So I am going to disagree with Joseph Fielding Smith

[wuapinmon]

John of Viterbo went mad when he was allowed to comprehend the Trinity.

[Donuthole]

There's not much in the Book of Mormon as supporting the trinity as being 3 separate individuals. See Abinadi's statements for the most confusion on the issue.

The D&C and Church History do support the 3 separate and individual beings, but it doesn't much support the idea that Jesus = Jehova. There's better evidence that the people who wrote the D&C didn't necessarily think that.

Am I crazy, or is there a part in 3 Nephi when Christ instructs the people to pray to him while he simultaneously prays to the father.

[Jacob]

Am I crazy, or is there a part in 3 Nephi when Christ instructs the people to pray to him while he simultaneously prays to the father.

That sounds right. Perhaps I should have phrased my comment differently: The text of the book of Mormon does not make it clear whether we are dealing with the trinity or the 3 separate beings. With nothing more, it would be up to interpretation, but there are several passages that state that he is both the father and the son, which is confusing when we approach it, as I always have, from the assumption that they are 3 separate individuals.

[pellegrino]

That sounds right. Perhaps I should have phrased my comment differently: The text of the book of Mormon does not make it clear whether we are dealing with the trinity or the 3 separate beings. With nothing more, it would be up to interpretation, but there are several passages that state that he is both the father and the son, which is confusing when we approach it, as I always have, from the assumption that they are 3 separate individuals.

I tend to think that the trinity was a non issue for JS and the church until Rigdon came on the scene. As you have noted, the BoM does nothing to say one way or the other. If anything it could be read as an affirmation of traditional Christian dogma. No, I think if we were to research the matter thoroughly (and maybe someone has), we'd see that the three separate entities comes into place as a prominent doctrine/distinction of Mormonism with Rigdon.

[Jacob]

The long and short of it is that the LDS viewpoint on the Godhead evolved over the first 5-10 years of existence. I think there is plenty of scriptural and practical statements in the New Testament to fully support the view of a separate Godhead.

It's not only the first 5-10 years, it wasn't until the 1900's and Talmage and the 1916 doctrinal statement I quoted earlier when this was cleared up. Prior to that you have Adam-God etc. While the concept of separate beings came long before, who was who in the godhead was not settled until much later.

I read this article a while ago from Sunstone, an excerpt:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml

A close examination of Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible also reveals his early monotheistic beliefs. He consciously attempted to remove all references to a plurality of gods from the King James Bible. He also changed several passages to identify the Father and the Son as the same god. For example, he revised Luke 10:22 to have Jesus teaching that "no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it." These observations provide significant insight into understanding Book of Mormon passages which identify Jesus Christ as "God Himself," the "Holy One of Israel," the "Lord Omnipotent," the "Father of heaven and earth" who revealed himself to Moses and many of the ancient patriarchs...

Evidence indicates that by 1835, Joseph and other Mormon leaders began to make more of a distinction between the roles and natures of the Father and the Son. This is reflected perhaps most clearly in the Lectures on Faith published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. The fifth lecture defined the Godhead as consisting of two personages: the Father, a personage of spirit, and the Son, a personage of tabernacle. The Holy Ghost was not considered to be a personage, but rather was defined as the "mind" of the Father and the Son. Also, revelations Joseph received after 1833 contain less crossover in the roles and titles of the Father and the Son. In fact, it appears that after May of 1833, Joseph never again referred to Jesus as the Father in any of his writings.

The Lectures on Faith, once the "Doctrine" part of Doctrine and Covenants, was removed in 1921, around the time that the clarification of this doctrine occurred.

[Jacob]

I tend to think that the trinity was a non issue for JS and the church until Rigdon came on the scene. As you have noted, the BoM does nothing to say one way or the other. If anything it could be read as an affirmation of traditional Christian dogma. No, I think if we were to research the matter thoroughly (and maybe someone has), we'd see that the three separate entities comes into place as a prominent doctrine/distinction of Mormonism with Rigdon.

See the article I posted. It asserts that the trinity was not a non-issue, rather that JS was actively teaching a more mono-theistic godhead.

Was Rigdon the principal writer of the Lectures on Faith? If so, he may have played a role in fleshing out the 2 separate beings, but didn't get to 3 separate entities in that publication, nor to 2 beings of flesh. Wasn't it also the basis for the teaching in the School of the Prophets?

[pellegrino]

See the article I posted. It asserts that the trinity was not a non-issue, rather that JS was actively teaching a more mono-theistic godhead.

Was Rigdon the principal writer of the Lectures on Faith? If so, he may have played a role in fleshing out the 2 separate beings, but didn't get to 3 separate entities in that publication, nor to 2 beings of flesh. Wasn't it also the basis for the teaching in the School of the Prophets?

Yes, I believe he was.

This article suggests the same.

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/do...CISOSHOW=30122

[Jacob]

Yes, I believe he was.

This article suggests the same.

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/do...CISOSHOW=30122

That looks interesting. I'm downloading it now.

[Sullyute]

It's not only the first 5-10 years, it wasn't until the 1900's and Talmage and the 1916 doctrinal statement I quoted earlier when this was cleared up. Prior to that you have Adam-God etc. While the concept of separate beings came long before, who was who in the godhead was not settled until much later.

I read this article a while ago from Sunstone, an excerpt:
http://www.lds-mormon.com/jehovahasfather.shtml



The Lectures on Faith, once the "Doctrine" part of Doctrine and Covenants, was removed in 1921, around the time that the clarification of this doctrine occurred.

This is great stuff. My understanding is that scholars believe that the Lectures on Faith were probably written by Sidney Rigdon. This also opens questions again about what Joseph actually saw in the First Vision which has been talked about earlier in the thread.

The Lectures on Faith stress that in order to have faith in God we have to know God. We have to know his attributes and his personality in order to have true faith in him and to become like him. So something as simple as whether God is one individual or three seperate individuals should be a slam dunk. You would think that God would want this cleared up right from the get go with his new church and revealed scripture, but it is just a moving target of sorts, like much of the gospel.

I am sort of at a loss for words on my current feelings...

[creekster]

I will reveal myself as the uneducated reader that I am, but was there something in Rigdon's background that presaged an interest in establishing a godhead of three persons or of corporeal beings?

[Sullyute]

Yes, I believe he was.

This article suggests the same.

http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/do...CISOSHOW=30122

How do you download a full copy of this into PDF. It is only letting me save one page at a time? Any help would be appreciated...

[Indy Coug]

I will reveal myself as the uneducated reader that I am, but was there something in Rigdon's background that presaged an interest in establishing a godhead of three persons or of corporeal beings?

Well, this happened in early 1832...

http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/76

[Jacob]

How do you download a full copy of this into PDF. It is only letting me save one page at a time? Any help would be appreciated...

Took me a minute to figure out. At the bottom of the list on the left-hand column click on the print version. Then Access this Document. that'll download the whole thing, which is over 300 pages. It is apologetic in nature, but the discussion on Lecture 5 my Robert Millet brings up some interesting points, while leaving out a lot of possible and more problematic (for him) interpretations.

[pellegrino]

I will reveal myself as the uneducated reader that I am, but was there something in Rigdon's background that presaged an interest in establishing a godhead of three persons or of corporeal beings?

He was a prodigy of Alexander Campbell, who was a restorationist and did not believe in the trinity as proposed by Christian dogma.

edit: It looks like Campbell wasn't opposed to the idea of a triune God, but he did not accept its traditional interpretation.

Rigdon was a pastor to a more liberal congregation of Campbellites, among which there was a variety of beliefs preached, depending on which branch you came from (Barton Stone's side or Alexander Campbell's). Barton Stone was decidedly against the concept of a trinity because the word never appeared in the New Testament. In short, it appears that Rigdon may have picked up this belief from his life as a Baptist/Campbellite preacher, but further investigation would be needed to confirm.

[Sullyute]

Took me a minute to figure out. At the bottom of the list on the left-hand column click on the print version. Then Access this Document. that'll download the whole thing, which is over 300 pages. It is apologetic in nature, but the discussion on Lecture 5 my Robert Millet brings up some interesting points, while leaving out a lot of possible and more problematic (for him) interpretations.

Ecco! Thanks for pointing that out, I would have never found it hiding in the bottom corner.