Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[honorentheos]

Regarding the first vision issues, the biggest is that the descriptions of the godhead chronologically parallel the changes in other LDS scripture. The 1832 account is in line with the modalism in the Book of Mormon prior to the 1837 edits that separated God the Father from the Son. The 1835 account reflects the Lectures on Faith claim God the Father isn't flesh. The 1842/Wentworth Letter account reflects the Nauvoo theology.

Mormon teachings and scripture regarding the godhead evolved. The accounts did, too. That's not speculation. And that's evidence that undermines the claim LDS doctrine on the topic of God is trustworthy.

[honorentheos]

To add to the above, here's a link to Lecture Fifth:

https://lecturesonfaith.com/5/#1

This was doctrine at one point. A core doctrine, some might have said. The kind one might call foundational at the time, and trustworthy according to the text itself...until it was decided it wasn't in 1921.

[malkie]

Regarding the first vision issues, the biggest is that the descriptions of the godhead chronologically parallel the changes in other LDS scripture. The 1832 account is in line with the modalism in the Book of Mormon prior to the 1837 edits that separated God the Father from the Son. The 1835 account reflects the Lectures on Faith claim God the Father isn't flesh. The 1842/Wentworth Letter account reflects the Nauvoo theology.

Mormon teachings and scripture regarding the godhead evolved. The accounts did, too. That's not speculation. And that's evidence that undermines the claim LDS doctrine on the topic of God is trustworthy.

To add to the above, here's a link to Lecture Fifth:

https://lecturesonfaith.com/5/#1

This was doctrine at one point. A core doctrine, some might have said. The kind one might call foundational at the time, and trustworthy according to the text itself...until it was decided it wasn't in 1921.

So does this mean that God is not the same yesterday, today and forever? At least as far as Mormonism is concerned.

I suppose that this is not totally a bad thing: that Old Testament God was a real horror show.
[/tongueInCheek]

[malkie]

[honorentheos]

So does this mean that God is not the same yesterday, today and forever? At least as far as Mormonism is concerned.

It's also valuable to look at folks besides Smith and their beliefs. Cowdery was involved in the 1829 Book of Mormon, co-authoring it with Smith. His later letters still reflect an understanding of the godhead consistent with the Kirkland/Jackson era. Rigdon was actively involved in the School of the Prophets and what became the Lectures on Faith. The restoration movement he came from held proto-trinitarian beliefs and that appears to be what we see in the Lectures. The diverse views of the expanding church by the time the official version of the FV is penned suggest the consensus has evolved among the Mormon elite; God the Father and Jesus becoming two distinct different persons, both with perfected bodies, AND also both beings of glory, AND also apparently identical in.appearance ("If you have seen me you have seen the Father...")

Mormonism's claims about the godhead today are more established due to time, not because Smith had a divine visit that cut through centuries of apostasy.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

To add to the above, here's a link to Lecture Fifth:

https://lecturesonfaith.com/5/#1

This was doctrine at one point. A core doctrine, some might have said. The kind one might call foundational at the time, and trustworthy according to the text itself...until it was decided it wasn't in 1921.

Interesting. I had never read that. Pertinent to the discussion at hand:

Question 6: How do you prove that the Father is a personage of glory and of power?

The proofs, it seems, are nothing more than more references to scripture. Talk about an obvious self-licking ice cream cone.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

To add to the above, here's a link to Lecture Fifth:

https://lecturesonfaith.com/5/#1

This was doctrine at one point. A core doctrine, some might have said. The kind one might call foundational at the time, and trustworthy according to the text itself...until it was decided it wasn't in 1921.

Interesting. I had never read that. Pertinent to the discussion at hand:

Question 6: How do you prove that the Father is a personage of glory and of power?

The proofs, it seems, are nothing more than more references to scripture. Talk about an obvious self-licking ice cream cone.

- Doc

Interesting that it was voted on as the "doctrine" part of the D&C, changing it from The Book of Commandments prior to the Lectures being added along with other new revelations. Yet the church dropped it in the 1920s and left the D&C as a collection of supposed revelations. Those being heavily edited during the 1850s which is its own story.

MG is playing a game here, saying there are these core, foundational truths or "doctrines" that can be relied on to keep someone from being rocked by evidence that casts doubt on the claims of the church. But that requires being incurious as to where those "doctrines" came from and what information supports them. Apparently he allows evidence to run parallel to those claimed core doctrines, but only if the evidence doesn't contradict or undermine the claims. If it does? It's peripheral.

[Morley]

The proofs, it seems, are nothing more than more references to scripture. Talk about an obvious self-licking ice cream cone.

Reading through this, I couldn't help but wonder: Why wouldn't one of the proofs be Smith's firsthand story (or stories) of the First Vision? Or did I miss where that was referenced?

[malkie]

The proofs, it seems, are nothing more than more references to scripture. Talk about an obvious self-licking ice cream cone.

Reading through this, I couldn't help but wonder: Why wouldn't one of the proofs be Smith's firsthand story (or stories) of the First Vision? Or did I miss where that was referenced?

I'm not sure that I would accept that as "proof", though it would count as evidence of sorts.

All we have for the FV is a vague story by Joseph that doesn't unambiguously tell us who the personages were. I don't understand why MG, for example, cannot see how unsatisfying the story is, and how easily one might construct feasible interpretations other than the one he was raised with.

And of course, there were no witnesses. The church (and apologists) makes a big deal of the "Witnesses" to the gold plates, and I've often come across the scripture about how "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.(2 Corinthians 13:1). However, the foundational story of the FV is not only vague, but uncorroborated. By scriptural standards, it is easily dismissed, even without considering its content.

[MG 2.0]

honor and malkie, at the end of the day as we look back through the lens/fog of history we rely upon the written word and testimonies of contemporary witnesses. Joseph and his associates had to go through learning curves as did other early members of the church.

Joseph’s comment,that I referenced before, that he knew that God knew what had transpired is very revealing. That along with the ‘sincerity factor’ that Joseph demonstrated throughout his life brings us to a place where we either trust what he said or we don’t. As time went on there wasn’t any argument among the believers as to the fact that he had been visited by the Father and the Son.

That the ‘learning curve’ for Joseph included gaining further light and knowledge in regards to his visionary experience. That this would show up in his other writings along the way shouldn’t surprise us.

As the First Vision account evolved and matured through understanding it came to a place where it was ‘in cement’. It didn’t change thereafter. Just as with other things within the gospel/church framework we see the processes of change and evolution take place. Line upon line, precept upon precept. That shouldn’t come as any great shock.

I’ve mentioned the ‘silver platter’ concept before. Some folks either think…or demand…that God dispense his knowledge and wisdom in total, rather than incremental chunks. The First Vision falls into this category in my view. Joseph and others had certain knowledge. They saw what was happening through their own lens of understanding. That understanding evolved over time and experience.

Everything hinges non whether or not Joseph was telling the truth about what he saw and what he then came to further understand.

As it was/is, we/they came to understand that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph. We learn that God and Christ are two separate beings. And from that point on, after the First Vision, the heavens were open.

To those that are unable to determine the truth of this narrative and/or are unable to have faith in the probability/possibility that this could/would happen at this particular time and place, the heavens remain closed and they are left to their own understanding.

Regards,
MG