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.
How so? Even trinitarians believe they are two separate and distinct Persons. If Joseph Smith was a trinitarian (or exposed to such) before the first vision, this would not be a suprise to him.
bcspace wrote:How so? Even trinitarians believe they are two separate and distinct Persons. If Joseph Smith was a trinitarian (or exposed to such) before the first vision, this would not be a suprise to him.
eh, maybe i'm not using the terms correctly. Hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying anyways.
This is from hinckley in the oct. '98 conference:
Since the time of the First Vision people have raised this question, and they continue to raise it and will do so for so long as they believe in the God of their tradition, while we bear testimony of the God of modern revelation.
The Prophet Joseph declared, “It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 345).
“We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost” (A of F 1:1). This first article of faith epitomizes our doctrine. We do not accept the Athanasian Creed. We do not accept the Nicene Creed, nor any other creed based on tradition and the conclusions of men.
We do accept, as the basis of our doctrine, the statement of the Prophet Joseph Smith that when he prayed for wisdom in the woods, “the light rested upon me [and] I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is my Beloved Son. Hear Him!” (Joseph Smith—H 1:17).
Two beings of substance were before him. He saw them. They were in form like men, only much more glorious in their appearance. He spoke to them. They spoke to him. They were not amorphous spirits. Each was a distinct personality. They were beings of flesh and bone whose nature was reaffirmed in later revelations which came to the Prophet.
Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
eh, maybe I'm not using the terms correctly. Hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying anyways.
I really don't think your OP question has any basis. For example, you claim the the Book of Mormon resembles traditional Christianity on this matter but you fail to take into account what LDS believe is meant by 'one' or 'same' or 'in'. We believe it to be the same as how the Bible makes use of those terms. They are 'of the same mind' and 'standing next to in support' of each other. There is not a hint of trinitarianism in the Bible or in other LDS scripture.
bcspace wrote:...you fail to take into account what LDS believe is meant by 'one' or 'same' or 'in'...
I know what current LDS beliefs are. However, I'm referring specifically to Joseph Smith's (and the church at that time's) beliefs. Which, given what I've posted above, seem to be quite different. That's the whole basis for this thread. Why were they different, given Joseph Smith's claim to actually seeing god and Jesus as separate and distinct beings of substance (of flesh and bone)?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Jason Bourne wrote: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.
Here it is:;
Being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and there bowed down before the Lord, under a realizing sense (if the Bible be true) ask and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened, seek and you shall find, and again, if any man lack wisdom, let of God who giveth to all men liberally & upbraideth not. Information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination to obtain it, I called on the Lord for the first time in the place above stated, or in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray My tongue seemed to be swoolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some one walking towards me. I strove again to pray, but could not; the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprang upon my feet and looked round, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking. I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed; I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me, and filled me with un-speakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee. He testified also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication. . .
I think it is fair to conclude this refers to two personages that are likely the Father and Son.
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."
The Book of Moses and Abraham certainly diverge on the creation account. But we also get the idea that God is corporeal from it.
Moses 6:8-9 8 Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; 9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God.
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.
Yes but they use the 1838 account so I guess we agree that it was not crystel clear from the start. At least as I noted till probably 1835.
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
Yes Joseph Smith. But why? He could have had a theophany and saw two embodies persons and not known that the Father was not an embodied spirit but rather corporeal. As noted, as early as 1831 the Book of Moses indicates God created man after the image of his body. Maybe he did believe God was corporeal earlier than 1838.