How early did Joseph Smith begin teaching God & Jesus were 2 peopl

[_Who Knows]

If Joseph Smith really did see 2 separate and distinct personages (god and Jesus) in the first vision, why did he only begin teaching the plurality of gods in the late 1830s? Why does the Book of Mormon sound like the traditional christian view of the godhead (i'm not sure of the correct terminology here - trinitarian or monotheism views?)? The same goes for the JST of the Bible. Same goes for the book of moses scripture. Same goes for the lectures on faith. Same goes for the early versions of the first vision.

I mean, if he really did know, back in 1820, that god and Jesus were 2 separate personages, how can this be reconciled with all of the above?

Just seems like a pretty big smoking gun to me.

[_Sethbag]

You might think so, but you'd be disappointed. You can rely on it that smart Mormons have already spent a lot of time in the past inventing rationales for it all.

Here's an example:

Jesus is the Father through divine investiture of authority.
Jesus is the Father because they are one in purpose.
Jesus is the Father because through adoption by means of the atonement.
etc.

[_Runtu]

There are no smoking guns, as long as there are explanations and excuses.

[_Who Knows]

I'm not sure how anyone can get around it. During the 1840s, Joseph Smith was pretty outspoken on the fact that god and Jesus were 2 separate individuals (see follet discourse). Even the scriptures produced in Joseph Smith's later life (latter half of Book of Abraham) are pretty clear on the plurality of gods. Prior to his 1838 first vision account, it was all pretty hazy. So what changed between the mid and early 1830s, and the latter 1830s and early 1840s? Especially given the fact that the church claims that Joseph Smith noted that god and Jesus were 2 separate individuals way back in 1820. I don't get it.

[_Who Knows]

I'm not sure how anyone can get around it. During the 1840s, Joseph Smith was pretty outspoken on the fact that god and Jesus were 2 separate individuals (see follet discourse). Even the scriptures produced in Joseph Smith's later life (latter half of Book of Abraham) are pretty clear on the plurality of gods. Prior to his 1838 first vision account, it was all pretty hazy. So what changed between the mid and early 1830s, and the latter 1830s and early 1840s? Especially given the fact that the church claims that Joseph Smith noted that god and Jesus were 2 separate individuals way back in 1820. I don't get it.

[_Runtu]

I'm not sure how anyone can get around it. During the 1840s, Joseph Smith was pretty outspoken on the fact that god and Jesus were 2 separate individuals (see follet discourse). Even the scriptures produced in Joseph Smith's later life (latter half of Book of Abraham) are pretty clear on the plurality of gods. Prior to his 1838 first vision account, it was all pretty hazy. So what changed between the mid and early 1830s, and the latter 1830s and early 1840s? Especially given the fact that the church claims that Joseph Smith noted that god and Jesus were 2 separate individuals way back in 1820. I don't get it.

Well, you're right, of course. The doctrine of the Godhead definitely evolved. I suspect that it starts with Joseph's study of Hebrew in the mid-1830s, when we have him expounding on Elohim as being plural. But I believe others have delved into this issue. I haven't.

[_Jason Bourne]

If Joseph Smith really did see 2 separate and distinct personages (god and Jesus) in the first vision, why did he only begin teaching the plurality of gods in the late 1830s? Why does the Book of Mormon sound like the traditional christian view of the godhead (I'm not sure of the correct terminology here - trinitarian or monotheism views?)? The same goes for the JST of the Bible. Same goes for the book of moses scripture. Same goes for the lectures on faith. Same goes for the early versions of the first vision.

I mean, if he really did know, back in 1820, that god and Jesus were 2 separate personages, how can this be reconciled with all of the above?

Just seems like a pretty big smoking gun to me.

It is not quite that simple. Did the lectures teach one God? I think it was more binatarian. In 1835 there is an account for the FV that teaches two persons who came. The Book of Moses seems to teach God an Christ as separate. It also has strong indications of a corporeal God. Even with it all the Mormon doctirne of God from the beginning seems to teach that God is at minimum and embodied spirit. See the vision of the Brother of Jared in the book of Ether.

On the other hand some of the Book of Mormon is distinctly trinitarian and some argue part are modalistic. Early revelations in the D&C are more traditional in their language about God. See D&C 30 1-30 for example.

So while you have a point it is also an issue that is not that clear. But it does seems from 1835 forward that the teachings that God, Jesus and the HG were separate and that God was corporeal started being settled.

[_Sethbag]

You'd think at least some of those issues would have been settled by the First Vision, wouldn't you Jason? Only, the First Vision itself wasn't settled for many years, so who knows.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm not sure how anyone can get around it. During the 1840s, Joseph Smith was pretty outspoken on the fact that god and Jesus were 2 separate individuals (see follet discourse). Even the scriptures produced in Joseph Smith's later life (latter half of Book of Abraham) are pretty clear on the plurality of gods. Prior to his 1838 first vision account, it was all pretty hazy. So what changed between the mid and early 1830s, and the latter 1830s and early 1840s? Especially given the fact that the church claims that Joseph Smith noted that god and Jesus were 2 separate individuals way back in 1820. I don't get it.

The later developments about can be argues that God had not revealed everything. Really I think the biggest problem is the FV 1832 account vs. others and the 5th lecture on faith. But even then it can be argues that while God saw the Father and Son he may not have known that the Father had a body at that time. That was revealed later. Joseph Smith did say in the KFD that we had supposed that God was God for all eterntiy but he would refute that. He also said in 1838 that whether there was one God or many would be revealed. Another troubling statement is where he said in about 1844 for 15 years he had taught the plurality of Gods at least as far as the Father, Son and HG go.

[_Who Knows]

In 1835 there is an account for the FV that teaches two persons who came.

Yeah, but he didn't identify them. They could have been angels for all we know (which would be consistent with earlier accounts as well). At the least, he didn't identify god and Jesus as being 2 separate individuals, like he did in the 1838 account.

The Book of Moses seems to teach God an Christ as separate.

I originally gave the book of moses as an example that Joseph Smith's views of god had changed over time. For example, in the creation account in the book of moses, we read "And I, God, said: Let there be light; and there was light." But then in the Book of Abraham account produced in the 1840s, we read "And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light."

Also, Moses 1:6 says: And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

So while you have a point it is also an issue that is not that clear.

That's my point! It's not clear. It should have been crystal clear. The first vision account is what the church relies on to demonstrate the god and Jesus are 2 separate/distinct persons - each with their own body.

But even then it can be argues that while [Joseph Smith] saw the Father and Son he may not have known that the Father had a body at that time.

I think you meant Joseph Smith, not god, right? Anyhow, I suppose this is your one out, if you really wanna buy it. lol.