First Vision: Did Joseph hallucinate?

[HiJolly]

Originally Posted by MrNirom

You know.. I got married the other day. When I was talking to my sister about it.. I knew she liked details.. So I told her all the things I could remember.. How my wifes eyes sparkled etc.

When I spoke with my Brother.. telling him about the ceremony.. I did not include all the same details. I knew that my Brother wasn't interested in that.

Now if I wrote down these two accounts.. people would wonder if I am talking about the same ceremony.

Joseph did the same.. he adjusted the story.. or the details.. depending on who he was talking to.

Make sense? He learned over time.. that people did not respond well to the "all the churches are an abomination" and so he did not offer that detail... or toned it down a bit. Maybe he noticed that people got turned off.. when he mentioned the evil spirit that overcame him... and so.. he decided not to mention that part when telling the story.

Each time someone tells a story.. it is really never the same when you are speaking to different crowds.

Good example!

HiJolly

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

The Trinity.....how do you make sense of the sensless?

I suspect the Trinity does not make sense to you is because you don't actually know what the Trinity doctrine is.

Who was the Savior praying tin Gethsemenee? Why was he praying to himself so often....... never made sense to me.

He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup away from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” (Mark 14:36)

I think it is quite obvious that the Son (Jesus, 2nd person of the Trinity) was praying to the Father (1st person of the Trinity). I don't see how that is so difficult to understand.

M.

[rameumptom]

The problem with the Trinity is that NO ONE can understand it. It is by definition a mystery.

Too many "Trinitarians" do not believe in the Trinity, but in modalism, which was condemned by St Augustine as heresy. Modalism is easier to understand. The description Maureen gives is a balance between a Trinity and modalistic viewpoint. Most I've spoken with, however, give modalist descriptions.

John 17:3 tells us that eternal life is to know the Father and the Son. How can we know them if by definition, the Trinity is "unknowable" and "incomprehensible."

For my mind, I must logically be able to understand what and who God is, or I could never know him for salvation's sake. This is why the Calvinists are convinced it will be a limited atonement, because we cannot know God, except he forcibly changes us into one of his chosen (free will is not an option).

[Dale]

Originally Posted by bytor2112

The Trinity.....how do you make sense of the sensless? Who was the Savior praying tin Gethsemenee? Why was he praying to himself so often....... never made sense to me. Josephs prayer opened Heaven once again and a flood of truthwashed away alot of confusion.

With the Trinity idea don't misunderstand it as saying Jesus prayed to himself. Jesus the man was praying to God. And within the divine being three distinct centers of personal consciousness exist. So the distinct parts of God are aware of the other parts.

The idea of three separate beings does not fit the historic mono-theism of the current version of the Old Testament. (Deut.6:4:Isa.43:10) Try as i might i cannot see the 2nd person in the Godhead as claiming to be anything in the Old Testament , but what would make himself the very same Father he prayed to. Paul in 1 Cor. 8:5,6 merely expands upon the one God concept to treat the one God the Father and one Lord Jesus as the same Old Testament God.

With the Book of Mormon in Ether 3:15 it has a pre-incarnate spirit form for Jesus. The text left some ambiguity intact as it does not say the Father had similar spirit form. Certainly from my study of the Book of Mormon i do not get the idea they felt God and Christ were separate beings. They never taught more than one God. They never taught God the Father has a body, but only the Father we now know as Jesus now having a body. Though the text does make distinctons within that being they considered God that can fit the Trinity idea or the idea of distinct beings.

Joseph Smith can indeed see the personage of the Son in the First vision. Though his personality has to if they are one God as in the Trinity idea not be separate from the Fathers. In the Trinity idea a part of God is in Jesus created spirit form and physical body , but not the whole being of God. God in the Trinity idea as to his being is supposed to be everywhere present. But i do not see the idea of Joseph Smith seeing the resurrected Jesus in vision as contradicting the idea of the Trinity. Only Gods omni-present spirit part has to be uncreated and omni-present, and it would not prevent God from having adding to Jesus uncreated personality a pre-incarnate form.

As a member of the Community of Christ following the teaching of the 1835 Lectures on Faith see the Father as a personage of spirit. The lectures was published by the church in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

Through common consent of our members in the RLDS Church we kept that above teaching. In the 1890's we held the idea of the plurality of Gods officially as an idea of man. We had some members that favored a bit of the idea and a decision needed to be made about it. Based on literal readings of Psalm 90:2 and Isa.43:10 we felt a need to teach only one uncreated God that never became God. By affirming that idea we rejected any idea that the Father can be seen with a physical body. We never interpreted the First Vision as Joseph Smith seeing two supreme Gods with bodies as that would conflict with Biblical mono-theism.

The RLDS who favored the idea of distinct persons in God simply equivocated on Jesus Deity. By doing that it was felt possible to make the Father alone the true and only supreme God Joseph Smith saw in his vision. It gave Jesus Christ the title of God, but did not make him more than one God which we felt would conflict with Book of Mormon teaching. So a book i have by an member of my church said Joseph Smith saw two personages in his vision but not two Gods. (Godhead V.H. Fisher, reprinted by Restoration Bookstore) Though i recall the same book calling Jesus a God as one of the Godhead.

The idea of Joseph Smith seeing a personage may, or may not preclude a Trinitarian idea of God. The Father could have assumed temporary form for the occasion. He could have also had created for himself a spirit form like was created for the pre-incarnate, pre-mortal Jesus. None of what i know about what he saw requires me to believe God had a beginning as God, or was once a man. Feeling Joseph Smith turned apostate in Nauvoo we just do not base our ideas of God on his King Follett sermon, or his speculative writings LDS later canonized with their edition of the D.&C. We felt such ideas did not clearly fit our canonized scripture so never got mixed up in such ideas as part of our official teaching.

Our difficulty was that the scriptures do not equivocate on Jesus Deity. Since we rejected some of Joseph Smiths later ideas as being of man, or the Devil we had to make a theological decision. We aready rejected the ideas i mentioned above that originated in the Nauvoo period of church history. To me if one wishes to hold God and Christ as two beings, but not to supreme Gods one has to equivocate on Jesus deity. But if your testimony becomes that such equivocation is improper when compared with the scriptures it only left us with the option of the Trinity idea. The only other option we felt that we rightly rejected through our study of the scriptures would be embracing a basic plurality of Gods idea.

With my church we have leading critics of our church like Ed Decker, and Hank Hannegraff who accept us as Trinitarian. To me although i favor the idea of the Father and Son being distinct persons i see wisdom in my leadership teaching the Trinity. It then wisely leaves room for having common ground with other Christians in atleast that one area. LDS can't get critics like we do who consider us almost Christian. LDS always through having to be different about God through that idea make God an easy target for Anti-Mormon mocking. My church through our views of God hardly if ever get our beloved God mocked.

Though Anti-RLDS critics try and say Joseph Smith through error about God could not have earlier been a true prophet. Though i do not see Deut.13:1-5 as precluding a true prophet from getting into other Gods later in life. The plurality of Gods idea teaches a different God than Moses would have considered his only God he knew about.

[VisionOfLehi]

The idea of three separate beings does not fit the historic mono-theism of the current version of the Old Testament. (Deut.6:4:Isa.43:10) Try as i might i cannot see the 2nd person in the Godhead as claiming to be anything in the Old Testament , but what would make himself the very same Father he prayed to. Paul in 1 Cor. 8:5,6 merely expands upon the one God concept to treat the one God the Father and one Lord Jesus as the same Old Testament God.

No, but it fits very well with ancient Jewish knowledge.

I've done some looking up on Trinitarianism. Probably not enough, but it still doesn't fit. There's no reason for God to exist in three personalities or consciousnesses like that. There just isn't.

It's nice to think about, and it's one way to try and reconcile Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but it doesn't make sense. I'm a pretty good abstract thinker... but it still doesn't fit. It seems more like a concept designed to please more people, and to keep them from asking too many questions (back in the day, anyway.)

[MrNirom]

If Jesus (being in spirit form) was the God of the Old Testament.. would he not also be the God of the Book of Mormon?

I don't know why man insists on complicating matters.

I was talking with my wife last night and a revelation came to me.

Christians had to create a better God than their multi God believing friends. I mean.. how impressive is it to have a God that looks like us.. and has a body of flesh and bone? That just isn't "God" enough.. So let us go and create an image of our God.. that is superior than all other Gods.. and the only way we can do this is to make sure that our God is not so easy to understand. For if he were.. he would not be God.

[Dale]

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.

[Maureen]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

The problem with the Trinity is that NO ONE can understand it. It is by definition a mystery.

I disagree. I understand the doctrine of the Trinity the best I can; that is why I believe it. No one can understand God completely, because God is an infinite divine being, while mankind is finite and human.

Too many "Trinitarians" do not believe in the Trinity, but in modalism, which was condemned by St Augustine as heresy. Modalism is easier to understand.

It is true that many people, not necessarily trinity believers, confuse the trinity with modalism.

The description Maureen gives is a balance between a Trinity and modalistic viewpoint. Most I've spoken with, however, give modalist descriptions.

I disagree again. If you look at both definitions you can see a distinct difference:

Modalism:

In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism, modalistic monarchianism, or modal monarchism) is the nontrinitarian belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.

Modalism - Information from Reference.com

Trinity

The Trinity is a Christian doctrine, stating that God is one being who exists, simultaneously and eternally, as a mutual indwelling of three persons:[1] the Father, the Son (incarnate as Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. Since the beginning of the third century[2] the doctrine of the Trinity has been stated as "that the one God exists in three Persons and one substance, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit".[3] Trinitarianism, belief in the Trinity, is a mark of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and all the mainstream traditions arising from the Protestant Reformation, such as Anglicanism, Lutheranism and Presbyterianism; and the Trinity has been described as "the central dogma of Christian theology".[3]

Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

M.

[Islander]

A lot of the dissenting opinions are part of the traditions inherited from the Nicaean council and not necessarily from the description on the NT.

For the uninitiated and without any help from the theologians, the NT offers multiple opportunities to believe that the Father and the Son are two distinct and different personages. The scriptures are sufficiently transparent to discern that Jesus proclaims himself the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lamb of God and working and preaching/teaching the kingdom on behalf of his Father. Further along, Paul and others describe the Lamb sitting at the right hand of God.

They felt FORCED to come up with a theological explanation for the trinity because of the monotheistic nature of the OT and the absolute mandate of YHW for Israel not to worship any other gods. Now, in the same OT, YHW proclaims that he is the Savior, the Redeemer, the Creator. The same attributes and claims that were made by Jesus later in the NT. So, they HAD to come up with a theological rather than natural explanation and the claim of a mystery. But that is not how the scriptures read. I suggest that the Spirit would lead most (without exposure to prejudicial theological theories) to believe that the trinity is made out of 3 distinct personages rather than 1 mysterious God that requires a PhD in divinity to explain itself.

I grew up in an island in the middle of nowhere without teachers of religion of any kind. Over my dinner table and without any help and reading an old tattered bible, my grandmother said "YHW is Jesus and, Jesus is the Son of God-the-Father-of-ALL spirits. And the Holy Ghost speaks the truth to our hearts when man won't."

I think the academic debate was put to rest with the testimony of Joseph. but friends, you are free to believe as you wish.

[Maureen]

Here are three examples of the Trinity through LDS scripture:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 28:19)

Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen. (D&C 20:28)

M.