exposure typically read the trinity in terms of modalism. Go to your average Sunday School class even today and people when asked to say what the trinity is will give a description of modalism. So I think Joseph’s comments in 1842-44 reflect that popular misunderstanding which he is attacking. I don’t think that should be taken as an indication his earlier beliefs were modalistic. It’s worth noting that both the D&C and Book of Mormon have passages that are extremely similar to or outright quotations from standard trinitarian prooftexts against modalism. Now one arguing for modalism can try to argue Joseph was reading them modalistically (say the Father’s voice from heaven) but at minimum it causes a problem. Further alternative readings from platonic or jewish mystic readings offer plausible alternative readings of Mosiah 15 and seem a more likely influence even for those who see Joseph as author IMO. (See some of Steve Fleming’s work on neoplatonic influences on Joseph for instance) But of course if such platonic conceptions are the background, that will force a significant revision of Harrell’s work not to mention invalidating Kirkland’s.
Clark. Section 110:3-4 is much closer to explicitly naming Christ as Jehovah, but it also suffers from ambiguity. While it is clearly Christ speaking, “and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah” could mean that his voice was “as the sound of the rushing of great waters” and was “as the voice of Jehovah”. That reading would have Christ sounding like the Father, just as John 14:9 has him either looking like the Father or being the Father, depending upon how one chooses to read it. “[E]ven the voice of Jehovah” could also have referred back, as you have read it, to the voice of the person [Christ] who was speaking. In that case, it would be identifying Christ as Jehovah. Strengthening your reading is the source of the “rushing waters simile: Ezekiel 43:2 — “And, behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters: and the earth shined with his glory.” But still, with this sort of ambiguity, I would have to stop short of calling Section 110:3-4 an explicit identification of Christ with Jehovah. That may well have come later, or “Jehovah” may also well have been sometimes used as a title for either the Father or the Son, or Joseph might then still have had some form of trinitarian thinking going on. {Actually, I’ve never quite grasped trinitarian thinking in either its modal or platonic versions, and still suspect that most of its adherents really have no idea what the formula of the Nicene Creed means with the words commonly translated “persons” and “substance.” May you can make a suggestion for reading on “Trinitarianism and it s Varieties for Dummies.” Such a thing might ultimately support a better understanding of the trinitarian language in the BoM than I can make out of BRM’s strained and dogmatic interpretation.]
Yes, the Lecture on Faith 5 makes sense out of the then conception of the Godhead as 3, but including only 2 “personages” because the “Holy Spirit” was not then understood as a personage, but more like what Elder John A. Widtsoe described in his “Joseph Smith’s Concept Of The Universal Ether” reprinted in September 2010. Most LDS of my acquaintance are wholly unaware that there was ever a conception of the Holy Spirit as other than a third “person” or “personage” in the Godhead. They are naturally confused by the Q&A of Lecture on Faith 5, just as at least many of those who subscribe to the Nicene Creed are naturally confused (whether or not they know it) by “persons” and “substance”.
I don’t think it’s that ambiguous although of course your reading is a possible if (IMO) strained reading. After all even in your reading Christ is portrayed like the father. However more to the point look at what this does to the argument (since most of the rest of Joseph’s use of Jehovah are far more ambiguous). Instead of an argument for Joseph never calling Jesus Jehovah you have an argument that it’s possible he never did that. Can you see how that still dramatically weakens the overall argument Kirkland is making? His key evidence is ambiguous.
The trinity is a complex idea and you pretty much need to understand platonism to understand the Trinity as it was developed – even though it’s technically a break with platonism. However the creeds technically don’t require an understanding of platonism although the logic really doesn’t work without something like platonism (IMO). However I do think it’s a problem that those arguing for evolution in Jospeh’s thought – often either tying him explicitly to modalism or are least similar – don’t engage with what trinitarianism is. After all that is the debate of the time. It is, I think, a major flaw in most of the works. Especially since so many are arguing Joseph is reading these theological texts to impute influences.
To Lecture on Faith – the view that as you note persists for some time in Pratt (Widstoe is largely following and influenced by Pratt) – was actually a pretty common view at the time. So it’s not surprising that a lot of early member held to it. In my opinion while the texts undermine this somewhat, it’s really the revelation on matter and embodiment that starts to change the view quite a bit. I think it’s still a big tension in the church with our rhetoric not clearly distinguishing between spirit as influence and spirit as personage. The personage tradition is emphasized by Brigham Young who tends to see theology as anthropology and dismisses Pratt’s work because it’s more ontology.
Yes, Clark. It significantly weakens Kirkland’s argument. But that is a different thing than purporting to destroy it with an “explicit” scripture from the period that doesn’t have to read your way and therefore falls short of “explicit.” It is also a bit different from identifying “huge errors” which, though possibly, or even likely, erroneous do have some foundation in the documents. For my taste, that sort of summary argument looks too much like rhetoric being made into dogma. It seems to me that we have had too much of that going on in Church culture for a looooooooong time.
I agree that platonism (and the old first-cause theory and Hebrew monotheism, however understood) are necessary background for understanding trinitarianism, i.e. if understanding it as a concept is even possible then — rather than merely understanding its development as a collection of words trying to preserve incompatible concepts. I may get around to trying to understand it again, but currently it seems music and gardening are more worthwhile.
Cheers.
Well remember that was me giving the best case scenario. I just don’t agree that D&C 110 is as ambiguous as you suggest. I just don’t think the verse is saying Christ’s voice was like Jehovah. Rather I think it’s saying the voice is the voice of Jehovah. At best we have Joseph with the theology of divine investiture that’s close to Mosiah 15 and D&C 93. I have a post on that I’ve been working on, particularly the platonic overtones, coming out in a few days.
And of course that’s not the only problematic part of Kirkland’s paper to say the least. Again not all of these are as egregious as I see D&C 110, but they are deeply problematic – particularly the modalist claims. Again to be clear I think there was evolution of Joseph’s thought just not the way Kirkland and to a much lesser extent Harrell argue. (Harrell is far more cautious than Kirkland, although he clearly holds to a similar view)
So for instance he argues for modalism. “The Book of Mormon speaks of only one God who could manifest himself either as the Father or the Son.” (37) The problem with modalism is that as I mentioned it ignores clear Trinitarian arguments within the text. So 3 Nephi 11:7 parallels and in someways quotes Mark 9:7. But the voice of the Father from heaven during Christ’s baptism is a tradtion text by Trinitarians against modalists. If Joseph was influenced by all the texts people attribute, then he’d have been aware of him. Indeed it’s precisely this passage that makes some historians cautious about embracing the modalist view full throatily. He also avoids uses in the Book of Commandments that contradict modalism such as 24:15-16 (D&C 20:21-24 although there are differences) “he ascended into heaven to sit down on the right hand of the Father to reign with almighty power according to the will of the father”
Again, I’ll just stick with the there’s lots and lots of problems in Kirkland’s view. I’ll see about modifying my post to address some of the issues since it’s related to the issue of platonic “participation” (methexis). This was an issue at the time of Joseph Smith. While the traditional texts apologists appeal to in order to provide an alternative interpretation of Mosiah 15 weren’t known at the time of Joseph (e.g. 3 Enoch with regards to metatron/Enoch as the Lesser YHWH) the idea was actually known and discussed at the time as arising from Kabbalism. (A mystic and largely platonic conception of emanations within God and images of the divine on earth)
As I said, Steve Fleming has argued fairly persuasively that platonism is a significant influence on Joseph Smith. It’s hard to read passages like D&C 88 or 93 without seeing the strong platonic rhetoric. And of course D&C 93 quotes or parallels Mosiah 15. Rather than seeing this as a problematic modalism given countertexts, seeing it as methexis.
Thanks, Clark. I look forward to your post. Maybe you’ll try to dumb it down for me. 🙂
Yes, Kirkland’s work has problems far beyond the two you first mentioned, but “I just don’t think” is a far cry from “explicit” and it seemed fair to acknowledge the appearance of confusion in Lecture on Faith 5 between 3 members of the Godhead and 2 personages in the Godhead. After all, it is not only Kirkland and Harrell to whom theology and history of theology are a “mass of confusion” in a variety of denominations including our own.
Going back to OP’s question about whether or not these changes concern me – yes, they do. Why should Joseph’s ideas about the very nature of God be evolving at all if he was receiving direct communication from the divine as he claimed? Whether or not we call his concepts traditional trinitarianism vs modalism vs platonic influence or “methexis” (I don’t even pretend to know what the latter 2 are Clark – consider me ignorant here in regards to these terms) – it is clear to me that what Joseph believed and taught about the nature of God evolved and evolved radically. I think the various accounts of the first vision fit in with this evolution. It bothers me because a foundational pillar of the restored gospel is the first vision and even the nature of what that experience was seems to be in question.
It bothers me because the official narrative of the church says one thing (namely that Joseph learned the true nature of God during the first vision and taught that nature consistently throughout his life) and the actuality of the data seems to strongly suggest something very different.
For someone like me who currently struggles with even the very existence of God in the first place, a developing and changing concept of who God even is not helpful for my faith. Sometimes it’s easier and makes a lot more sense to throw my hands in the air and just say it’s all made up. (But if that’s not true I want to know that too). I’m tired of believing things that turn out not to be true. It’s exhausting.
Tom, if revelation isn’t complete and comprehensible information then shouldn’t we expect Joseph’s understanding to evolve as he learns new things? I’d note that revelation itself demands such evolution.
“…I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little… for unto him that receiveth I will give more; and from them that shall say, We have enough, from them shall be taken away even that which they have.” (2 Ne 28:30)
This is a rather common notion in scripture. If God only reveals a bit at a time, then doesn’t it follow that people’s ideas will change? The very way people read scripture involves theorizing about what’s going on but they’re theorizing on the basis of limited information. That means ones theories will frequently change as new information undermines them.
The reason I brought up Platonism isn’t because I think anyone particularly needs to know about it but to point out that the historic theorizing about what an idea consists of demands understanding the ideas that are in the community at the time. If we’re saying that someone’s understanding always has to be simple in terms of our understanding of it then we’re making a huge error in reasoning. If people aren’t willing to engage the ideas that purportedly evolved then perhaps they ought not be making claims about how things evolved. To claim that the ideas under debate are complex is not to argue that everyone need understand those complexities. Rather it’s to make a claim about scholarship and argument in an academic setting. I’m certainly not saying typical people need worry about such academic arguments. But if you’re going to raise an academic argument then intrinsically you have to engage with these complexities.
“Line upon line, precept upon precept…” is one thing but it can only be used as a crutch to a certain extent to explain away the discrepancies in what Joseph teaches throughout his life. Either Joseph saw two separate, embodied individuals in the grove in spring of 1820, or he did not. If he did, why does the first edition of The Book of Mormon argue against that understanding in a number of places? And why isn’t Joseph teaching that the Father and the Son are two separate persons from time zero when he walks out of that grove? We’re not talking about some subtle element about God’s nature. We’re talking about very basic stuff! Are Jesus and the Father distinct individuals or not? Did you see two separate people or not? The earliest account of the 1st vision has Joseph seeing only one personage, consistent with Joseph’s early belief and the 1st edition of the BoM that tends towards a modalist theology. I’m with Doubting Tom. I was also taught that the First Vision was so incredible and important an event that right in that moment, hundreds of years of false teaching on the nature of God was cleared up. That obviously is not the case as Joseph’s 1st vision story shifted over the years as did his understanding of the nature of God. The narrative doesn’t add up.
Boyd Kirtland wrote a fascinating article about the evolution of Mormon doctrine regarding the nature of God for Sunstone. You can read it here: http://www.lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml
DoubtingTom asks “Why should Joseph’s ideas about the very nature of God be evolving at all if he was receiving direct communication from the divine as he claimed? “
Possibly for the same reason that my own sense of God evolves even though I have heard his voice (or that of someone acting on his behalf ). What does not evolve is the One Thing I Know For Sure.
Michael 2 – Doubting Tom’s question is a valid one. Joseph claimed direct and physical vision of the Father and Son (or at least that is the version of the vision that the church has settled on). He wasn’t saying that he felt spiritually impressed, while reading scriptures or listening to a religious leader, that God and the Son were two people. He said that he saw them. Both of them. Directly, in a physical vision and that they both spoke to him. If that is true, there would have been no need for an evolving understanding of how many personages constitute the Godhead. Yet this is exactly what we see. The church’s narrative does not hold up to reason and the facts.
Troy, what evolved in the Godhead was the nature of the Holy Ghost. So far as I know Joseph Smith never claimed to have seen the Holy Ghost as a person. So this seems a problematic position. The argument by some is that Joseph held to modalism, but as I pointed out this is also a problematic position.
Clark, Joseph’s evolution did not only involve the Holy Ghost. He very much DID have an evolving concept of the nature of the Father and the Son within the Godhead and, as has been mentioned previously, who the name/title “Jehovah” refers to. The 1830 edition of the BoM is very consistent with a monotheistic, even modalist, understanding of God. This is also consistent with Joseph’s claim in the 1832 first vision account to have seen only one personage. Joseph’s teachings move into bitheism and a physical distinction between the Father and Son as two separate people from 1834-1835, about the same time that those modalist verses (several of them found in 1 Nephi 11) in the BoM are altered. By the late 1830s there is a plurality of Gods, God the Father was once a man (utter blasphemy) who became God and, happy day!!, you and I can become a god too. If this isn’t an evolving understanding of the nature of God then I don’t know what is.
Despite several verses in the BoM being altered from their modalist bent to what we read today, the vestigial remains of modalist theology is still all throughout the book. Mosiah 15:1-4, Mosiah 16:15, Alma 11:38-40, 3 Nephi 1:14, Mormon 9:12, Ether 3:14, Ether 4:8,12. I do not adhere to modalism myself so I’m not advocating that the LDS church should be teaching modalism, but I find it interesting that modern Mormon doctrine contradicts “the most correct book on earth” and “the keystone” of the religion.
Troy Cline writes “The church’s narrative does not hold up to reason and the facts.”
Those who worship reason and facts are limited to the tangible world.
There’s a saying, sheep know their shepherds voice. Many implications arise from that.
Troy, Your argument would be stronger without exaggerating what was written in the 1832 first vision account. I think JS did not “claim in the 1832 first vision account to have seen only one personage”. Instead, he only reported seeing one. Maybe my quibble is only with the placement of the word “only” in your sentence. But it makes a difference to some people. There’s a much more problematic difference between the 1832 and 1838 versions, in my view, but that’s a different subject than the “evolution of God.”
I need to take a look at the early changes to the BoM “modalist” verses. Do you have a good on-line source to suggest?
JR – You can go straight to the source. Find the 1830 edition of the BoM at the Joseph Smith papers site and find the text that corresponds to 1 Nephi 11:18, 21, 32 and 1 Nephi 13:40. Compare to what is printed in your modern copy of the BoM. Here’s a secondary source of info on those changes: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Textual_changes/%22the_Son_of%22
Michael 2 – To be clear then, you see no discrepancy between Joseph’s earlier teachings/writings where the Father and Son are described as one and the same person, and his later teachings/writings where they are two people? If you see no discrepancy there, I would be interested in hearing how you reconcile these two different descriptions of God’s nature.
Troy Cline asks “I would be interested in hearing how you reconcile these two different descriptions of God’s nature.”
Basically I don’t. I read the stories at face value. That’s what he wrote in 1832. later he wrote quite a bit more and also by then had substantially improved his writing ability (or someone did it for him). I lean toward the first as being most correct in terms of recollection but less correct in terms of use of English and deciding what is important to write about.
So what did he first write that is both important and accurate? That he met the Lord, who he identifies as the Redeemer, thus he who was known as Jesus in his mortality; and this person forgave Joseph Smith of JS’ sins.
It does seem odd to not include God the Father in the first version of the story. Is that part an invention? Maybe. It isn’t particularly important to me; obviously your mileage varies. What’s important to me is the existence of the Redeemer and his power to forgive sins and bestow love. But I already knew that independent of JS testimony which acts to confirm belief I already possessed.
Part of the problem was that at the time many theologies (including that of Martin Harris) saw seeing the Father as impossible. It was a point of no small amount of contention. There were of course people claiming to see the Father and as I said some theologies allowed for it so long as you didn’t see his fulness. You see elements of that in Joseph. But given that social issue, it’s actually not that surprising that he doesn’t mention the Father in early accounts until he’s more established. References if needed if people aren’t familiar with that controversy in Protestantism over whether the Father is encounterable in vision.
Oh, to 3 Nephi 11, you’ll note none of those changes you reference are the anti-modalist passages. He emphasizes the differences in the revision to 1 Nephi 11 but the original form is fully compatible with both contemporary Mormon thought and a notion of the trinity or tritheism. The key issue is 3 Nephi 11. More significantly, as the FAIR page you linked to notes, most of the passages that emphasize Christ as fully God aren’t removed including Mosiah 15. If he was trying to move away from a purported modalism why leave in Mosiah 16:15 where Christ is called “the very Eternal Father.” Lots more like that.
The problem is as I mentioned yesterday that those pushing modalism tend to neglect alternative interpretations and also tend to downplay the anti-modalist passages.
When looking at the evolution of our concept of God, I think it is instructive to look at Process Theology. Which in its simplistic form views everything as a process. This concept works well with Mormon theology. For example, there was not a Creation per say, there is a creating. The Creation of the Earth is an ongoing process, it is still being created. We need to think of the Restoration the same way. There wasn’t so much a Restoration of the Gospel, but an ongoing restoration, a restoring. I think Elder Uchtdorf highlighted this is a recent GC talk. He indicated the gospel is still being restored. Otherwise what is the point of revelation?
I’m a “King Follett” Mormon. It forms the basis of my belief structure. I think that makes me a polytheist. There is God the Father, God the Son, and a Mother in Heaven. That makes 3. And if you count the Holy Ghost, that makes 4. Then if you take Prez Snow’s couplet, the possibilities further expand. So for Joseph Smith to evolve from modalist or trinitarianist to polytheist doesn’t bother me. After all, for me, the restoration is ongoing. I believe strongly in eternal progression and the ability of humanity to take their acquired knowledge through the veil.
The problem with all of this is that BRM has discounted the King Follet funeral address. Prez Hinkley didn’t give it much of an endorsement when he had the chance. And the Church has backed off from the concept since the arrival of the “Godmakers” video. Where does that leave me? I don’t know. Maybe the whole structure is tumbling, as part of a process.
Roger, under Hinkley the KFD was a two week lesson in PH/RS. Not sure how much influence he had on that but it was interesting. I don’t think BRM in the least discounted the KFD. He did reject some of Roberts footnotes to it in the “harmonized” version in the TPJS. I think he was worried about the accuracy of that version and noted Joseph never revised or approved the version – which seems a fair concern. But the central teaching he fully accepted. It was the resurrection of children part he thought wrong (and that is usually excluded when the Church presents the KFD such as in that PH/RS manual I mentioned).
I was referring to Prez Hinckley on CNN and BRM’s “7 Deadly Heresies,” principally the first.
The KFD is a unique piece of Mormon history but it needs to die an ignominious death. It is a heretical discourse that contradicts the Biblical truths about God. Isaiah 44, 45, 46. Deuteronomy 4. There is one God. That God was ALWAYS God, from eternity to eternity he was always God. There were none before him. There will be none after him. He alone is God in both the heavens above and the earth beneath. He, our omnipotent God, knows nothing of any other Gods. These revelations came from God to his prophets thousands of years before Joseph Smith came along. So when Joseph comes along and decides that he is going to reinvent the nature of God, he is simply wrong. A revelation from God in the 19th century about something as fundamental as the eternal nature of God cannot contradict His word given anciently.
Thanks for the post and comments. They gave me some leads on learning more about these topics. The word “Lord” has always been so difficult for me to understand as I have read the Bible and Book of Mormon. I have been similarly perplexed by what it means to have a relationship with Christ. There are many instances of interactions with the Lord in the scriptures that seem to be about God, but Mormon thought seems to indicate are about Christ . I don’t feel so bad about my confusions after reading here.