Joseph Taught that God was Spirit, Not Flesh

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TexanKnight

Guest
Joseph taught a doctrine about God that states God is Spirit and Jesus is Flesh and the Three (with the Holy Spirit) are One.

Of course, he changed the ever-changing LDS Doctrine later…

But this is what he said in Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5

We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over

[page 53]

all things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;–he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh–and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three

[page 54]

constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all–the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father–possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father–a Mediator for man–being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

I added the colors for emphasis.

Interesting, huh?
 
I don’t think that Joseph had a handle on the true nature of God. His book of mormon took God from being a spirit in earlier parts of the book, then, went over to modalism in the book of Ether. Then, there were his lectures of Faith, where he talks of God almost in Christian terms, then the King Follet Discourse, were God became a “exalted man.” But I guess this shouldn’t be suprising since he was decieved from the start( Galat.6:8)
 
Christ himself said that “God is spirit.” As a Christian and a Catholic, I see no way this could be interpreted as “God has a body which he has always had since He was created by some other god.”
 
The problem is they may have their doctrines and other Mormon interpreters of Christianity…but they do not have the discipline of critical thinking theology…that affords us the continuity of faith.

Such teaching also infers that there are 3 separate gods…not the Holy Trinity.
 
Yes…but it shows Joseph orignially taught the Trinity AND that God was Spirit, not flesh
 
TexanKnight said:
Yes…but it shows Joseph orignially taught the Trinity AND that God was Spirit, not flesh
Click to expand...
Not that I’m supporting Mormonism in the slightest, but couldn’t a Mormon argument be in response to this be that these are presuppositions that Joseph held as a Protestant, that were later modified through progressive revelation from God, who eventually revealed him the truth?

In other words, he held to the traditional understanding of the Trinity and that God is spirit because he was not yet told that God was a triad of gods and also made of flesh and bones?

Of course then we can get into the discussion of why should we believe Joseph’s revelation in the first place, but I don’t think that the change in Joseph’s claims is necessarily indefensible.
 
FabiusMaximus said:
Not that I’m supporting Mormonism in the slightest, but couldn’t a Mormon argument be in response to this be that these are presuppositions that Joseph held as a Protestant, that were later modified through progressive revelation from God, who eventually revealed him the truth?

In other words, he held to the traditional understanding of the Trinity and that God is spirit because he was not yet told that God was a triad of gods and also made of flesh and bones?

Of course then we can get into the discussion of why should we believe Joseph’s revelation in the first place, but I don’t think that the change in Joseph’s claims is necessarily indefensible.
Click to expand...
Nope…lectures on Faith was taught AFTER he had been a “Prophet” for many years. It was a series of Lectures taught in His “School of the Prophets”.
 
TexanKnight said:
Joseph taught a doctrine about God that states God is Spirit and Jesus is Flesh and the Three (with the Holy Spirit) are One.

Of course, he changed the ever-changing LDS Doctrine later…

But this is what he said in Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5

We shall, in this lecture speak of the Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over

[page 53]

all things–by whom all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space–They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image;–he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, and was ordained from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins of all those who should believe on his name, and is called the Son because of the flesh–and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer, or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father-possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three

[page 54]

constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness: Filling all in all–the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of the Father–possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father–a Mediator for man–being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.

I added the colors for emphasis.

Interesting, huh?
Click to expand...
TexanKnight,

The Mormons are not totally without response to this. The most common way that less infrom Mormons will argue it is just to impeach the authority of the Lectures on Faith. Since the Lecutres actually ocnstituted the “Doctrine” part of the original Doctrine and Covenants, I consider this a very dubious response. Some Mormons who have done their homework argue more defensibly that the spiritual description of the Father and bodily description of the Son correspond not to their essential natures but to the way they relate the man. Namely, the Son comes in the flesh so that we can know the father in the Spirit. Therefore, Smith’s account of them ascribes flesh to the Son and spirit to the Father. I think that reading may well be right because it it capable of harmonizing with Mosiah 15.

But like modern LDS teaching, this reading if correct differs from Christian doctrine by defining the Trinity primarily in economic terms: the unity and diversity of the persons have meaning primarily in terms of how they relate to the human order, rather than being definied by what they are intrinsically. they are one with respect to how they work on man’s behalf; Jesus is the son becasue of the the flesh he took on. The Catholic view, and the scriptural one, sees a direct relation between the the order of the persons in the Trinity in itself and the way the person act in causing salvation. But the defining principle of their unity is altogether intrinsic. The Word was “with/toward God” before creation itself, and all the distinction and unity of the persons existed before the Word becasue flesh. The man-centered character of Mormon theology causes them to value God because of how he realtes to us, rather than what he is in himself. If they consdered God’s value in terms of what he is intrinsically, they would see the problem with their polytheistic beliefs which claim their are higher gods that we nonetheless do not worship.
 
Soren, astute observation…yes…the ongoing issue is Who God is…of Himself…I studied ‘God’ in the “Summa Theologica” pretty deep but very explanatory…but do not know if it would be a good start for Mormons seeking the Catholic understanding of God…

Yes, as I go along here, I see a mixture of man/God…the latter not defined…more as serving man’s calling than our Catholic calling to be one with God…
 
KathleenGee said:
Soren, astute observation…yes…the ongoing issue is Who God is…of Himself…I studied ‘God’ in the “Summa Theologica” pretty deep but very explanatory…but do not know if it would be a good start for Mormons seeking the Catholic understanding of God…
Click to expand...
The single best book to introduce Mormons to Catholic doctrine is “Theology and Sanity” by Frank Sheed. The reason is that the book is very clearly written and has a particular interest in clarifying confusions about Christian teaching that come about from materialist habits of thinking.
 
soren1 said:
TexanKnight,

The Mormons are not totally without response to this. The most common way that less infrom Mormons will argue it is just to impeach the authority of the Lectures on Faith. Since the Lecutres actually ocnstituted the “Doctrine” part of the original Doctrine and Covenants, I consider this a very dubious response. Some Mormons who have done their homework argue more defensibly that the spiritual description of the Father and bodily description of the Son correspond not to their essential natures but to the way they relate the man. Namely, the Son comes in the flesh so that we can know the father in the Spirit. Therefore, Smith’s account of them ascribes flesh to the Son and spirit to the Father. I think that reading may well be right because it it capable of harmonizing with Mosiah 15.

But like modern LDS teaching, this reading if correct differs from Christian doctrine by defining the Trinity primarily in economic terms: the unity and diversity of the persons have meaning primarily in terms of how they relate to the human order, rather than being definied by what they are intrinsically. they are one with respect to how they work on man’s behalf; Jesus is the son becasue of the the flesh he took on. The Catholic view, and the scriptural one, sees a direct relation between the the order of the persons in the Trinity in itself and the way the person act in causing salvation. But the defining principle of their unity is altogether intrinsic. The Word was “with/toward God” before creation itself, and all the distinction and unity of the persons existed before the Word becasue flesh. The man-centered character of Mormon theology causes them to value God because of how he realtes to us, rather than what he is in himself. If they consdered God’s value in terms of what he is intrinsically, they would see the problem with their polytheistic beliefs which claim their are higher gods that we nonetheless do not worship.
Click to expand...
None of yolur explanations of their explanations are valid, nor do they pass the logic test.
 
TexanKnight said:
None of yolur explanations of their explanations are valid, nor do they pass the logic test.
Click to expand...
Oh, I am not expressing agreement with them. I am just giving what I think is the most defensible response they have. My own view is extremely different from this. As I have said from time to time in oterh threads, I hold a minority position that attributes the Adam-God doctrine not to Brigham Young but to Joseph Smith. Consequently, I think it quite possible that the Spiritual God the Father describe in the Lectures is Elohim, but he is a different indiviual from the physical God the Father in D&C 130, who is Adam. (It is Adam and Jehovah, not Heavenly Father and Jehovah who appear to Smith in the First Vision.) But you’ll never find a Mormon who thinks that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top