DiscussMormonism.com

Then how is it Joseph Smith's concept regarding the nature of God changed so radically from the time of the "restoration" to the King Follett discourse? In so short a time, Smith transitioned from monotheism to henotheism; from a God who's otherness Smith affirmed to a God who is of the same substance as man.

It is clear from the Lectures on Faith, which were included in the Mormon canon until 1921, that Smith believed the Father to be a personage of spirit, and the Son to be a personage of tabernacle. What was it that caused the entire nature of God to change by 1844?

Are folks to believe the true gospel, known and passed down from Adam to the "Great Apostasy", was restored with a faulty concept of God?

KA

Well, of course we must understand that Joseph was growing and developing as a Prophet during this whole time, so his understanding evolved and improved over time, as we should expect, right? Of course, once again this explanation happens to be congruent with there not being a God at all, and Joseph Smith making it up as he went along, as seems to be true with every single apologetic excuse or justification given on any LDS topic whatsoever.

I have to wonder if the ultimate affect of apologetics isn't simply to move believers away from wildly magical thinking, into a worldview that is so close to devoid of magical thinking, that in the end a believer is just one step away from atheism. Wouldn't that be ironic?

KimberlyAnn wrote:It is clear from the Lectures on Faith, which were included in the Mormon canon until 1921, that Smith believed the Father to be a personage of spirit, and the Son to be a personage of tabernacle. What was it that caused the entire nature of God to change by 1844?

Probably the nature of Joseph Smth's progressive theological ideas. Baptism for the dead is another one. It is no where to be found in the Book of Mormon, yet it is mentioned in the Epistles, and defended by apologists, and Joseph Smith previously, as one of the most important doctrines in LDS belief. Infant baptism is spoken of in the Book of Mormon, yet this wasn't an issue in the New Testament, but it was in Joseph Smith's environment.

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote that baptism for the dead would "undoubtedly" have commenced after the death of Christ, yet for 400-plus years of Book of Mormon "history", this subject isn't covered. Funny that the Nephites seemed exempt from this, or even teaching this, but the key to understanding it is Joseph Smith's progressive theological ideas.

Here is what he wrote (D&C 128):

As I stated to you in my letter before I left my place, that I would write to you from time to time and give you information in relation to many subjects, I now resume the subject of the baptism for the dead, as that subject seems to occupy my mind, and press itself upon my feelings the strongest, since I have been pursued by my enemies.

And he discovers this:

15 You may think this order of things to be very particular; but let me tell you that it is only to answer the will of God, by conforming to the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the gospel. 16 And now, in relation to the baptism for the dead, I will give you another quotation of Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:29: Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?

But these are the key verses:

5 You may think this order of things to be very particular; but let me tell you that it is only to answer the will of God, by conforming to the ordinance and preparation that the Lord ordained and prepared before the foundation of the world, for the salvation of the dead who should die without a knowledge of the gospel.........9 It may seem to some to be a very bold doctrine that we talk of—a power which records or binds on earth and binds in heaven. Nevertheless, in all ages of the world, whenever the Lord has given a dispensation of the priesthood to any man by actual revelation, or any set of men, this power has always been given.

And the book which contains "the fulness of the gospel", "from the foundation of the world", has not a word to say about it.

I'm unconvinced Smith was growing in his prophetic ability, but I am willing to submit he was growing substantially in hubris. By claiming to alone know the true nature of God, he was cementing his role as Prophet and Revelator during a time of social upheaval in Navoo.

Unfortunately, his proclamation that men could become Gods further disaffected William Law and set forth the series of events which would lead to Smith's death at Carthage.

It seems clear from the historical record that Smith began to shift his views on the nature of God while under the tutelage of Alexander Neibauer, who quoted the Zohar in Times and Seasons articles and who was familiar with Jewish mysticism. Rather than revelation, Smith's conversion to henotheism seems to be the product of his study of the occult and mysticism, insecurity in his role as prophet, and a desire to justify polygamy as a necessity for eternal progression. Self-serving reasons, all.

If Mormonism were truly a restoration of primitive Christianity, there would be no reason for a progression in the Mormon concept of God.

And, yes, Ray, if the fullness of the gospel were contained in the Book of Mormon, why the need to add so many ordinances over time?


KA

In my opinion, the real point is that Mormonism is simply not a restoration of primitive Christianity. Detailing the reasons why is in the end almost pointless.

I think most informed apologist have backed away from this position. I would guess that the majority of GAs believe it, but they don't talk about it very much because it has weak footing.

John Larsen wrote:I think most informed apologist have backed away from this position. I would guess that the majority of GAs believe it, but they don't talk about it very much because it has weak footing.

And yet a new narrative justifying the need for Mormonism has yet to emerge. If this reason is taken away, that is bad news for the LDS Church. On the other hand, it may be good news for religious pluralism. If the LDS Church is not a restoration of a lost Christian gospel, then it is perhaps a single voice in a Christian choir.

Then how is it Joseph Smith's concept regarding the nature of God changed so radically from the time of the "restoration" to the King Follett discourse? In so short a time, Smith transitioned from monotheism to henotheism; from a God who's otherness Smith affirmed to a God who is of the same substance as man.

Mormon's would argue that the knowledge about the God head was revealed line upon line. Interestingly there are bits and pieces of JSs later theology in early Christianity including some of the ideas found in the KFD.

But personally I think the evolution of the theology about God is problematic to some extent.

It is clear from the Lectures on Faith, which were included in the Mormon canon until 1921, that Smith believed the Father to be a personage of spirit, and the Son to be a personage of tabernacle. What was it that caused the entire nature of God to change by 1844?

Yes it seems that up to at least 1835 that Joseph Smith believed the the Father was a personage of spirit. However, a study of early LDS theology makes it cleat that the idea of what a spirit is for LDS vs what the rest of Christianity thought is different. LDS believed the God and the per mortal Christ were embodied spirits, not simple essences. Also apologist offer that Joseph Smith may not have know the Father had a body even after the FV because a embodied spirit God would look the same as a corporeal God. It seems right around 1835 or shortly after the idea of the Father being corporeal made it appearance.

Are folks to believe the true gospel, known and passed down from Adam to the "Great Apostasy", was restored with a faulty concept of God?

LDS doctrine allows for the idea that some of the teachings we have today may have been held for the last days. Some of the teachings about God may be among those hence the Book of Mormon silence on some of the later items.

I'm unconvinced Smith was growing in his prophetic ability, but I am willing to submit he was growing substantially in hubris. By claiming to alone know the true nature of God, he was cementing his role as Prophet and Revelator during a time of social upheaval in Navoo.

I think he claimed to know about God's nature all along, just what he knew changed and evolved over time. He says reveled. others say made it up.

Unfortunately, his proclamation that men could become Gods further disaffected William Law and set forth the series of events which would lead to Smith's death at Carthage.

Was Law bothered by that? I thought his main beef was polygamy.

It seems clear from the historical record that Smith began to shift his views on the nature of God while under the tutelage of Alexander Neibauer, who quoted the Zohar in Times and Seasons articles and who was familiar with Jewish mysticism. Rather than revelation, Smith's conversion to henotheism seems to be the product of his study of the occult and mysticism, insecurity in his role as prophet, and a desire to justify polygamy as a necessity for eternal progression. Self-serving reasons, all.

Yes my biggest issue with all this is it seems almost to be the doctrine of the month club as things moved on. Of course perhaps all these things, like Neibauer and other items were catylist for revelation due to inquires that these things prompted.

If Mormonism were truly a restoration of primitive Christianity, there would be no reason for a progression in the Mormon concept of God.

This is an overly simplistic conclusion. There is no reason to expect that the doctrine would all be handed out at one time on a silver platter. Plus keep in mind that Christian theology developed and changed and evolved over hundred and hundreds of years and indeed still is.

And, yes, Ray, if the fullness of the gospel were contained in the Book of Mormon, why the need to add so many ordinances over time?

The fullness of the gospel refers simply to the atonement of Christ, Faith, repentance baptism, holy ghost and abiding in Christ till one dies. It does not mean all other doctrines and ordinances that may be ancillary to that.

Joseph had one gift, one task. Everything beyond that was simply Joseph being Joseph.

No wonder he got into so much trouble.

What he restored was, in essence, the sense of unity of the ancient church. And that remains in the church today.