From the Book of Mormon Trinity to the King Follett Sermon to...

[_sock puppet]

The Mormon godhood has morphed from
1-its early reflections of typical Protestant thought in 1830 as a Trinitarian concept (Book of Mormon) to
2-three distinct beings (elohim the father, jehovah the son, and the holy ghost) united in a singular purpose with jehovah having received a body during his mortal probation but not elohim (LoF) to
3-elohim too having a physical body and having been like mortals like us (KFS) to
4-BY speculating about Adam being elohim and the Adam experience being how elohim got his body, to
5-elohim has a body, but wasn't Adam.

I suspect that #2 occurred due to JSJr wanting to distinguish LDS teachings from those of other sects and #3 was his nature of god opus. (Interesting how the first visions metamorphosis followed a coincident timeline and progression.)

#4 might have been Brother Brigham's best effort at actually trying to be a "prophet", during his 33 year tenure from 1844-1877.

How did #5 come about? Was it the Rise of the earliest version of Mopologists?

[_Darth J]

4-BY speculating about Adam being elohim and the Adam experience being how elohim got his body,

That is not entirely accurate.

1. Brigham Young taught that Adam and Elohim were separate beings. Adam, a.k.a. Michael, is the being that Mormons refer to as "Heavenly Father." Elohim is the father of Michael, which makes Elohim our heavenly grandfather.

2. The Church officially taught the Adam-God doctrine during Brigham Young's tenure as a doctrine, not a "theory." It was published in, inter alia, the Millenial Star, which was the longest-running LDS publication in history (over 100 years). Referring to the Adam-God doctrine as the Adam-God "theory" is apologist revisionism (although this revisionism is not limited to apologists; Bruce R. McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith, among others, also referred to the doctrine as a "theory"). The Church did not take the position that Brigham Young was "speculating," but that he was speaking inspired truth as an apostle of the Lord, and all Christendom would have to accept this truth or be condemned.

blog.php?u=7958&b=2865

[_Darth J]

1-its early reflections of typical Protestant thought in 1830 as a Trinitarian concept (Book of Mormon)

I have mentioned this before, but The Church of Jesus Christ, otherwise known as the Bickertonites, have stated in the past that they believe in the Trinity.

In 1985, The Church of Jesus Christ released a declaration regarding the nature of God, in which they explained that God the Father and Jesus Christ have separate, individual forms. However, they believe that the Holy Ghost is not a personage/being, but the "power" of God.

The Bickertonites also believe in the Book of Mormon.

So much for the modern LDS concept of the Godhead being patently obvious in the Book of Mormon.

[_moksha]

Got a lot of honeys ---> You are married for Time and Eternity to them all -----> Would rather have them all young and attractive -----> Being a God would have natural anti-aging and instant perfection -----> Having a body was a natural offshoot to the question of what to do with all the heavenly honeys with perfected bodies.

[_stemelbow]

The Mormon godhood has morphed from
1-its early reflections of typical Protestant thought in 1830 as a Trinitarian concept (Book of Mormon) to
2-three distinct beings (elohim the father, jehovah the son, and the holy ghost) united in a singular purpose with jehovah having received a body during his mortal probation but not elohim (LoF) to

Just so you know there really is no distinction between 1 and 2. The Trinity is that they are three separate persons in one substance, and that Jesus lived within a mortal body while the Father did not. The only significance here is that we accept the notion that Jehovah, by and large, is the pre-mortal Christ.

3-elohim too having a physical body and having been like mortals like us (KFS) to

This came up before the KFS which was 1844. I believe it was sometime in the late 1830s when Snow offered the couplet that gets modern play by critics. I believe he said he thought of it after conversing with Joseph Sr. who was the patriarch of the church.

4-BY speculating about Adam being elohim and the Adam experience being how elohim got his body, to
5-elohim has a body, but wasn't Adam.

See DJ's response.

I suspect that #2 occurred due to JSJr wanting to distinguish LDS teachings from those of other sects and #3 was his nature of god opus. (Interesting how the first visions metamorphosis followed a coincident timeline and progression.)

I suspect some of the details worked out and evolved from the common understanding of the Christians of that era because they didn't htink much of it until the questions started pouring in that didn't quite make a lot of sense.

#4 might have been Brother Brigham's best effort at actually trying to be a "prophet", during his 33 year tenure from 1844-1877.

How did #5 come about? Was it the Rise of the earliest version of Mopologists?

It was long before BY's presidency when Elohim was said to have a body. See section 130 of the D&C.

[_DarkHelmet]

But one thing that has never and will never change in the church is the prophet is never wrong. This is the one and only core, unchanging doctrine in the church.

[_sock puppet]

The Mormon godhood has morphed from
1-its early reflections of typical Protestant thought in 1830 as a Trinitarian concept (Book of Mormon) to
2-three distinct beings (elohim the father, jehovah the son, and the holy ghost) united in a singular purpose with jehovah having received a body during his mortal probation but not elohim (LoF) to

Just so you know there really is no distinction between 1 and 2. The Trinity is that they are three separate persons in one substance, and that Jesus lived within a mortal body while the Father did not. The only significance here is that we accept the notion that Jehovah, by and large, is the pre-mortal Christ.

3-elohim too having a physical body and having been like mortals like us (KFS) to

This came up before the KFS which was 1844. I believe it was sometime in the late 1830s when Snow offered the couplet that gets modern play by critics. I believe he said he thought of it after conversing with Joseph Sr. who was the patriarch of the church.

4-BY speculating about Adam being elohim and the Adam experience being how elohim got his body, to
5-elohim has a body, but wasn't Adam.

See Darth J's response.

I suspect that #2 occurred due to JSJr wanting to distinguish LDS teachings from those of other sects and #3 was his nature of god opus. (Interesting how the first visions metamorphosis followed a coincident timeline and progression.)

I suspect some of the details worked out and evolved from the common understanding of the Christians of that era because they didn't htink much of it until the questions started pouring in that didn't quite make a lot of sense.

#4 might have been Brother Brigham's best effort at actually trying to be a "prophet", during his 33 year tenure from 1844-1877.

How did #5 come about? Was it the Rise of the earliest version of Mopologists?

It was long before BY's presidency when Elohim was said to have a body. See section 130 of the D&C.

So from your responses, you clearly admit to an evolution in early Mormon history of its concept of god/godhead?

Do you acknowledge that JSJr retrofitted the first vision with a second divine personage?

[_stemelbow]

So from your responses, you clearly admit to an evolution in early Mormon history of its concept of god/godhead?

i think its clear Joseph Smith and many others didn't bring up the type of questions that prompted things like the council at Nicea in the 4th century. Those type of questions seemed to start coming a little after 1830. When they did, ideas were spouted out, thrown around and concepts were settled upon. The formulations that LDS normally use to describe the Godhead appeared to be developed then. Of course the BY Adam-God thing threw a bit of a wrench into it for a while.

Do you acknowledge that JSJr retrofitted the first vision with a second divine personage?

not really. I think it clear he didn't think the first vision was of too many people's business there for a while, and I think his earliest explanations of it were not meant to be exhaustive or all the descriptive.

[_sock puppet]

So from your responses, you clearly admit to an evolution in early Mormon history of its concept of god/godhead?

i think its clear Joseph Smith and many others didn't bring up the type of questions that prompted things like the council at Nicea in the 4th century. Those type of questions seemed to start coming a little after 1830. When they did, ideas were spouted out, thrown around and concepts were settled upon. The formulations that LDS normally use to describe the Godhead appeared to be developed then. Of course the BY Adam-God thing threw a bit of a wrench into it for a while.

Do you acknowledge that JSJr retrofitted the first vision with a second divine personage?

not really. I think it clear he didn't think the first vision was of too many people's business there for a while, and I think his earliest explanations of it were not meant to be exhaustive or all the descriptive.

I for one, stem, appreciate the more clear, succinct and readable writing by you today.

[_Darth J]

I think it clear he didn't think the first vision was of too many people's business there for a while, and I think his earliest explanations of it were not meant to be exhaustive or all the descriptive.

How is that "clear"?

Why was his call to be a prophet just his own, personal business right up until there was a controversy over authority in the church?

Why is the First Vision---in its canonized form---the first thing about Joseph Smith that LDS missionaries tell investigators in modern times, if the First Vision was just Joseph Smith's own, personal business?

Who was in the specific audiences he was addressing when he gave differing accounts of the First Vision, and why did he need to omit or add self-contradictory details to these various audiences?

If Joseph Smith was so stricken by the passage about "if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God," and was trying to find out which church was the right one, then why would he at one point say that his motive for going to pray was to find out if God existed at all?