Joseph Smith's changing doctrine of deity

[dianaiad]

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

Hope, with all due respect, that’s baloney. I’m a fifth generation Mormon, grandaughter of polygamists, born in southern Idaho and raised there and in northern Utah. Nobody has attempted ever to ‘sidestep’ any issues with me, nor am I, nor is any other Mormon I know, “unaquainted” with LDS history…

And the fact that you yourself have just had to admit that our history is ‘clearly printed in the official history of the church’ tells me that if you didn’t know the history, it’s not OUR fault.

In fact, you remind me of one of my students last year who came to me, extremely upset, because he didn’t know that ‘the test was today’ and that his essay was due. He said “but you didn’t TELL us!”

No, I didn’t. I posted signs all over the website. I sent e-mails. I posted announcements on the course web page. I posted due dates and test dates in the syllabus—but it’s true. I didn’t walk up to the kid and TELL him. Of course, the fact that I’m in California and he was in Maryland made that a little difficult…

The thing is, you can’t HAVE this both ways. Either we “keep it protected” OR it is “clearly printed in official church history.” I don’t know what irritates me more; that you can actually post both of those phrases in the same post, or that nobody called you on it until now!

 

[Tmaque]

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).
.

Eternal progression is no small difference in theology. If God can “progress” then He is in time which means He is part of our universe. Time is only possible in relation to matter and movement inside of the naturals laws of our universe. This then means He did not create our universe. If he did not create the universe then he is not really God but something less than God. Bottom line: If God created the universe he cannot progress because he is outside of time and unable to change.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hope, with all due respect, that’s baloney. I’m a fifth generation Mormon, grandaughter of polygamists, born in southern Idaho and raised there and in northern Utah. Nobody has attempted ever to ‘sidestep’ any issues with me, nor am I, nor is any other Mormon I know, “unaquainted” with LDS history…

And the fact that you yourself have just had to admit that our history is ‘clearly printed in the official history of the church’ tells me that if you didn’t know the history, it’s not OUR fault.

In fact, you remind me of one of my students last year who came to me, extremely upset, because he didn’t know that ‘the test was today’ and that his essay was due. He said “but you didn’t TELL us!”

No, I didn’t. I posted signs all over the website. I sent e-mails. I posted announcements on the course web page. I posted due dates and test dates in the syllabus—but it’s true. I didn’t walk up to the kid and TELL him. Of course, the fact that I’m in California and he was in Maryland made that a little difficult…

The thing is, you can’t HAVE this both ways. Either we “keep it protected” OR it is “clearly printed in official church history.” I don’t know what irritates me more; that you can actually post both of those phrases in the same post, or that nobody called you on it until now!

Nice. Calling Hope a liar.

All you have to do is read Chris2009’s posts to see that LDS don’t know their own history.

 

[why_me]

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.

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?

 

[why_me]

Nice. Calling Hope a liar.

All you have to do is read Chris2009’s posts to see that LDS don’t know their own history.

Lets give catholics a catholic history test and see how they do.

 

[why_me]

Facts written by Smith himself.

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.

See my post on the bottom of page 3. The lds leadership has always acknowledged that there are different versions of the first vision. But they are united in purpose. And the differences are not that huge.

 

[why_me]

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.

First we need the book of mormon manuscript. So far no manusript or even rough drafts. When writing such a book with so many pages, getting rid of the rough drafts and rewrites would be nearly impossible. Somewhere sidney would have left a trace as would Smith.

Then we need to investigate where Smith got all the paper to help write the book of mormon. No one reported him buying an extreme amount of paper. And then there are the pens involved. Feathered pens do leave traces on fingers etc.Then we need to discover why Rigdon would seek the help of a very young man to help him with his book. Smith did not seem to be the genius he would later become at that time he would have met Rigdon if your theory is true. And why would Rigdon trust Smith’s friends with what Rigdon would consider a very important work?

There was much investigation at the time of Rigdon and the evidence was nil. And the innuendos that may have been found came to naught. Also, Rigdon denied writing the book of mormon on his deathbed and Oliver Cowdery, one of Smith’s friends and one of the three witnesses to the book of plates, confirmed his own testimony of the book of mormon on his death bed. Strange indeed!

 

[campeador]

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.

I’m sorry, pinay, but I’m not seeing it. No disrespect to you but the whole idea of man becoming like God scares me!

I’m reminded of the first temptation of man:

Genesis 3:5
“…then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

…and St. Michael:



In Hebrew, the name Michael means “who is like El (God)”, which in Talmudic tradition is posed as a rhetorical question: “Who is like God?” to imply that no one is like God.

 

[TheosisM]

I’m sorry, pinay, but I’m not seeing it. No disrespect to you but the whole idea of man becoming like God scares me!

I’m reminded of the first temptation of man:

Genesis 3:5
“…then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

…and St. Michael:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Guido_Reni_031.jpg

In Hebrew, the name Michael means “who is like El (God)”, which in Talmudic tradition is posed as a rhetorical question: “Who is like God?” to imply that no one is like God.

The concept of becoming “like God”/gods is Catholic/Orthodox, and is found in the ECF writings as well (as well as the Bible-2 Peter 1:4-“Through these, he has bestowed on us the precious and very great promises, so that through them you may come to share in the divine nature, after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.”). As I’ve said before, Catholics and LDS agree that we can become “gods”. The difference is on what that means.

From the Catechism:

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Also see:

orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
amazon.com/Deification-Grace-Daniel-Keating/dp/1932589376/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272210895&sr=8-1
amazon.com/Partakers-Divine-Nature-Development-Deification/dp/080103440X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_b

 

[campeador]

Dear TheosisM, this is my understanding of Theosis.

From the link you provided:

orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

Orthodox theology
The statement by St. Athanasius of Alexandria, “The Son of God became man, that we might become god”, the second g is always lowercase since man can never become a God] indicates the concept beautifully. II Peter 1:4 says that we have become " . . . partakers of divine nature." Athanasius amplifies the meaning of this verse when he says theosis is “becoming by grace what God is by nature” (De Incarnatione, I). What would otherwise seem absurd, that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy, has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God or even another god.

emphasis mine

 

[KathleenGee]

That is what I like, the Old Time Religion…

 

[TheosisM]

Dear TheosisM, this is my understanding of Theosis.

From the link you provided:

orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis
emphasis mine

Yes exactly. As I said, there are differences between Mormonism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy on what it means to become like God/gods. However, the Catechism (which is quoting Athanasius) clearly uses the terminology “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God” and “he, made man, might make men gods”. The Orthodox teaching is also based on a distinction between the Essence of God and His Energies. Theosis is not a partaking of the essence of God (which is transcendent), but a partaking of His energies. As Athanasius states, we “becom[e] by grace what God is by nature”.

So, my point is, there is nothing wrong with stating, as the Catechism states, that we become “God” (interestingly, the Orthodoxwiki states that the second “g” in the Athanasius quote is “always lowercase”, but it is capitalized in the Catechism, though I don’t believe there is any implication to that)/gods/son of God. That is an apostolic teaching. The question is, what does that mean, which is where the distinctions between Mormonism and Catholicism/Orthodoxy arise.

 

[dianaiad]

Nice. Calling Hope a liar.

I didn’t use that word, Rebecca. In point of fact, I don’t think she IS lying. After all, I imagine that she believes what she wrote. Relating one’s honest belief, even if it is incorrect, is not a lie.

I actually, if you want to know the truth, deduced something else entirely. After all, what would you conclude regarding a statement from someone who honestly believes that printing the history of a group in official records that are not only easily available but are celebrated and TAUGHT, that this is somehow keeping that history secret?

All you have to do is read Chris2009’s posts to see that LDS don’t know their own history.

Rebecca.

I’m here. You are quite aware that I understand LDS history very well—warts and all. The same goes for Parker and every other Mormon who posts on this forum. What sort of logic is it that allows you to claim that because you have problems with what Chris writes, that [all] (and yes, that ‘all’ is definitly implied in your statement, else you would have qualified it) LDS don’t know their history?

Isn’t that like claiming that because YOU did not know, before I informed you and showed you in your own catechism that any Catholic procuring an abortion is automatically and instantly excommunicated, that the Catholic church is keeping that a secret and that 'Catholics don’t know that?"

…and puleeeze don’t make me go back and get your quotes on this. The point is, you know now…and you also know that the church not only does NOT keep this policy a secret, it’s right there in the catechism and in church canon law.

By the same token, the LDS church doesn’t keep our history a secret. If there are some LDS out there who don’t know as much as they should, it’s not because there is any deliberate attempt to keep the history a secret; it’s because of laziness.

…and not on the part of the church.

 

[campeador]

So, my point is, there is nothing wrong with stating, as the Catechism states, that we become “God”

So, you agree with the Catholic Catechism and the Orthodox. You are well on your way to conversion, my friend.

 

[TheosisM]

So, you agree with the Catholic Catechism and the Orthodox. You are well on your way to conversion, my friend.

I’m Catholic (from the cradle)

 

[campeador]

I’m Catholic (from the cradle)

If so, please represent it.

CCC:

2116 All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to “unveil” the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone.

2117 All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one’s service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another’s credulity.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12

There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.

Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.

For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

Jeremiah 29:8-9

For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Let not your prophets and your diviners, that be in the midst of you, deceive you, neither hearken to your dreams which ye cause to be dreamed.

For they prophesy falsely unto you in my name: I have not sent them, saith the LORD.

http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/wp-content/nggallery/Mormon Art/jstranslatingbom.jpg

I’m sorry, my friend. I can’t accept the credibility of one who uses a ‘seer stone’ to divine the word of God.

 

[dianaiad]

So, you agree with the Catholic Catechism and the Orthodox. You are well on your way to conversion, my friend.

…perhaps…but to what? (sorry, Theosis, I tried to resist this one…but not very hard.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Conversion to Christ (not Joseph Smith).

 

[TheosisM]

If so, please represent it.

Hence why I corrected your dislike of “becoming like God/gods”, which is consistent with Catholicism/Orthodoxy and the patristic witness.

CCC:

Deuteronomy 18:10-12

Jeremiah 29:8-9

http://www.imagesoftherestoration.org/blog/wp-content/nggallery/Mormon Art/jstranslatingbom.jpg

I’m sorry, my friend. I can’t accept the credibility of one who uses a ‘seer stone’ to divine the word of God.

That’s fine, we can still discuss the claims of Joseph Smith and Mormonism, hence why this thread was started specifically on Smith’s view(s) of deity.

 

[TheosisM]

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.

Which Christians believe this today? Most traditional Christians, including Catholics, believe that God the Son still has His physical, resurrected body.

I’ve heard this claim before, and wonder where it came from? Over on MADB, I remember a thread started asking whether traditional Christians believe that Jesus still has His body. I don’t think that any traditional Christian church denies that Jesus was bodily resurrected and bodily ascended to Heaven, and retains that resurrected body. The only religion I have heard that denies this is the Jehovah’s Witnesses.