One of the September Six is Rebaptized

[creekster]

Agreed on both counts. My first impression of Paul was formed when, on my mission, I read his New Era article entitled "Confessions of a Would Be Zone Leader," which was very good. Later, he was my Gospel Doctrine teacher and a law school classmate. Very interesting, smart and a bit prickly. I recall his address at the law school convocation began something like, "I am flattered to have been chosen by my classmates to speak, but my selection has nothing to do with my grades, as mine is the burden of unverifiable genius."

was he playing that line for a laugh?

[PaloAltoCougar]

was he playing that line for a laugh?

Very much so, and successfully. He had a very high opinion of himself (and not entirely undeservedly), but he was also often very self-deprecating. I liked Paul, but I haven't had any contact with him in many years.

[UtahDan]

Completely agree. And I'm on record here as saying that I think the doctrine of the Trinity is far better tested in its implications than ours of the Godhead is. Personally, I think it's an unimportant distinction.

But still--you have to agree that in today's church, this is a fairly key and core doctrine.

Funny enough, I find the distinction unimportant as well.

[LA Ute]

Completely agree. And I'm on record here as saying that I think the doctrine of the Trinity is far better tested in its implications than ours of the Godhead is. Personally, I think it's an unimportant distinction.

But still--you have to agree that in today's church, this is a fairly key and core doctrine.

I'm a little surprised at the bolded statements and really would like to know more about why you think so. Also, it seems to me that to call our Godhead belief a "fairly key and core doctrine" is a major understatement.

That's a fascinating statement if you think about it.

You would be amazed at how long it took for that doctrine to evolve. There used to be a section in the Lectures on Faith describing how the Father and the Son were one being. (not to mention numerous other statements)

My quibble: I'd say it took awhile to get the doctrine right, not that it evolved. You have to keep in mind how much it deviated from the then-majority view (and still does). Articulating it logically is still easier than it is to explain the creedal Christian view, IMO.

As for P.J. Toscano, I had one experience with him. He presented on neo-orthodoxy at a Sunstone symposium in So. Cal. (This was in the late 80s.) I was asked to give the response. It was a fun experience. He was strikingly cordial, on the one hand, and intense in his views, on the other. What I remember most clearly is that in response to a question, he went off on a rant about the church's encouragement of competition, which he saw as un-Christlike. In support of his position he found it significant that all church buildings have basketball courts in them. I found that a fascinating and odd point, and still do, but he was quite serious about it.

[Topper]

Completely agree. And I'm on record here as saying that I think the doctrine of the Trinity is far better tested in its implications than ours of the Godhead is. Personally, I think it's an unimportant distinction.

But still--you have to agree that in today's church, this is a fairly key and core doctrine.

Really?
It's one of doctrines that evolved from Justin Martyr, through Origin and Iraeneous up to the Arian controversy. However, today, it is one of the doctrines which is mostly criticized for it inconsistency. It even created the Johannine Comma controversy of Erasmus. And you believe it is better tested? Try older. It is an absurdity.

[RobinFinderson]

Really?
It's one of doctrines that evolved from Justin Martyr, through Origin and Iraeneous up to the Arian controversy. However, today, it is one of the doctrines which is mostly criticized for it inconsistency. It even created the Johannine Comma controversy of Erasmus. And you believe it is better tested? Try older. It is an absurdity.

More absurd than an eternal being, capable of building universes from nothing, who is actively conscious of every hydrogen atom in the cosmos, is still walking around in a skin suit full of vestigial organs?

[Jeff Lebowski]

My quibble: I'd say it took awhile to get the doctrine right, not that it evolved.

What's the difference?

You have to keep in mind how much it deviated from the then-majority view (and still does). Articulating it logically is still easier than it is to explain the creedal Christian view, IMO.

Our doctrine of the godhead started out as basic trinitarianism with a modalist slant, then it was a binary godhead joined by the Holy Ghost, then finally the three distinct personages godhead we see today. You can see this clearly if you line things up chronologically.

(modalism means that the there is one God, but He manifests himself in three different forms)

1) Early accounts of the First Vision speak of only a single being appearing to JS.

2) BOM clearly and definitively teaches a trinitarian/modalism doctrine. See 2 Nephi 31:21; Mosiah 15:4-5; Mormon 7:7; Mosiah 16:15; Alma 38:39, Ether 4:12, etc. Here is just one example from Mosiah 15:3-4 (speaking of Christ):

...the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son— And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Furthermore, many of the passages in the original BOM have been changed. 1 Nephi 11:21, 11:32, 13:40 all refered to Christ as "the Eternal Father" and they now read "the Son of the Eternal Father". 1 Nephi 11:18 originally said that Mary was the "Mother of God" and it now reads "Mother of the Son of God".

3) Early church writings on the godhead followed the same model, but by the mid-1830's they started to speak of a binary Godhead with the Father and Son as two beings and the Holy Ghost as some kind of connecting essence. From the Lectures on Faith:

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme, power over all things. . . . They are the Father and the Son . . . [both] possessing the same mind . . . which mind is the Holy Spirit . . . and these three constitute the godhead, and are one.”

3) Of the various accounts of the First Vision, it wasn't until the 1838 version (our canonized version) that Joseph explicitly mentions seeing both the Father and the Son as two separate beings.

4) Our current doctrine of the godhead first appeared during the Nauvoo period with some hints coming in 1838-39 and the full doctrine definitively stated in 1842.

Certainly seems like an evolution to me, but I am fine with other descriptions also. Either way, it clearly changed over time.

For the record, I am using Charlie Harrell's recent book as a handy reference for many of these dates. It's a great book.

Harrell, Charles R. (2011-08-02). "This Is My Doctrine": The Development of Mormon Theology.

[Topper]

More absurd than an eternal being, capable of building universes from nothing, who is actively conscious of every hydrogen atom in the cosmos, is still walking around in a skin suit full of vestigial organs?

If the universe consists of eleven dimensions as M-Theory postulates, then being in contact with matter within one three dimensional universe may not be so absurd.

The Trinity disavows the existence of matter, not dark matter for that purpose, but simply disavows matter and requires three manifestations of the same non-material matter. Nothing is more absurd than that.

[LA Ute]

What's the difference?

To me "evolved" suggests an uninspired process (no, not because of similarity to the word "evolution" in the scientific context). To my mind the development of LDS doctrine is primarily revelatory. That's just my believer's worldview. (I don't think you meant to describe an uninspired process, BTW.)

Our doctrine of the godhead started out as basic trinitarianism with a modalist slant, then it was a binary godhead joined by the Holy Ghost, then finally the three distinct personages godhead we see today. You can see this clearly if you line things up chronologically.

(modalism means that the there is one God, but He manifests himself in three different forms)

1) Early accounts of the First Vision speak of only a single being appearing to JS.

My reading of all those accounts doesn't lead me to see any conflicts, only explainable inconsistencies. That is a widely-held and well-documented apologetic view. Joseph didn't refer to the First Vision much for some years, IIRC, and certainly not as the basis for doctrine. So I think it is a stretch to argue that early LDS belief was trinitarian based on early accounts of the First Vision.

2) BOM clearly and definitively teaches a trinitarian/modalism doctrine. See 2 Nephi 31:21; Mosiah 15:4-5; Mormon 7:7; Mosiah 16:15; Alma 38:39, Ether 4:12, etc. Here is just one example from Mosiah 15:3-4 (speaking of Christ):

Furthermore, many of the passages in the original BOM have been changed. 1 Nephi 11:21, 11:32, 13:40 all refered to Christ as "the Eternal Father" and they now read "the Son of the Eternal Father". 1 Nephi 11:18 originally said that Mary was the "Mother of God" and it now reads "Mother of the Son of God".

Those BofM cites are all perfectly reconcilable with our Godhead doctrine. I do not know about the revisions to the BofM.

3) Early church writings on the godhead followed the same model, but by the mid-1830's they started to speak of a binary Godhead with the Father and Son as two beings and the Holy Ghost as some kind of connecting essence. From the Lectures on Faith:

3) Of the various accounts of the First Vision, it wasn't until the 1838 version (our canonized version) that Joseph explicitly mentions seeing both the Father and the Son as two separate beings.

I'm assuming you are not suggesting that he simply didn't think of it until then. I see it as a now more-experienced prophet sitting down and thinking, "OK, this is when I have to make a definitive statement about my story. I need to make it complete and accurate." I assume he prepared the document prayerfully. He also had the experience of the vision in D&C 76, among others to inform his thinking as to what he had to get right. ("For we saw him, even on the right hand of God," etc.) There's a lot of time and experience and development between 1820 when a 14 year-old boy walked out of the woods saying, "Now, what did I just see?" and 1838, when Joseph wrote his definitive story.

4) Our current doctrine of the godhead first appeared during the Nauvoo period with some hints coming in 1838-39 and the full doctrine definitively stated in 1842.

Certainly seems like an evolution to me, but I am fine with other descriptions also. Either way, it clearly changed over time.

For the record, I am using Charlie Harrell's recent book as a handy reference for many of these dates. It's a great book.

Harrell, Charles R. (2011-08-02). "This Is My Doctrine": The Development of Mormon Theology.

I think we agree more than we disagree. It's mainly a matter of perspective. I don't think the doctrine changed, it just became clear. Seems to me that "line upon line" thing has been happening since Adam's time.

[Coach McGuirk]

This place is getting soft.

True that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

To me "evolved" suggests an uninspired process (no, not because of similarity to the word "evolution" in the scientific context). To my mind the development of LDS doctrine is primarily revelatory. That's just my believer's worldview. (I don't think you meant to describe an uninspired process, BTW.)

It changed over time. Call it what you will.

My reading of all those accounts doesn't lead me to see any conflicts, only explainable inconsistencies. That is a widely-held and well-documented apologetic view. Joseph didn't refer to the First Vision much for some years, IIRC, and certainly not as the basis for doctrine. So I think it is a stretch to argue that early LDS belief was trinitarian based on early accounts of the First Vision.

It is one data point in a consistent pattern.

Those BofM cites are all perfectly reconcilable with our Godhead doctrine. I do not know about the revisions to the BofM.

I am aware of how people (Millet, for example) try to reconcile them one at a time. Individually, it seems like quite a stretch. But when you put them all together, in combination with the modified portions, I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that the BOM does not teach a traditional trinitarian view of the godhead.

I'm assuming you are not suggesting that he simply didn't think of it until then. I see it as a now more-experienced prophet sitting down and thinking, "OK, this is when I have to make a definitive statement about my story. I need to make it complete and accurate." I assume he prepared the document prayerfully. He also had the experience of the vision in D&C 76, among others to inform his thinking as to what he had to get right. ("For we saw him, even on the right hand of God," etc.) There's a lot of time and experience and development between 1820 when a 14 year-old boy walked out of the woods saying, "Now, what did I just see?" and 1838, when Joseph wrote his definitive story.

I think we agree more than we disagree. It's mainly a matter of perspective. I don't think the doctrine changed, it just became clear. Seems to me that "line upon line" thing has been happening since Adam's time.

Again, the final account of the first vision is a data point. How and why the accounts differ is beside the point. You put all these things together and it forms a compelling narrative. The doctrine of the godhead as we now know it, came to be around 1838-1840. If you can find any writings or teachings from JS or anyone else prior to that time that definitively lay out the three distinct being godhead doctrine, I would love to see it.

[LA Ute]

The doctrine of the godhead as we now know it, came to be around 1838-1840. If you can find any writings or teachings from JS or anyone else prior to that time that definitively lay out the three distinct being godhead doctrine, I would love to see it.

You may be right. I don't have enough interest to dig into this. I can say that it only took Joseph Smith 18-20 years and the church 8-10 years to get the Godhead right. It took creedal Christianity 325 years to get it wrong.

[Moliere]

It changed over time. Call it what you will.



It is one data point in a consistent pattern.



I am aware of how people (Millet, for example) try to reconcile them one at a time. Individually, it seems like quite a stretch. But when you put them all together, in combination with the modified portions, I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that the BOM does not teach a traditional trinitarian view of the godhead.



Again, the final account of the first vision is a data point. How and why the accounts differ is beside the point. You put all these things together and it forms a compelling narrative. The doctrine of the godhead as we now know it, came to be around 1838-1840. If you can find any writings or teachings from JS or anyone else prior to that time that definitively lay out the three distinct being godhead doctrine, I would love to see it.

I've studied this a bit and I agrees with JL. The doctrine of the godhead definitely evolved, and I believe that led to the constant evolution of the first vision story. I still wrestle with the different versions of the first vision, not because I would expect the same story to be told in the same manner, but because the changes conveniently follow the changing doctrine.

[Pheidippides]

You may be right. I don't have enough interest to dig into this. I can say that it only took Joseph Smith 18-20 years and the church 8-10 years to get the Godhead right. It took creedal Christianity 325 years to get it wrong.

LA, you know I love you and think you are great, but I've got to call you on this. You do this all the time where you throw a point out there, get murdered on it, and then claim you have no interest in digging into it. If you didn't have any interest you wouldn't have gone all amateur apologist in the first place.

Then you'll throw out a statement about what is "right", where "right" means "what I believe in, independent of any evidence for or against." This makes a dangerous assumption around these parts. While I agree with you doctrinally (why? I don't know any more than you do!), I think it's a bit presumptuous to claim to be right.

[SeattleUte]

While I agree with you doctrinally (why? I don't know any more than you do!), I think it's a bit presumptuous to claim to be right.

Please explain yourself, because there were good reasons why the Trinity evolved the way it did, which were integral to Christianity's success. Aesthetically, the Trinity is an awesome concept.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=151&highlight=trinity

As the New World's Islam, it makes sense that Mormonism would embrace the old Arian separeteness of Christ/Jehova and the Father.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Islam"]Mormonism and Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

But I'm curious why you're so sure that this is the "correct" doctrine. Are you sure you can even call yourself a Christian if that's what you believe? Do you appreciate the aesthetic significance of the Trinity?

By the way, our own Pelagius shares my admiratoin for the Trinity.