Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

  • Thread starter Thread starter RebeccaJ
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, back to the topic, LDS teaching of multiple gods is incompatible to Christianity. It is something other.
 
lax16 said:
When do they bring it up?

Don’t people ask questions about the important stuff?
Click to expand...
LDS use the same terms, and unless someone explained the terms being used have been given entirely new meanings, a prospective convert, who is Christian, does not recognize that what they are hearing is something very different. People are encouraged to read the BoM, which, doesn’t contain much that would indicate their true doctrine of deity. New converts are baptized without reading a word of the Pearl of Great Price, or D&C, which is where their doctrines regarding deity are found.

There are many people who have left mormonism after they discovered the true beliefs that are held. Not the white-washed deception that their missionaries present.

If you say to most Christians, God has a body of flesh and bone, we’re thinking yes He does, because we’re thinking of Jesus.

LDS are teaching the Father is human, like themselves. They fail to mention their belief that this god of theirs has a father, and that god a father, etc. They fail to mention at all that they are polytheistic.

The real kicker is, LDS missionaries are young and naive and don’t know their own history. So it is the deceived are acting as the deceivers without even realizing it.
 
chris2009 said:
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?
Click to expand...
Joseph didn’t published his supposed vision about the Father and the Son until 1838. He had other descriptions of his vision which varied considerably from the official one published in 1838. His early understanding of God seemed to be a mix of Trinitarianism and Modalism. I wouldn’t base too much on what Joseph said in 1838. There is some evidence which disputes that any vision could have occurred in 1820 based on inconsistencies in Joseph’s own story:

irr.org/mit/first-vision.html

You might want to consider all of the articles at this site:

irr.org/mit/First_Vision.html
 
chris2009 said:
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.
Click to expand...
chris - I did not get my information “knowlingly” from anti-mormon tracts. If I stated something incorrect about LDS doctrine, I apologize. However, on an LDS website I read this:
Jesus Christ is the firstborn spirit child of God and although each of us is a spirit son or daughter of God, the Eternal Father, only Jesus Christ is God’s son in the flesh.
Born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of the Father.

If God was man then how did he “relate” to Mary in order to conceive Jesus?

Also, this is the first time I have ever heard/seen/read Mary referred to as the virgin Mary. Is this new? I thought Mary was a celestial Mother or something of that nature?

thanks!
 
lax16 said:
chris - I did not get my information “knowlingly” from anti-mormon tracts. If I stated something incorrect about LDS doctrine, I apologize. However, on an LDS website I read this:
Jesus Christ is the firstborn spirit child of God and although each of us is a spirit son or daughter of God, the Eternal Father, only Jesus Christ is God’s son in the flesh.
Born of the Virgin Mary, Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of the Father.

If God was man then how did he “relate” to Mary in order to conceive Jesus?

Also, this is the first time I have ever heard/seen/read Mary referred to as the virgin Mary. Is this new? I thought Mary was a celestial Mother or something of that nature?

thanks!
Click to expand...
Mormons often refer to Mary as the Virgin Mary. Celestial Mother is a whole different concept.
 
Catholic20064 said:
Mormons often refer to Mary as the Virgin Mary. Celestial Mother is a whole different concept.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s true. As a Mormon I was taught that we have a heavenly mother since we have our Heavenly Father who begat us all spiritually making us all brothers and sisters. It is quite feasible that we have different heavenly mothers since polygamy will exist in heaven, it is logical to think it exists with God as there are so many of us kids. I don’t think that is doctrine, it’s just my mind without lunch …

Who ever said “Eight Is Enough?”
😛
 
T_Hope said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hope,
It may surprise you to know that many of us here are former Mormons who served missions, married in the temple, held many callings, and then learned enough LDS history and doctrine to realize that it was all false. Then we left. Many of us eventually became Catholic.
Paul
 
Catholic20064 said:
Joseph didn’t published his supposed vision about the Father and the Son until 1838. He had other descriptions of his vision which varied considerably from the official one published in 1838. His early understanding of God seemed to be a mix of Trinitarianism and Modalism. I wouldn’t base too much on what Joseph said in 1838. There is some evidence which disputes that any vision could have occurred in 1820 based on inconsistencies in Joseph’s own story:

irr.org/mit/first-vision.html

You might want to consider all of the articles at this site:

irr.org/mit/First_Vision.html
Click to expand...
Of course you can use those sites regardless if they may be biased. However, you can also read these sites about the vision:

en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Accounts

Joseph’s vision was at first an intensely personal experience—an answer to a specific question. Over time, however, illuminated by additional experience and instruction, it became the founding revelation of the Restoration.
—Elder Dennis B. Neuenschwander (of the Seventy), Ensign, January 2009, p. 28.

**I am not worried that the Prophet Joseph Smith gave a number of versions of the first vision anymore than I am worried that there are four different writers of the gospels in the New Testament, each with his own perceptions, each telling the events to meet his own purpose for writing at the time. I am more concerned with the fact that God has revealed in this dispensation a great and marvelous and beautiful plan that motivates men and women to love their Creator and their Redeemer, to appreciate and serve one another, to walk in faith on the road that leads to immortality and eternal life.
—Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, October 1984 **

No secret there. And Hinckley makes a good point. 🙂 And the ensign is the official lds magazine that most mormons read. It seems that they know about the various accounts. No secret about it. And how does one explain the differences in the new testament accounts?
 
The evidence is there (if one is really interested in the truth) regarding the multiple conflicting stories of the first vision. Lucy Mack Smith’s story didn’t even corroborate the final vision story. The first edition of the Book of Mormon clearly teaches a modalistic view of the nature of God.

Here are the first two vision versions:
1832 Joseph Smith’s own handwriting from his Letterbook The Papers of Joseph Smith, v1, p5-7, Dean Jessee (ed.), Deseret Book Company 1989.[159] And Early Mormon Documents, v 1, p27-29, Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1996. One personage,“The Lord” “Thy sins are fogiven thee”. Smith decides for himself that all churches are corrupt. Vision in Smith’s “16th year” (i.e. when he is 15 years old).
1835, Nov. 9 - Joseph Smith diary (Ohio Journal, handwritten, Warren Parrish scribe) The Papers of Joseph Smith, Dean Jessee (ed.), v2, p68-69. Deseret Book Company 1989.[159] Two unidentified personages, and “many angels” “Thy sins are fogiven thee” and Jesus is the “son of God” No message of revivals or corrupt churches.

The later versions were cleaned up to fit the later theology. This is a matter of history. The doctrine did evolve, no question about it.
 
Greetings Tmaque. How are you today?
Tmaque said:
The evidence is there (if one is really interested in the truth) regarding the multiple conflicting stories of the first vision. Lucy Mack Smith’s story didn’t even corroborate the final vision story. The first edition of the Book of Mormon clearly teaches a modalistic view of the nature of God.

Here are the first two vision versions:
1832 Joseph Smith’s own handwriting from his Letterbook The Papers of Joseph Smith, v1, p5-7, Dean Jessee (ed.), Deseret Book Company 1989.[159] And Early Mormon Documents, v 1, p27-29, Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1996. One personage,“The Lord” “Thy sins are fogiven thee”. Smith decides for himself that all churches are corrupt. Vision in Smith’s “16th year” (i.e. when he is 15 years old).
1835, Nov. 9 - Joseph Smith diary (Ohio Journal, handwritten, Warren Parrish scribe) The Papers of Joseph Smith, Dean Jessee (ed.), v2, p68-69. Deseret Book Company 1989.[159] Two unidentified personages, and “many angels” “Thy sins are fogiven thee” and Jesus is the “son of God” No message of revivals or corrupt churches.

The later versions were cleaned up to fit the later theology. This is a matter of history. The doctrine did evolve, no question about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, you may find several versions of the first Vision just as I can find several versions of the History of the claim of apostolic succession of the Catholic church. That’s what happens when you have a he-says-she-says accounting of history. It is natural.

The beauty of the LDS church is that there is one single authority of the truth. And that lies on the prophet - currently, Thomas S. Monson. There is one doctrine. It may change in practice but the doctrine does not. The prophet instructs the church to the practice appropriate to the times.

Just like there are a lot of inconsistencies applied to the Catholic Church that are not contained in Catholic doctrine but are things that are incorrectly interpreted by Catholics outside of the Vatican, so is there inconsistencies applied to the LDS Church that are not contained in LDS doctrine.

The doctrine of God is that there are three persons of one Godhead. If you study the Trinity versus the Godhead, you will find that they are actually very close to almost the same, a lot of the differences lying solidly in semantics. This is something the Catholics and the LDS can celebrate.

The main difference though between Catholics and LDS is eternal progression. The LDS believe that God progresses through eternity. The “perfection of the saints” (that is, our exaltation) adds to His glory so that He progresses as we progress. God will always and forever be our God regardless of where we are in our eternal progression. And because of this, the LDS can say they are monotheists (although, to tell you the truth, I don’t pay attention to those -isms and what defines us best).

Are there other gods besides the Godhead? The answer to that does not lie in LDS doctrine but through speculation. If you try to speculate on what would God have been before he gathered the spirits in heaven, then hey, maybe He had a God of his own. It is possible. But, that is not something that is part of God’s doctrine. That is solidly in the same realm as Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus…
 
T_Hope said:
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
Click to expand...
The Mormon Godhead has all power, all knowledge and is everywhere present. It sounds like you’ve been taught that somehow to have a body of flesh and bone makes you less powerful. About 400 BC, Plato and Aristotle taught that matter is evil. They believed God was an essense that filled the immensity of space. As you know about 30 AD, Christ came and restored the truths of the gospel. The Hellenized Jews and Romans hated Christ for these “new” doctrines. They said he had a devil in him. Christ and the 12 apostles were brutally killed over the years. From about 100 AD to 300 AD, these Greek Philosophies crept back into the church. They thought they were much more intelligent than a bunch of fisherman and carpenters. There was a big arguement about the very nature of God – something that you would think would be the basic foundation of the church known to all. This arguement led to the formation of the Nicene Creed under the direction of Constantine in 325 AD. It defined the nature of the Father and Son saying they were made of the “same” substance or “ousia” – a word and doctrine taught by Aristotle. This was established, not by revelation from God, but by popular vote. Look it up, it’s true.

The idea that matter and our bodies are evil continued. Many tortured their bodies or went into the desert in isolation believing that by doing this they would come closer to God. This is where monks and others began – it is a philosophy from Plato and Aristotle. This is why many today believe that God cannot have a physical body. They believe it makes him less powerful and evil.
 
RebeccaJ said:
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”.
Click to expand...
Your “facts” are writings from professional anti-mormon Luke P. Wilson. Have you sought to find answers to your questions directly from LDS sources? Or do you prefer not to investigate in an unbiased manner? Perhaps you are just seeking ways to condemn the LDS church. I have found that if a person is honest enough, they can find an answer to all of these anti-mormon attempts to discredit the LDS church. Most of these anti-mormons are former excommunicated members.

You can get many of your answers here if your willing to read and study:

en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Only_one_Personage_appears

As a side note, I find it facinating how Joseph Smith writes the first account of the First Vision. Look how many words he misspells! Look how poor his grammer is. He was absolutely horrible at grammer and spelling in 1832. (Years later he master English along with many other languages.) Do you still think he wrote the entire 521 page Book of Mormon published in 1829? Wow. Thank you for providing me with yet another evidence that this church is true.
 
chris2009 said:
Your “facts” are writings from professional anti-mormon Luke P. Wilson. Have you sought to find answers to your questions directly from LDS sources? Or do you prefer not to investigate in an unbiased manner? Perhaps you are just seeking ways to condemn the LDS church. I have found that if a person is honest enough, they can find an answer to all of these anti-mormon attempts to discredit the LDS church. Most of these anti-mormons are former excommunicated members.
Click to expand...
Facts written by Smith himself.
You can get many of your answers here if your willing to read and study:
Click to expand...
en.fairmormon.org/First_Vision/Accounts/1832/Only_one_Personage_appears
Click to expand...
I don’t consider FAIR an unbiased source. Let alone, “scholarly”. Too many giant leaps and bounds, speculations and irrational thought. The history, which stands on its own, is that Smith gave differing accounts.
As a side note, I find it facinating how Joseph Smith writes the first account of the First Vision. Look how many words he misspells! Look how poor his grammer is. He was absolutely horrible at grammer and spelling in 1832. (Years later he master English along with many other languages.) Do you still think he wrote the entire 521 page Book of Mormon published in 1829? Wow. Thank you for providing me with yet another evidence that this church is true.
Click to expand...
I support Jerusha on her work re: the authorship of the BoM. Smith was a front man for a con. Rigdon was the main editor, with other close friends and family pitching in. Plagiarized work available to Rigdon at the time provided multiple sources. Mainly though, it came from Spalding’s “Manuscript Found” and the KJV Bible.
 
Hello Stephen. How are you?
Stephen168 said:
Which shows the first vision story changed as his theology changed; Joseph Smith become a polytheist, so he could become god.
Click to expand...
Joseph Smith was never in his entire life and ministry ever been a polytheist.

And the theology that we can be as God is, is not a Joseph Smith invention. It is written in the Bible. It is a matter of interpretation of the Bible that is different. But having differing interpretations of the Bible is common among all the Christian churches. I wouldn’t say that the Protestants invented their own theology. I would say that the Protestant churches took the same Bible and applied a different interpretation from the Catholic church.

Regardless, if you do not believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, then he is a heretic and the account of the First Vision - even if there is only one version or 100 - is a moot point.
 
chris2009 said:
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?
Click to expand...
So Smith was never a Monotheist
pinay said:
Joseph Smith was never in his entire life and ministry ever been a polytheist.
Click to expand...
So Smith was never a Polytheist.
 
campeador said:
I’m curious. Can you expand on this please?
Click to expand...
Hello campeador. Yes, I can give a few verses in the scripture.

John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Hope these help.
 
pinay said:
Hello campeador. Yes, I can give a few verses in the scripture.

John 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Hope these help.
Click to expand...
Other ways to interpret these scipture passages:

The New American Bible
John 17:1-26 is explained as: Climax of the last discourse(s). Since the sixteenth century, this chapter has been called the “high priestly prayer” of Jesus. He speaks as intercessor, with words addressed directly to the Father and not to the disciples, who supposedly only overhear. Yet the prayer is one of petition, for immediate (6-19) and future (20-21) disciples. Many phrases reminiscent of the Lord’s Prayer occur. Although still in the world (13), Jesus looks on his earthly ministry as a thing of the past (4,12). Whereas Jesus has up to this time stated that the disciples could follow him (13,33.36), now he wishes them to be with him in union with the Father (12-14).

Matthew 5:48 is explained as: Perfect: in the gospels this word occurs only in Matthew, here and in 19, 21. The Lucan parallel (6,36) demands that the disciples be **merciful.

There’s always more than one way to interpret scripture, wouldn’t you agree?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top