Some are proposing that the idea of a distinct Father and Son Gods was once doctrine in ancient Judaism. The Book of Mormon does not teach them as Gods as to them there was only one God. Any theology that may have pre-dated them they seemingly abandoned in favor of later developing mono-theism. I do not reject the research, and use some of it myself. It is evidence Joseph Smiths idea of Gods may have been a restoration of ancient ideas. But i am cautious with the research as research can be wrong.
The real problem with the research is i cannot prove it from a KJV Bible. And FARMs has been dare i say unwise not to get into print books of essays that explore such topics. The way they do such now is to rely on its Review of Books format way to much. I like FAIR better. I just happily bought a copy their new book by Mike Ash entitled Shaken Faith Syndrome. I like the format of such books to handle issues. But with this research i have no such book yet. One would have to become an expert on the research to present and defend it properly.
I think Margaret Barkers The Great Angel book presents her research. But i have not bought a copy. I may have remembered the title way wrong.
I do not by the way see the Trinity idea as strict mono-theism. Orthodox Jewish mono-theists also see the Trinity idea a qualifying mono-theism. The idea of distinct persons within God is to them and me is close to the idea of Gods. This is not supposed to be a problem for the Trinity, but its a problem i am honest about.
I myself see the idea of them being aware of each other as making them almost defineable as persons. Those who wrote the creeds did not mean they were modern persons when they called them persons. They meant to avoid the idea of Gods that they were like the persons an actor would play in a play. But the distinct parts of God though not supposed to be separate are not like the persons of an actor plays because communication takes place between the parts of God.
Jesus himself in Mark 12:29 affirms the mono-theism of his day as true doctrine. It is perfectly ok in light of the scriptures to see the Father and Son as the same being God. It is perfectly ok to pray to them as the same God. It is ok to worship them as the same God. Anything else that goes beyond that is getting into subjects true or false man is not ready for.
The policy Hyrum Smith put out before Joseph Smiths death was to ex-communicate elders for teaching mysteries. He felt if God commanded it such teaching was ok as in the case of his brother. But he felt without a specific commandment such an early LDS was guilty of false teaching. Basically he felt teaching God was a personage of spirit was the only doctrine the elders should be getting into. The Community of Christ just continued a policy Hyrum Smith and his brother started. The letter to Brother Hewitt if i recall his name right is online at the last new article to be added in the Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy section at the Restoration Bookstore.
To me the difficulty in getting into teaching the mysteries because of opposition is the best reason not to share everything you know to mankind. To me not getting into mysteries is based on the same wise reason LDS cannot talk about certain temple things. As long as one has nasty people out to demean the sacred its best to not share all the mysteries or sacred things you know.
And what if your mystery came from man, or the Devil? Prophets can be very wrong. I have seen a quote from i think Orson Hyde where Joseph Smith suggested a key to test his revelations. He knew the Devil and man could produce also produce a revelation. So his idea was to let all the leading quorums approve the revelation before it going to the people. That way the revelation ran into a serious concern snag in discussion it could be stopped before going to the people. The idea is if it passed discussion and got approved for being given to the people it was of God.
|