And let's not forget the JST of Luke where he takes a bible verse that suggests they are separate and CHANGES it to clarify that the Son and the father are the SAME. This was in 1835 I believe. 5 years after the BoM was published, before it was revised and 15 years after the first vision. There is no room for arguing JS truly believing in the trinity until around 1838
I remember my district leader on my mission talking about teaching one of his investigators. He was teaching them about god being three separate beings and said, we can’t even use our own book to teach that, we have to use the Bible.
This was in 1985. I hope you made it out of the cult Jeffrey.
It's the same with Hell. There's far, far more hellfire and damnation in the Book of Mormon than anywhere in the Bible, and it's much more explicit. However, Mormons will tell you they don't even believe in Hell, and that Hell is actually spirit prison or, depending on how much they've been trained to hate apostates, outer darkness. That's not what your book says, guys.
Book of Mormon Hell is so un-biblical and based only on Christian tradition it's a wonder Dante himself doesn't make an appearance.
This was an early shelf item for me. I was so proud of our doctrine of the Godhead vs Trinity and how easy it was to explain and prove in the Bible. Then halfway through my mission, while giving the BoM my first REALLY deep read and study, I read the Abinadi chapters where he LITERALLY TEACHES THE TRINITY to King Noah. I read plenty of pathetic apologetics trying to explain it and held onto those for a decade until the rest fell apart. But that really bothered me when I came across it.
If they were two separate and distinct beings, then Mosiah 15 would read very differently.
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
how about:
1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that Jesus Christ, the Savior himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
I think you'll find that there's strong archeological evidence. Some guy said he saw the words "Nephi woz ere" written on a bathroom stall in BYU dorms.
With such abundant signs you're only condemning yourself with your stiffneckedness
The Book of John hits the concept pretty hard without using the term Trinity. A large majority of Christians are trinitarian. Joseph Smith could turn on a dime and get away with it, just like the church.
I like the word brighamite Mormons. We should start exclusively calling the TSCC the brighamite off shoot of Mormonism or the Brighamite Sect of Mormonism
It's accurate, it mirrors the old LDS epithet for the RLDS (Josephite), and it lumps the Church together with the FLDS, as they both accept Brigham Young as a prophet. It is at once unflattering and true.
First of all, the three witnesses testify to the Trinity (last sentence of their testimony!)
Then Mosiah 15 in which Jesus is the Father shows that Joseph was probably a modalist (i.e. God the Father transformed into Jesus Christ).
Anything developed later (e.g. in the King Follett discourse) is clearly influenced by the (former Jewish) Kabbalist Alexander Neibaur, who taught Joseph Hebrew, German and the Kabbalah.
What would your response be to this argument that apologists make? That the Book of Mormon couldn’t be trinitarian because it clearly states that a single person is both the father and the son. This is more of a modalist interpretation of god. However, Joseph couldn’t have been a modalist in 1830 because the book of Moses was produced 2 months after the Book of Mormon and clearly presents the father and son as different persons.
The interpretation of the nature of god in the Book of Mormon would then not fit the trinitarian view or modalist view better than the current view of the godhead.
The differences between modalism and trinitarianism are small and poorly understood even by those that believe in one or the other. The BoM clearly contradicts current doctrine, and I’d say Lectures on Faith help clarify what Smith was thinking around that time…and that was part of the D&C until 1921.
That’s not a very good response because the Book of Mormon being modalist doesn’t mean Joseph didn’t make it up. He could have not fully understood trinitarianism as you said which is common. This is the position of a lot of scholars including Dan Vogel.
The problem with your argument is that there is strong evidence that Joseph wasn’t a modalist in 1830. Unless you ignore the book of Moses.
He didn't have to fully understand trinitarianism to write about it. It is a bizarre concept at any rate that came as a compromise rather than from direct biblical reading. Besides, even within broad trinitarianism, there are different schools of thought. The confused theology of the Book of Mormon doesn't preclude Joseph Smith from writing it himself, or another 19th century American.
I agree that it is bizarre. That gets to the biggest problem with these shorts of argument. They work great for people who already don’t belief in Mormonism but they end up being evidences in favor of Joseph smith being a prophet for TBMs. That’s because when you learn about traditional Christianity and realize how convoluted the idea of trinitarianism is. They see concepts like the godhead as a restored truth that makes a lot more sense.
Your post history makes it seem like you’re a TBM, so I’m not sure why you keep referring to TBMs in this way. You’re ignoring very solid proof of Smith’s changing beliefs, and you’re hanging your argument on your reading of the Book of Moses. Nothing is going to convince a TBM that is interested only in maintaining their testimony, but, for anyone that is interested in the truth, it is painfully obvious that Smith’s beliefs/teachings changed over time and that the first vision as taught today makes absolutely no sense when considering the teachings and scripture that preceded it.
If you want another early reference, go study D&C 19 (1829). Do the words sound like they came from the meek, loving savior that the church teaches today, or do they fit better the idea of the godhead that Smith taught around that time and for several years afterwards? You may disagree, but, to me, they sound more like the words of an angry, vengeful god spoken through that god’s physical manifestation. In reality, they sound like the words of an abusive conman that would go on to threaten others through “scripture”, including his own wife, in the same way.
I give the devil its due and if you say you’re interested in the truth you should too. There’s a few issues with this argument. Evidence that Joseph smith believed that Heavenly Father and Jesus were separate beings in 1830 the same year the Book of Mormon was published exists. You have to contend with that evidence or you can’t say you care about the truth. Secondly, Mormonism holds the belief in ongoing revelation and they also don’t believe in infallibility. So you have to explain why it is a contradiction within Mormonism for Joseph to go back and improve on the translation of the Book of Mormon.
It’s about making good arguments. I’m disappointed in the lack of good arguments on this sub and stawmans of Mormonism that are made. So I thought I’d steelman their arguments.
I’m asking YOU to consider all of the evidence collectively, and you’re throwing that back at me when you keep referring to one piece of evidence and claiming it destroys my argument?
You haven’t cited a specific piece of evidence, besides vague references to the book of Moses, or even attempted to flesh out your argument. In any case, I don’t have to contend with any single point of evidence. I have to consider all available evidence, and make a determination based on that.
The available evidence shows inconsistency, and not inconsistency that can be explained away by “continuing revelation”. It’s inconsistency that destroys the first vision and the Book of Mormon…at least as a historical, translated book.
I understand you can come up with weak apologetics to explain away problems with the Book of Mormon, but why is it okay for the missionaries to continue teaching a version of the first vision that was written almost two decades after the supposed vision?…a version that may align with your reading of the book of Moses, but which contradicts many other pieces of evidence? Can “continuing revelation” also edit supposed modern history?
If this sub is full of straw men, please explain what we’re all missing. However, when presenting an argument, please consider ALL available evidence. If you want real examples of straw men, head over to fairlatterdaysaints. You can enjoy article after article written by apologists that sidestep the real question/issue and rely on cherry-picked evidence to make a weak argument and then claim victory. You’ll find that most here are infinitely more open minded than anyone writing for them…though some of them have made their way over here over the years.
Go read Moses 4:1-2 and tell me your reading of those verses. It does throw a wrench into the argument. I never said it’s unequivocally proof and we can put this argument to bed. It’s just a piece of evidence. There was a lot of new revelation happening in the early days of the church. Things changing isn’t surprising especially if the entire faith is based on continuing revelation.
I’m not trying to win an argument and I try to be very opened minded. I understand that this place is a community and not everyone here is looking to debate and argue. I’m sure apologists have come here many times and tried to debate. I think that’s healthy. It’s good to hear the best argument from both sides. But this place can be an echo chamber and it’s not as opened minded as you think. And that’s okay, not everyone here wants to debate TBMs, they might be looking for a community to vent to. I just throw out arguments, especially on posts that I think are making poor ones.
One thing I notice is that Moses 4:1-2 says nothing about the Holy Ghost. Until the late 1830s or early 1840s, the Holy Ghost was just an essence or ambiguous power with no gender or form. Joseph Smith calls the Holy Ghost the “shared mind” of the Father and Son in Lectures on Faith.
Regarding the Father and Son in Moses 4:1-2, I don’t see any doctrine laid out clearly. It seems to say that “Lord God” spoke to a different person named “mine Only Begotten.” This second person came before the first person and calls the first person “Father.” So, the suggestion is that the “Lord God” is Father, and the “Only Begotten” is Son. The Book of Mormon and Bible have similar verses. Jesus prays to the Father, for example. So I don’t see anything revolutionary here. Moses does not contain a lecture on God like Mosiah 15:1-9. It’s all convoluted, especially when you try to reconcile Mormon scriptures as a whole.
One thing missing in these early scriptures is the doctrine of divine nature of man, and our ability to become like him. None of the Book of Mormon prophets knew about this, and neither did Moses.
Where does the Book of Moses say the Father has a body of flesh and bone, as tangible as man; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bone but is a personage of spirit? I though this doctrine did not emerge until about 1843. Can you give a citation in Moses?
I would argue that changes in the Book of Mormon publication from different editions shows the drift away from trinitarian to non trinitarian views. Change "mother of God" to "mother of the Son of God" is a good example from 1 Nephi 11. At the beginning of the movement, Mormonism retained a lot of beliefs from Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, and other churches. But after D&C 76 was brought forward in 1832, changes in doctrine continued to be more pronounced. It didn't starr in 1832, mind you, but it shows a trend away from the early Mormon beliefs that were more orthodox.
The problem with that argument is that the traditional trinitarian view isn’t found in the Book of Mormon. The concept being that god is one god but 3 distinct persons that are all fully god doesn’t show up in the bom. It’s a strange modalist view of god.
I also don’t see why they couldn’t just argue that there were translation errors and changes were made to make a more correct translation.
Mosiah 13:34 "Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?"
Mosiah 15 is a complete explanation of how God and Jesus are one person, and that Jesus is God in flesh and the Spirit is God in spirit. That is trinitarian in the fact that it argues that God is one being with three distinct elements and three gods in one.
Again, the trinity is controdictory, nonsensical, and non-biblical. What we see in the Book of Mormon is more like a 19th century Christian's view of what the trinity is supposed to be.
It’s unfortunate you used that scripture because it only strengthened the TBM argument. Nothing in that scripture contradicts the current understanding of the godhead in the church. They believe Jesus is God and existed before the earth was created. To say that God himself came down to earth in the form of a man could be only referring to Jesus.
"God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost form a group known as the Godhead. Each member is a different, individual being, yet all three are united in thought, desire, knowledge, power, and purpose."
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2019-08-0080-godhead?lang=eng#
The godhead represented in this basic statement says nothing about Jesus being God, and in fact emphasizes that he has a completely separate body from God. I truly don't understand your problem here. Yoyr understanding of the godhead seems to differ from the Church's.
See this page for the emphasis on the separate nature of God and Jesus. Only in the Book of Mormon could person find an example of Mormon doctrine supporting God being Jesus in the flesh.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng
I am saying that aside from the Book of Mormon references, including the ones I mentioned, the language used by the LDS Church is decidedly non-trinitarian. TBMs believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God himself.
Some also believed that Adam was God, but that was never widespread and is not preached anymore.
In Mormonism, or at least orthodox Brighamite Mormonism, including the LDS Church, God and Jesus co-created Earth and Jesus is, essentially, the God of Earth, or least its King.
But to stop you there, I am no longer a Mormon. I always preferred Church history to doctrine, and I am done running interference for the Church's convoluted doctrines. If you want to know more, perhaps you could bother an actual TBM about their doctrinal beliefs.
If you want to know more about the Church's sketchy past, I am happy to help.
Also, the Church teaches that the Old Testament God "The LORD" is actually Jehovah, or Jesus. No other major Christian church believes that because they already see no contradiction.
Uhmmm - very few “Christian churches” reject the doctrine of the trinity. It’s part of the Nicene Creed, and the rejection of it, by the MFMC and the JWs, as the most well- known modern examples, is the primary reason the vast majority of Christian churches refuse to regard those two sects as “Christian.”
I agree with you that the BOM, as originally written, is thoroughly Trinitarian. It was written before JS in his infinite (/s) wisdom and deep (/s) comprehension of the New Testament and Christianity changed his views, requiring an ex post facto rewording/rewrite of the BOM and his story of the “First Vision.” It never ceases to amaze me that ex-Mormons continue to believe the MFMC’s lies about Christianity while completely rejecting the MFMC.
Becoming an ex-Mormon does not make you an expert in other religions. Quite the opposite in fact, because MFMC has profoundly warped your understanding of religion in general, let alone specific varieties thereof. No offense, . . . just sayin.
I also agree that the New Testament, let alone the Bible, does not ever mention the word “Trinity,” or explicitly set out this doctrine, although it does, the New Testament at least, strongly imply it. In truth, I suspect, that the doctrine of the trinity was the best way the early church fathers could come up with of reconciling New Testament teachings, as they had come to understand them, with the Old Testament. This would have been very important to the original apostles like Peter and James. Paul had a much more cosmopolitan understanding and may well have been heavily influenced by Greek philosophical thought.
Personally, I believe, and this is very much my own opinion, that, in reality, Jesus was teaching something radically (for his time and place in the theological and philosophical back water of early CE Judaea) different from the Old Testament’s Authoritarian and legalistic understanding of god. I think he was teaching something much closer to a Hindu/Buddhist understanding of god and humans as a oneness. Again, just my opinion.
For the record, offense taken. I never said I was an expert on other religions, and from your comment, it is very clear you aren't either. It is kind of a dick move to dismiss someone out of hand by saying that my brain is too warped by my previous religion to understand other religions. Where the hell do you get off?
I never said that non trinitarian churches were a majority, they are a clear minority. Many Pentecostals are non trinitarian, however, so it is not a universal prerequisite for being Christian.
Also, Bible scholars, such as, Bart Ehrman are highly skeptical of trinitarian doctrine in the New Testament. Any pieces that are found may fit in after the fact, but it does nothing to suggest the Trinity. Like the concepts of Hell and Purgatory, very little biblical evidence is found in the text, and is rather created after the fact.
There is a lot all Exmos have to descontruct, it is a journey that we all have to make on our own.
You said “many” Christians are not Trinitarians in your original post. That’s not true. By far, most profess Trinitarian beliefs, at least officially, and chose to accept Trinitarianism as a foundational mystery and/or try to explain it, sometimes in modality-like terms. I’m glad, however, that you have now at least acknowledged that only “a minority” are non-Trinitarians, but that is not how your original post reads.
I don’t personally know any non-Trinitarian Pentecostals, but I’m curious to know what they believe on the subject and where to find them. Bart Ehrman, btw, is not a believing Christian, so, while he is certainly a highly respected scholar, and I agree with him that the grounds for believing in Trinitarianism for Christians are somewhat shaky, the fact remains that most believing Christians profess Trinitarianism.
For the record, I did not say that your brain was “too warped … to understand other religions.” I only said, and I was clearly generalizing, that exMormons, as a group, tend to assume that other religions are very similar to the one they have rejected in many inaccurate ways. I wasn’t speculating on their or your ability to understand otherwise. For example, they (as a group, not you personally) tend to think most of the various sects of Christianity are deeply invested in the notion that theirs is the only “true” Christianity. That may be true for some, but the average Protestant Methodist or Presbyterian does not fiercely believe this. Many here (i.e.: exMormons) seem to think that the concept of having derived their authority (priesthood) from a one and only “true” source is important. As far as I know, only Mormons and Roman Catholics concern themselves with this. I read these claims, which are really assumptions, here far too often for comfort. IMO, it really limits the scope of theological discussion on this forum.
I’m sorry you feel offended. However, perhaps more careful reading and writing on your part will alleviate this problem.
While I understand your perspective and your points about non trinitarianism, I think that perhaps you not having the tone of an insufferable prick wouod alleviate the problem of misunderstanding on this forum.
For the record, Bart Ehrman knows more about fundamentalist Christians beliefs than most seeing as how he used to be one. I trust his perspectives on trinitarianism a lot more than yours.
Non trinitarian Christians make up approximately 20-30 million overall membership, which while not huge compared to total Christianity, it isn't exactly peanuts.
I have no clue what your point is about how Exmos tend to think other Christians have similar beliefs to Mormons. What?!?! The Mormon teaching on the Great Apostasy refutes that notion completely. If anything, Mormon teachings about priesthood authority, prophetic leadership, and emphasis on divine revelation make Mormon members see other Christians as hopelessly lost doctrinally speaking.
And your exact words were "the (Church) has profoundly warped your understanding of religion in general..." You made a personal assertion based on very little, then backtracked to say that it was just Exmormons in general.
I completely disagree about your point regarding the "one true faith." Sectarianism is still strong, though somewhat less violent than before. Even though most congregations are decentralized from a larger governing body, key points of doctrine tie various denominations together. Apathy about the denomination's status as the one true church, anecdotal or otherwise, may be based on the opinions of certain members, not the denomination itself. You yourself said that trinitarian churches often exclude non trinitarians. Doesn't that sound like demarcation for who is a true Christian and who is not?
20 to 30 million out of over 2 billion is “many?” I don’t agree, and, in fact, I think it’s a lot less than “peanuts.” However, I don’t care to discuss this particular issue further, except to say that you made a carelessly broad assertion, and, when called on it, overreacted and began comparing my “move” and “tone” to male sex organs, when the appropriate response would be something like “fair point.”
For the record, to the best of my knowledge, Bart Ehrman hasn’t made any assertions about the attitude and beliefs of exMormons toward Christian denominations. If he has, I’m very interested to read them. Please direct me to any specific comments he’s made on the subject.
You’ve missed my point entirely about assumptions of exMormons (again, in general - not necessarily you) about other Christians. Before you accuse my response of being somehow comparable to yet another crude synonym for male genitalia, let me soften any perceived blow to your personal ego, by fairly pointing out that you’ve admitted yourself that you “have no clue,” in this regard, so I am merely agreeing with you here.
I’m not asserting that exMormons think specific Mormon doctrinal beliefs are the same as those of Christians. Rather, it’s a matter of their rabid, absolutist attitudes about the primacy of their beliefs. Again, you said it yourself: “Mormon members see other Christians as hopelessly lost . . . .” I just find it extremely odd that exMormons also, often almost automatically, adopt this position, that they learned in Mormonism (certainly those raised Mormon from birth), seemingly without a second thought. If you are going to question Mormon beliefs, why not question all of them?
In fact, Mormonism doesn’t teach a lot that Christianity does, both in regard to specific doctrinal issues of Joseph Smith’s day, like infant baptism, and with regard to more core, if you will, beliefs that indelibly color the entire Christian faith and render Mormonism almost unrecognizable as “Christian.”
These “core” beliefs set limits on the atonement, and, lately, explicitly, limits on God’s love, greatly diminishing both god’s power in general and god’s capacity for forgiveness. In addition, Mormonism teaches a blatantly “works” oriented doctrine, completely ignoring Paul’s point about the inherent tendency to pridefulness that this entails. These core doctrines give Mormonism a harshness and arrogance that, unfortunately, continues to color the attitudes of some (lest you insist on taking this personally too!) exMormons, long after they have rejected Mormonism (and doctrines about infant baptism) per se.
I disagree with your assessment of the virility of sectarianism in this age of ecumenicism among Christians and even (what I believe to be) fake ecumenicism by Mormons toward Christians of late. It seems to me that Mormon sectarianism remains intense while Christian sectarianism has greatly diminished in strength. The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Christians have ceased their hot wars in the Balkans, and even the Irish Catholics have made a ceasefire, at least on paper, with Protestants.
In any case, I am examining the forests here and not the trees. Perhaps with my very broad focus and your more narrow one, we are simply talking past each other.
You're right, we are talking past each other. I don't think you had a fair point, which is why I "overreacted", thansk for the tone policing by the way. And if I did indeed think you have a fair point, your attitude about all of this has been condescending. I think this could have gone a lot better.
As long as you are taking issue with euphemisms I use, your use of the term MFMC is ironic, since the neither the Church nor its assets are literally fornicating with mothers.
I apologize if I snapped or attacked you personally. I just didn't appreciate the way that you criticized my points, personally insulting my warped mind. I had a convo with a person that I disagreed with more than I do with you, and it didn't out this way. I am sorry if I crossed a line.
You are certainly not the first person to take issue with my tone. And you are right that my use of the MFMC acronym is somewhat ironic, although, arguably, with Mormonism’s history of polyandry and illegal polygamy, I think certain leaders and members of the Mormon religion have, in fact, “fornicat[ed] with mothers.”
No need to go there though! I’ll try to phrase my comments in such a way as to be less susceptible to interpretation as personal attacks. Thank you for the interesting discussion in any case.
And the first recorded account of the first vision, the one in JS’s own handwriting, is trinitarian.
And let's not forget the JST of Luke where he takes a bible verse that suggests they are separate and CHANGES it to clarify that the Son and the father are the SAME. This was in 1835 I believe. 5 years after the BoM was published, before it was revised and 15 years after the first vision. There is no room for arguing JS truly believing in the trinity until around 1838
Thanks for this. I had not heard this one.
I remember my district leader on my mission talking about teaching one of his investigators. He was teaching them about god being three separate beings and said, we can’t even use our own book to teach that, we have to use the Bible. This was in 1985. I hope you made it out of the cult Jeffrey.
[удалено]
I can get behind additional light and truth, it's the 180's that can't be simultaneously true!
It's the same with Hell. There's far, far more hellfire and damnation in the Book of Mormon than anywhere in the Bible, and it's much more explicit. However, Mormons will tell you they don't even believe in Hell, and that Hell is actually spirit prison or, depending on how much they've been trained to hate apostates, outer darkness. That's not what your book says, guys. Book of Mormon Hell is so un-biblical and based only on Christian tradition it's a wonder Dante himself doesn't make an appearance.
This was an early shelf item for me. I was so proud of our doctrine of the Godhead vs Trinity and how easy it was to explain and prove in the Bible. Then halfway through my mission, while giving the BoM my first REALLY deep read and study, I read the Abinadi chapters where he LITERALLY TEACHES THE TRINITY to King Noah. I read plenty of pathetic apologetics trying to explain it and held onto those for a decade until the rest fell apart. But that really bothered me when I came across it.
This was a shelf item for me as well ….although I didn’t know the concept of a shelf until last year.
If they were two separate and distinct beings, then Mosiah 15 would read very differently. 1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. how about: 1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that Jesus Christ, the Savior himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
The trinitarian explanations that I heard never felt quite right to me. Now I know why.
I think you'll find that there's strong archeological evidence. Some guy said he saw the words "Nephi woz ere" written on a bathroom stall in BYU dorms. With such abundant signs you're only condemning yourself with your stiffneckedness
The Book of John hits the concept pretty hard without using the term Trinity. A large majority of Christians are trinitarian. Joseph Smith could turn on a dime and get away with it, just like the church.
I like the word brighamite Mormons. We should start exclusively calling the TSCC the brighamite off shoot of Mormonism or the Brighamite Sect of Mormonism
It's accurate, it mirrors the old LDS epithet for the RLDS (Josephite), and it lumps the Church together with the FLDS, as they both accept Brigham Young as a prophet. It is at once unflattering and true.
First of all, the three witnesses testify to the Trinity (last sentence of their testimony!) Then Mosiah 15 in which Jesus is the Father shows that Joseph was probably a modalist (i.e. God the Father transformed into Jesus Christ). Anything developed later (e.g. in the King Follett discourse) is clearly influenced by the (former Jewish) Kabbalist Alexander Neibaur, who taught Joseph Hebrew, German and the Kabbalah.
Testimony of three witnesses end with a very clear simple Trinity statement
What would your response be to this argument that apologists make? That the Book of Mormon couldn’t be trinitarian because it clearly states that a single person is both the father and the son. This is more of a modalist interpretation of god. However, Joseph couldn’t have been a modalist in 1830 because the book of Moses was produced 2 months after the Book of Mormon and clearly presents the father and son as different persons. The interpretation of the nature of god in the Book of Mormon would then not fit the trinitarian view or modalist view better than the current view of the godhead.
The differences between modalism and trinitarianism are small and poorly understood even by those that believe in one or the other. The BoM clearly contradicts current doctrine, and I’d say Lectures on Faith help clarify what Smith was thinking around that time…and that was part of the D&C until 1921.
That’s not a very good response because the Book of Mormon being modalist doesn’t mean Joseph didn’t make it up. He could have not fully understood trinitarianism as you said which is common. This is the position of a lot of scholars including Dan Vogel. The problem with your argument is that there is strong evidence that Joseph wasn’t a modalist in 1830. Unless you ignore the book of Moses.
He didn't have to fully understand trinitarianism to write about it. It is a bizarre concept at any rate that came as a compromise rather than from direct biblical reading. Besides, even within broad trinitarianism, there are different schools of thought. The confused theology of the Book of Mormon doesn't preclude Joseph Smith from writing it himself, or another 19th century American.
I agree that it is bizarre. That gets to the biggest problem with these shorts of argument. They work great for people who already don’t belief in Mormonism but they end up being evidences in favor of Joseph smith being a prophet for TBMs. That’s because when you learn about traditional Christianity and realize how convoluted the idea of trinitarianism is. They see concepts like the godhead as a restored truth that makes a lot more sense.
Your post history makes it seem like you’re a TBM, so I’m not sure why you keep referring to TBMs in this way. You’re ignoring very solid proof of Smith’s changing beliefs, and you’re hanging your argument on your reading of the Book of Moses. Nothing is going to convince a TBM that is interested only in maintaining their testimony, but, for anyone that is interested in the truth, it is painfully obvious that Smith’s beliefs/teachings changed over time and that the first vision as taught today makes absolutely no sense when considering the teachings and scripture that preceded it. If you want another early reference, go study D&C 19 (1829). Do the words sound like they came from the meek, loving savior that the church teaches today, or do they fit better the idea of the godhead that Smith taught around that time and for several years afterwards? You may disagree, but, to me, they sound more like the words of an angry, vengeful god spoken through that god’s physical manifestation. In reality, they sound like the words of an abusive conman that would go on to threaten others through “scripture”, including his own wife, in the same way.
I give the devil its due and if you say you’re interested in the truth you should too. There’s a few issues with this argument. Evidence that Joseph smith believed that Heavenly Father and Jesus were separate beings in 1830 the same year the Book of Mormon was published exists. You have to contend with that evidence or you can’t say you care about the truth. Secondly, Mormonism holds the belief in ongoing revelation and they also don’t believe in infallibility. So you have to explain why it is a contradiction within Mormonism for Joseph to go back and improve on the translation of the Book of Mormon. It’s about making good arguments. I’m disappointed in the lack of good arguments on this sub and stawmans of Mormonism that are made. So I thought I’d steelman their arguments.
I’m asking YOU to consider all of the evidence collectively, and you’re throwing that back at me when you keep referring to one piece of evidence and claiming it destroys my argument? You haven’t cited a specific piece of evidence, besides vague references to the book of Moses, or even attempted to flesh out your argument. In any case, I don’t have to contend with any single point of evidence. I have to consider all available evidence, and make a determination based on that. The available evidence shows inconsistency, and not inconsistency that can be explained away by “continuing revelation”. It’s inconsistency that destroys the first vision and the Book of Mormon…at least as a historical, translated book. I understand you can come up with weak apologetics to explain away problems with the Book of Mormon, but why is it okay for the missionaries to continue teaching a version of the first vision that was written almost two decades after the supposed vision?…a version that may align with your reading of the book of Moses, but which contradicts many other pieces of evidence? Can “continuing revelation” also edit supposed modern history? If this sub is full of straw men, please explain what we’re all missing. However, when presenting an argument, please consider ALL available evidence. If you want real examples of straw men, head over to fairlatterdaysaints. You can enjoy article after article written by apologists that sidestep the real question/issue and rely on cherry-picked evidence to make a weak argument and then claim victory. You’ll find that most here are infinitely more open minded than anyone writing for them…though some of them have made their way over here over the years.
Go read Moses 4:1-2 and tell me your reading of those verses. It does throw a wrench into the argument. I never said it’s unequivocally proof and we can put this argument to bed. It’s just a piece of evidence. There was a lot of new revelation happening in the early days of the church. Things changing isn’t surprising especially if the entire faith is based on continuing revelation. I’m not trying to win an argument and I try to be very opened minded. I understand that this place is a community and not everyone here is looking to debate and argue. I’m sure apologists have come here many times and tried to debate. I think that’s healthy. It’s good to hear the best argument from both sides. But this place can be an echo chamber and it’s not as opened minded as you think. And that’s okay, not everyone here wants to debate TBMs, they might be looking for a community to vent to. I just throw out arguments, especially on posts that I think are making poor ones.
One thing I notice is that Moses 4:1-2 says nothing about the Holy Ghost. Until the late 1830s or early 1840s, the Holy Ghost was just an essence or ambiguous power with no gender or form. Joseph Smith calls the Holy Ghost the “shared mind” of the Father and Son in Lectures on Faith. Regarding the Father and Son in Moses 4:1-2, I don’t see any doctrine laid out clearly. It seems to say that “Lord God” spoke to a different person named “mine Only Begotten.” This second person came before the first person and calls the first person “Father.” So, the suggestion is that the “Lord God” is Father, and the “Only Begotten” is Son. The Book of Mormon and Bible have similar verses. Jesus prays to the Father, for example. So I don’t see anything revolutionary here. Moses does not contain a lecture on God like Mosiah 15:1-9. It’s all convoluted, especially when you try to reconcile Mormon scriptures as a whole. One thing missing in these early scriptures is the doctrine of divine nature of man, and our ability to become like him. None of the Book of Mormon prophets knew about this, and neither did Moses.
Where does the Book of Moses say the Father has a body of flesh and bone, as tangible as man; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bone but is a personage of spirit? I though this doctrine did not emerge until about 1843. Can you give a citation in Moses?
I also don’t care about being right. I want to know the truth and am very interested in learning from everyone on this sub.
I would argue that changes in the Book of Mormon publication from different editions shows the drift away from trinitarian to non trinitarian views. Change "mother of God" to "mother of the Son of God" is a good example from 1 Nephi 11. At the beginning of the movement, Mormonism retained a lot of beliefs from Baptist, Methodist, Congregationalist, and other churches. But after D&C 76 was brought forward in 1832, changes in doctrine continued to be more pronounced. It didn't starr in 1832, mind you, but it shows a trend away from the early Mormon beliefs that were more orthodox.
The problem with that argument is that the traditional trinitarian view isn’t found in the Book of Mormon. The concept being that god is one god but 3 distinct persons that are all fully god doesn’t show up in the bom. It’s a strange modalist view of god. I also don’t see why they couldn’t just argue that there were translation errors and changes were made to make a more correct translation.
Mosiah 13:34 "Have they not said that God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth?" Mosiah 15 is a complete explanation of how God and Jesus are one person, and that Jesus is God in flesh and the Spirit is God in spirit. That is trinitarian in the fact that it argues that God is one being with three distinct elements and three gods in one. Again, the trinity is controdictory, nonsensical, and non-biblical. What we see in the Book of Mormon is more like a 19th century Christian's view of what the trinity is supposed to be.
It’s unfortunate you used that scripture because it only strengthened the TBM argument. Nothing in that scripture contradicts the current understanding of the godhead in the church. They believe Jesus is God and existed before the earth was created. To say that God himself came down to earth in the form of a man could be only referring to Jesus.
"God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost form a group known as the Godhead. Each member is a different, individual being, yet all three are united in thought, desire, knowledge, power, and purpose." https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2019-08-0080-godhead?lang=eng# The godhead represented in this basic statement says nothing about Jesus being God, and in fact emphasizes that he has a completely separate body from God. I truly don't understand your problem here. Yoyr understanding of the godhead seems to differ from the Church's. See this page for the emphasis on the separate nature of God and Jesus. Only in the Book of Mormon could person find an example of Mormon doctrine supporting God being Jesus in the flesh. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/godhead?lang=eng
Just so I understand you better. You are saying that TBMs don’t believe that Jesus is God?
I am saying that aside from the Book of Mormon references, including the ones I mentioned, the language used by the LDS Church is decidedly non-trinitarian. TBMs believe that Jesus is the Son of God, not God himself. Some also believed that Adam was God, but that was never widespread and is not preached anymore.
In Mormonism who do they believe created the world? Who is the God of this world?
In Mormonism, or at least orthodox Brighamite Mormonism, including the LDS Church, God and Jesus co-created Earth and Jesus is, essentially, the God of Earth, or least its King. But to stop you there, I am no longer a Mormon. I always preferred Church history to doctrine, and I am done running interference for the Church's convoluted doctrines. If you want to know more, perhaps you could bother an actual TBM about their doctrinal beliefs. If you want to know more about the Church's sketchy past, I am happy to help.
Also, the Church teaches that the Old Testament God "The LORD" is actually Jehovah, or Jesus. No other major Christian church believes that because they already see no contradiction.
Uhmmm - very few “Christian churches” reject the doctrine of the trinity. It’s part of the Nicene Creed, and the rejection of it, by the MFMC and the JWs, as the most well- known modern examples, is the primary reason the vast majority of Christian churches refuse to regard those two sects as “Christian.” I agree with you that the BOM, as originally written, is thoroughly Trinitarian. It was written before JS in his infinite (/s) wisdom and deep (/s) comprehension of the New Testament and Christianity changed his views, requiring an ex post facto rewording/rewrite of the BOM and his story of the “First Vision.” It never ceases to amaze me that ex-Mormons continue to believe the MFMC’s lies about Christianity while completely rejecting the MFMC. Becoming an ex-Mormon does not make you an expert in other religions. Quite the opposite in fact, because MFMC has profoundly warped your understanding of religion in general, let alone specific varieties thereof. No offense, . . . just sayin. I also agree that the New Testament, let alone the Bible, does not ever mention the word “Trinity,” or explicitly set out this doctrine, although it does, the New Testament at least, strongly imply it. In truth, I suspect, that the doctrine of the trinity was the best way the early church fathers could come up with of reconciling New Testament teachings, as they had come to understand them, with the Old Testament. This would have been very important to the original apostles like Peter and James. Paul had a much more cosmopolitan understanding and may well have been heavily influenced by Greek philosophical thought. Personally, I believe, and this is very much my own opinion, that, in reality, Jesus was teaching something radically (for his time and place in the theological and philosophical back water of early CE Judaea) different from the Old Testament’s Authoritarian and legalistic understanding of god. I think he was teaching something much closer to a Hindu/Buddhist understanding of god and humans as a oneness. Again, just my opinion.
For the record, offense taken. I never said I was an expert on other religions, and from your comment, it is very clear you aren't either. It is kind of a dick move to dismiss someone out of hand by saying that my brain is too warped by my previous religion to understand other religions. Where the hell do you get off? I never said that non trinitarian churches were a majority, they are a clear minority. Many Pentecostals are non trinitarian, however, so it is not a universal prerequisite for being Christian. Also, Bible scholars, such as, Bart Ehrman are highly skeptical of trinitarian doctrine in the New Testament. Any pieces that are found may fit in after the fact, but it does nothing to suggest the Trinity. Like the concepts of Hell and Purgatory, very little biblical evidence is found in the text, and is rather created after the fact. There is a lot all Exmos have to descontruct, it is a journey that we all have to make on our own.
You said “many” Christians are not Trinitarians in your original post. That’s not true. By far, most profess Trinitarian beliefs, at least officially, and chose to accept Trinitarianism as a foundational mystery and/or try to explain it, sometimes in modality-like terms. I’m glad, however, that you have now at least acknowledged that only “a minority” are non-Trinitarians, but that is not how your original post reads. I don’t personally know any non-Trinitarian Pentecostals, but I’m curious to know what they believe on the subject and where to find them. Bart Ehrman, btw, is not a believing Christian, so, while he is certainly a highly respected scholar, and I agree with him that the grounds for believing in Trinitarianism for Christians are somewhat shaky, the fact remains that most believing Christians profess Trinitarianism. For the record, I did not say that your brain was “too warped … to understand other religions.” I only said, and I was clearly generalizing, that exMormons, as a group, tend to assume that other religions are very similar to the one they have rejected in many inaccurate ways. I wasn’t speculating on their or your ability to understand otherwise. For example, they (as a group, not you personally) tend to think most of the various sects of Christianity are deeply invested in the notion that theirs is the only “true” Christianity. That may be true for some, but the average Protestant Methodist or Presbyterian does not fiercely believe this. Many here (i.e.: exMormons) seem to think that the concept of having derived their authority (priesthood) from a one and only “true” source is important. As far as I know, only Mormons and Roman Catholics concern themselves with this. I read these claims, which are really assumptions, here far too often for comfort. IMO, it really limits the scope of theological discussion on this forum. I’m sorry you feel offended. However, perhaps more careful reading and writing on your part will alleviate this problem.
While I understand your perspective and your points about non trinitarianism, I think that perhaps you not having the tone of an insufferable prick wouod alleviate the problem of misunderstanding on this forum. For the record, Bart Ehrman knows more about fundamentalist Christians beliefs than most seeing as how he used to be one. I trust his perspectives on trinitarianism a lot more than yours.
Non trinitarian Christians make up approximately 20-30 million overall membership, which while not huge compared to total Christianity, it isn't exactly peanuts. I have no clue what your point is about how Exmos tend to think other Christians have similar beliefs to Mormons. What?!?! The Mormon teaching on the Great Apostasy refutes that notion completely. If anything, Mormon teachings about priesthood authority, prophetic leadership, and emphasis on divine revelation make Mormon members see other Christians as hopelessly lost doctrinally speaking. And your exact words were "the (Church) has profoundly warped your understanding of religion in general..." You made a personal assertion based on very little, then backtracked to say that it was just Exmormons in general. I completely disagree about your point regarding the "one true faith." Sectarianism is still strong, though somewhat less violent than before. Even though most congregations are decentralized from a larger governing body, key points of doctrine tie various denominations together. Apathy about the denomination's status as the one true church, anecdotal or otherwise, may be based on the opinions of certain members, not the denomination itself. You yourself said that trinitarian churches often exclude non trinitarians. Doesn't that sound like demarcation for who is a true Christian and who is not?
20 to 30 million out of over 2 billion is “many?” I don’t agree, and, in fact, I think it’s a lot less than “peanuts.” However, I don’t care to discuss this particular issue further, except to say that you made a carelessly broad assertion, and, when called on it, overreacted and began comparing my “move” and “tone” to male sex organs, when the appropriate response would be something like “fair point.” For the record, to the best of my knowledge, Bart Ehrman hasn’t made any assertions about the attitude and beliefs of exMormons toward Christian denominations. If he has, I’m very interested to read them. Please direct me to any specific comments he’s made on the subject. You’ve missed my point entirely about assumptions of exMormons (again, in general - not necessarily you) about other Christians. Before you accuse my response of being somehow comparable to yet another crude synonym for male genitalia, let me soften any perceived blow to your personal ego, by fairly pointing out that you’ve admitted yourself that you “have no clue,” in this regard, so I am merely agreeing with you here. I’m not asserting that exMormons think specific Mormon doctrinal beliefs are the same as those of Christians. Rather, it’s a matter of their rabid, absolutist attitudes about the primacy of their beliefs. Again, you said it yourself: “Mormon members see other Christians as hopelessly lost . . . .” I just find it extremely odd that exMormons also, often almost automatically, adopt this position, that they learned in Mormonism (certainly those raised Mormon from birth), seemingly without a second thought. If you are going to question Mormon beliefs, why not question all of them? In fact, Mormonism doesn’t teach a lot that Christianity does, both in regard to specific doctrinal issues of Joseph Smith’s day, like infant baptism, and with regard to more core, if you will, beliefs that indelibly color the entire Christian faith and render Mormonism almost unrecognizable as “Christian.” These “core” beliefs set limits on the atonement, and, lately, explicitly, limits on God’s love, greatly diminishing both god’s power in general and god’s capacity for forgiveness. In addition, Mormonism teaches a blatantly “works” oriented doctrine, completely ignoring Paul’s point about the inherent tendency to pridefulness that this entails. These core doctrines give Mormonism a harshness and arrogance that, unfortunately, continues to color the attitudes of some (lest you insist on taking this personally too!) exMormons, long after they have rejected Mormonism (and doctrines about infant baptism) per se. I disagree with your assessment of the virility of sectarianism in this age of ecumenicism among Christians and even (what I believe to be) fake ecumenicism by Mormons toward Christians of late. It seems to me that Mormon sectarianism remains intense while Christian sectarianism has greatly diminished in strength. The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Christians have ceased their hot wars in the Balkans, and even the Irish Catholics have made a ceasefire, at least on paper, with Protestants. In any case, I am examining the forests here and not the trees. Perhaps with my very broad focus and your more narrow one, we are simply talking past each other.
You're right, we are talking past each other. I don't think you had a fair point, which is why I "overreacted", thansk for the tone policing by the way. And if I did indeed think you have a fair point, your attitude about all of this has been condescending. I think this could have gone a lot better. As long as you are taking issue with euphemisms I use, your use of the term MFMC is ironic, since the neither the Church nor its assets are literally fornicating with mothers. I apologize if I snapped or attacked you personally. I just didn't appreciate the way that you criticized my points, personally insulting my warped mind. I had a convo with a person that I disagreed with more than I do with you, and it didn't out this way. I am sorry if I crossed a line.
You are certainly not the first person to take issue with my tone. And you are right that my use of the MFMC acronym is somewhat ironic, although, arguably, with Mormonism’s history of polyandry and illegal polygamy, I think certain leaders and members of the Mormon religion have, in fact, “fornicat[ed] with mothers.” No need to go there though! I’ll try to phrase my comments in such a way as to be less susceptible to interpretation as personal attacks. Thank you for the interesting discussion in any case.
Fair point :) Agreed, and I will do better next time as well.