Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[RebeccaJ]

I am starting this thread because the subject of Trinity in the Book of Mormon comes up now and then.

It is clear that Smith’s doctrine of deity changed over time. He started out as a monotheist. Over time, as he moved further and further away from truth, his doctrine of God changed. Only of course, what he taught earlier in his life remains. So it is mormonism ends up with a mish-mash of beliefs that have to be reconciled to each other, within LDS belief.

When taken outside of LDS belief, the attempt to reconcile the ever changing doctrines of mormonism to Christian doctrine is impossible. It would require that some of Smith’s teachings be accepted, while others are rejected.

There is also the fact that the BoM was created by Smith and his friends, who were of Christian backgrounds, with Trinitarian belief at the time the BoM was created. Over time, Smith changed his view of God. Many phrases in the BoM were changed to match the changing doctrines, but some of what it was before the changes remain.

When Smith’s changing doctrines are put into a chronological comparative to the LDS scriptures he was producing, and the time frames he was claiming these scriptures came from, there is no coherence whatsoever.

This is most clearly seen the Book of Abraham, which Smith produced later in his life, when he was no longer a monotheist.

2000 B.C.,Book of Abraham 4:3-7,Plurality of Gods
1400 B.C.,Book of Moses 1:6;2:3-7, Monotheism
600 B.C. to A.D. 400,Book of Mormon Alma 11:26-29, Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1830 Early (April 1830), Doctrine & Covenants 20:17,19, 28,Monotheism
A.D. 1830 Joseph Smith Translation,Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1834-1835, Lectures on Faith 5th Lecture,Binatarian Monotheism, or Bitheism
A.D. 1839 Later (March 1839) Doctrine & Covenants 121:26, 28, 32 ,Possibility of Plurality of gods
A.D. 1839-1843 Doctrine & Covenants 131:17-18;132:20, 37,Plurality of gods (but unlike in the Book of Abraham)
A.D. 1844,King Follet Discourse,Plurality of Gods

note: The King Follet Discourse is not LDS scripture. The Lectures on Faith were canonized as LDS scripture but later removed.

(ref:Joseph Smith’s Changing Doctrine of Deity By Luke P. Wilson)

 

[ellj]

I would attribute this to they way the LDS church believes in current revelation. Much of the church’s doctrine is able to change through the years because they believe in current prophets. Is that how an LDS person would explain that?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I’m thinking of attempts by Catholics and LDS here to take passages from the BoM, that are Trinitarian in nature, as an attempt to make mormonism appear to have a semblance of Trinitarian belief.

Only problem is, there is the later teachings of Smith, which are far removed from Trinitarian belief. So the discussions become neurotic. Trinitarian comparisons are made to the BoM, while the King Follet is ignored.

There are two completely different doctrines about God found in these two works. The polytheism that Smith introduced in the Book of Abraham and the King Follet Discourse are no where to be found in the BoM. People attempting to make mormonism appear to have doctrines comparable to the Holy Trinity ignore these later works.

There is not a possible way to reconcile these works to Christianity.

 

[T_Hope]

I would attribute this to they way the LDS church believes in current revelation. Much of the church’s doctrine is able to change through the years because they believe in current prophets. Is that how an LDS person would explain that?

Yes, I think so.

The Mormon church still adds to its scripture on occasion, it is true. But I do not think there have been many doctrinal changes in a long while except the revelation to make available the priesthood to all male members of the church, which happened in the 70’s.

It is interesting to me that most members of the LDS church are unaware of the volatile history of the doctrine they believe in. Looking back over my years as a Mormon I can tell you that details of early church history are kept very protected. Questionable issues are simply not openly discussed although some of the questionable issues are clearly printed in the official history of the church. I have heard teachers side step several of those issues when class members asked too many questions.

I am however, familiar with changes in the practices that took place during my years in that church. Personally, I think the changes have been good ones by well meaning leaders.

For those who are unaware, the Mormon doctrine of deity is the idea that man is as God once was and as God is man may become. There is no Trinity in Mormon doctrine. God is considered not only the father of our Lord, but also the father of all of us, making our Lord a sibling. It breaks my heart to think that so many people truly believe that.

Hope

 

[RebeccaJ]

IMNSHO mormon “revelation” has had too much to drink and is a bit wobbly.

whoa God reveals He is One, whoaaaaaaa, God reveals He is One but can appear in different modes, oh waiittt God is One, wwhooa! what? no! God is two Persons One God. oh no. Wait! Different modes, that’s what. oh gosh darn it! God reveals He is one of Many!

:hypno:

 

[Stephen168]

For those who are unaware, the Mormon doctrine of deity is the idea that man is as God once was and as God is man may become. There is no Trinity in Mormon doctrine. God is considered not only the father of our Lord, but also the father of all of us, making our Lord a sibling. It breaks my heart to think that so many people truly believe that.

Hope

So when a Mormon says they will become a god, they mean one like the one they worship; circ 1844?

 

[T_Hope]

So when a Mormon says they will become a god, they mean one like the one they worship; circ 1844?

Not exactly. Mormons do not worship Joseph Smith as many people think or have been told by other people who think it. He is honored as the man through whom God revealed the “restored gospel.” I would not say he is venerated, but seriously honored as the one who stands at the gate of exaltation, which is the goal of Mormons, to reach the place where he is and enter their exaltation with his approval.

Mormons believe they can become a god, like God. And then God becomes more exalted himself with gods underneath him on that ladder, so to speak. The ladder idea comes from the King Follett sermon. A lot of Mormons are unfamiliar with that sermon. But the do believe they can become gods.

 

[lax16]

I’m thinking of attempts by Catholics and LDS here to take passages from the BoM, that are Trinitarian in nature, as an attempt to make mormonism appear to have a semblance of Trinitarian belief.

Only problem is, there is the later teachings of Smith, which are far removed from Trinitarian belief. So the discussions become neurotic. Trinitarian comparisons are made to the BoM, while the King Follet is ignored.

There are two completely different doctrines about God found in these two works. The polytheism that Smith introduced in the Book of Abraham and the King Follet Discourse are no where to be found in the BoM. People attempting to make mormonism appear to have doctrines comparable to the Holy Trinity ignore these later works.

There is not a possible way to reconcile these works to Christianity.

I agree. I think that if the missionaries were to tell prospective converts right off the bat that the LDS believe God was once man and that he has a body and had relations with a woman…and by the way, that is in direct opposition to the God of the Old Testament and to Jews, Catholics and Protestants,because they believe that He is eternal, has no body and did not engage in acts with humans…many people would be surprised.

At what point do the missionaries bring this up when they visit people at their home?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree. I think that if the missionaries were to tell prospective converts right off the bat that the LDS believe God was once man and that he has a body and had relations with a woman…and by the way, that is in direct opposition to the God of the Old Testament and to Jews, Catholics and Protestants,because they believe that He is eternal, has no body and did not engage in acts with humans…many people would be surprised.

At what point do the missionaries bring this up when they visit people at their home?

They don’t.

 

[lax16]

They don’t.

When do they bring it up?

Don’t people ask questions about the important stuff?

 

[chris2009]

I am starting this thread because the subject of Trinity in the Book of Mormon comes up now and then.

It is clear that Smith’s doctrine of deity changed over time. He started out as a monotheist. Over time, as he moved further and further away from truth, his doctrine of God changed. Only of course, what he taught earlier in his life remains. So it is mormonism ends up with a mish-mash of beliefs that have to be reconciled to each other, within LDS belief.

When taken outside of LDS belief, the attempt to reconcile the ever changing doctrines of mormonism to Christian doctrine is impossible. It would require that some of Smith’s teachings be accepted, while others are rejected.

There is also the fact that the BoM was created by Smith and his friends, who were of Christian backgrounds, with Trinitarian belief at the time the BoM was created. Over time, Smith changed his view of God. Many phrases in the BoM were changed to match the changing doctrines, but some of what it was before the changes remain.

When Smith’s changing doctrines are put into a chronological comparative to the LDS scriptures he was producing, and the time frames he was claiming these scriptures came from, there is no coherence whatsoever.

This is most clearly seen the Book of Abraham, which Smith produced later in his life, when he was no longer a monotheist.

2000 B.C.,Book of Abraham 4:3-7,Plurality of Gods
1400 B.C.,Book of Moses 1:6;2:3-7, Monotheism
600 B.C. to A.D. 400,Book of Mormon Alma 11:26-29, Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1830 Early (April 1830), Doctrine & Covenants 20:17,19, 28,Monotheism
A.D. 1830 Joseph Smith Translation,Modalistic Monotheism
A.D. 1834-1835, Lectures on Faith 5th Lecture,Binatarian Monotheism, or Bitheism
A.D. 1839 Later (March 1839) Doctrine & Covenants 121:26, 28, 32 ,Possibility of Plurality of gods
A.D. 1839-1843 Doctrine & Covenants 131:17-18;132:20, 37,Plurality of gods (but unlike in the Book of Abraham)
A.D. 1844,King Follet Discourse,Plurality of Gods

note: The King Follet Discourse is not LDS scripture. The Lectures on Faith were canonized as LDS scripture but later removed.

(ref:Joseph Smith’s Changing Doctrine of Deity By Luke P. Wilson)

You seem to be an expert on Mormonism. At what point do you suggest Joseph Smith changed from a monotheist to believing in the plurality of Gods? When Joseph Smith was 14 years old in 1820, he saw the Father and the Son in the Sacred Grove. He says there were TWO personages that he saw. Was Joseph a monotheist at this time? When did Joseph EVER claim to be a monotheist?

lol, where do you get this stuff??? Possibly some anti-mormon tracks?

 

[chris2009]

I agree. I think that if the missionaries were to tell prospective converts right off the bat that the LDS believe God was once man and that he has a body and had relations with a woman…and by the way, that is in direct opposition to the God of the Old Testament and to Jews, Catholics and Protestants,because they believe that He is eternal, has no body and did not engage in acts with humans…many people would be surprised.

At what point do the missionaries bring this up when they visit people at their home?

I was an LDS missionary who served a mission in Alaska. I will answer your question. In the very first discussion we teach that God is our Father in Heaven and is a man with a resurrected body of flesh and bone. God wasn’t just ONCE a man. God IS a man. God is THE MAN. Throughout the Bible Jesus is referred to as the Son of Man. Why do you suppose Jesus is given this name? Think about it for a while…

The word Man should be capitalized. Jesus is the Son of God and the Son of Man. The Man of all men. With regard to how Jesus was conceived, there is no revelation on the matter. Some speculate, but the truth is that it hasn’t been revealed. The LDS church does NOT teach that God had relations with a woman – you received this information from the anti-mormon tracts. There may have been LDS authorities who had various opinions on the matter, but the matter has never been revealed.

 

[chris2009]

IMNSHO mormon “revelation” has had too much to drink and is a bit wobbly.

whoa God reveals He is One, whoaaaaaaa, God reveals He is One but can appear in different modes, oh waiittt God is One, wwhooa! what? no! God is two Persons One God. oh no. Wait! Different modes, that’s what. oh gosh darn it! God reveals He is one of Many!

:hypno:

I think your thinking of the Nicene Creed or Athanasian Creed. Mormons have always believed that the Father and Son as two seperate personages. I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but it’s incorrect.

 

[chris2009]

Yes, I think so.

The Mormon church still adds to its scripture on occasion, it is true. But I do not think there have been many doctrinal changes in a long while except the revelation to make available the priesthood to all male members of the church, which happened in the 70’s.

It is interesting to me that most members of the LDS church are unaware of the volatile history of the doctrine they believe in. Looking back over my years as a Mormon I can tell you that details of early church history are kept very protected. Questionable issues are simply not openly discussed although some of the questionable issues are clearly printed in the official history of the church. I have heard teachers side step several of those issues when class members asked too many questions.

I am however, familiar with changes in the practices that took place during my years in that church. Personally, I think the changes have been good ones by well meaning leaders.

For those who are unaware, the Mormon doctrine of deity is the idea that man is as God once was and as God is man may become. There is no Trinity in Mormon doctrine. God is considered not only the father of our Lord, but also the father of all of us, making our Lord a sibling. It breaks my heart to think that so many people truly believe that.

Hope

Policies change. Doctrines ALWAYS remain the same. It has been true since the beginning of time with Adam.

Why would it break your heart to think of Jesus as your elder brother? After all He IS the Son of God. We are children of God. That makes us siblings!

 

[T_Hope]

Don’t people ask questions about the important stuff?

That’s a good question to which I have no answer. A Mormon missionary may be able to tell you what sort of questions people ask.

When I joined the Mormon church I came from a non religious background so I had nothing to compare what I was learning with and therefore, no questions such as this one came to mind. The subject of God having relations with humans did come up in a religion class at Brigham Young University. I remember someone asking the instructor in a religion class about how it was Mary became pregnant. The teacher responded by asking the student how she would become pregnant … people wiggled in their seats, but as I remember, there was no further discussion. I was shocked. But I didn’t dwell on it because I guess at the time I decided it was either a mystery or a private matter that I had no business asking about.

 

[T_Hope]

Policies change. Doctrines ALWAYS remain the same. It has been true since the beginning of time with Adam.

Why would it break your heart to think of Jesus as your elder brother? After all He IS the Son of God. We are children of God. That makes us siblings!

Thank you Chris for correcting me. I edited that comment because I didn’t know if making the priesthood available to all male members of the church is considered a policy change or a doctrinal one.

In response to your question, which to me is at this time a very personal one, it was wonderful to believe in Jesus as my elder brother. As I had no other religious training to conflict with it, the idea was comforting.

But now I believe in God the Father, and Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord, and the Holy Spirit, are three separate entities, nevertheless One God. That is the Holy Trinity. Each with a job to do, so to speak, but sharing the same purpose. United.

In my mind, the concept of the Mormon Godhead reduces deity to something less than they truly are. It breaks my heart because I believed in what I now perceive as a lesser God for so long.

Hope

 

[RebeccaJ]

You seem to be an expert on Mormonism. At what point do you suggest Joseph Smith changed from a monotheist to believing in the plurality of Gods? When Joseph Smith was 14 years old in 1820, he saw the Father and the Son in the Sacred Grove. He says there were TWO personages that he saw. Was Joseph a monotheist at this time? When did Joseph EVER claim to be a monotheist?

lol, where do you get this stuff??? Possibly some anti-mormon tracks?

You do realize that Smith changed his vision story to match his changing doctrine of deity?

It’s called facts, but of course I understand, anything that isn’t the party line is “anti-mormon”.

Another historical reason for believing that Joseph Smith originally believed in only one God (and held a modalistic view of Jesus and the Father), is that his original First Vision story reflects such a view. Over the last thirty years LDS scholars have discovered that Joseph gave several different accounts of his First Vision, and that the earliest accounts are significantly different than the version in the Pearl of Great Price (Joseph Smith—History, 1:14-20).8 The differences in these successive first vision accounts reflect an attempt to keep pace with changes in Joseph’s doctrine of Deity.

  			According to the official account of Joseph Smith's First  					Vision, which dates from 1838, two divine personages in  					bodily form appeared to him, whom he identified as Heavenly  					Father and Jesus Christ. This is consistent with Joseph  					Smith's later doctrine of Deity, namely, that the Father and  					Son are separate Gods, each with tangible bodies.
  			
  			However, as LDS historian Dean C. Jessee has documented, the  					earliest known First Vision account, a document from 1831-32  					in Joseph's own handwriting, describes the appearance of  					only a single divine personage, Jesus Christ.**[10](http://www.irr.org/mit/changing-doctrine.html#Endnote%2010)**   					This is highly significant because it accords with the Book  					of Mormon's modal monotheism, described above. It is  					understandable that when Joseph latter abandoned monotheism  					and began to teach the plurality of Gods, he would change  					his original First Vision story to make it consistent with  					the teaching that Father and Son are separate Gods.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Policies change. Doctrines ALWAYS remain the same. It has been true since the beginning of time with Adam.

Why would it break your heart to think of Jesus as your elder brother? After all He IS the Son of God. We are children of God. That makes us siblings!

lol. You just keep living in that little bubble.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think your thinking of the Nicene Creed or Athanasian Creed. Mormons have always believed that the Father and Son as two seperate personages. I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but it’s incorrect.

No darling, Catholic teaching has always remained the same. The creeds only say what is believed. They are also meant to correct errors and heresy, such as mormonism.

 

[T_Hope]

lol, where do you get this stuff??? Possibly some anti-mormon tracks?

There is a reference at the bottom of the original post. The reference is full of footnotes.

In my experience learning about Catholicism, I have been appalled at the viciousness of some of the threads on this forum between Catholics and Mormons. Coming from a faithful Mormon background I would really appreciate it we could all take the high road here. Can we simply share our thoughts, opinions, and experiences while showing some respect for each other?

What I have found most disturbing is that most everything I was told about the Catholics from the Mormons was untrue.

I imagine Catholics learning about Mormonism from someone other than a faithful Mormon would be equally untrue.

So I’m glad for this thread so we can learn from each other because this is a place where each person is discussing what they believe. We’re getting it from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. And that’s a good thing. So let’s discuss, and not pick fights, ok?

Thanks,
Hope