Explanation for JS's initial first vision account?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Actually, I don't assume that at all. I think quite the opposite is true. I think it is ironic that we think the theological implications are clear but I am not sure Joseph would agree at least early on.

AFter I re-read your post I withdraw my assertion about your assumption. I thik we agreea this point, right?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

That's certainly true. So it is fair to say that the first vision implications are incomplete in that regard. However, I mean it is not clear the Joseph Smith would have rejected the trinity based on the first vision. Clearly by 1838 he would have but what about 1832?

That's a good point. Why couldn't God be one person, yet still appear as two? Doesn't the NT talk about Jesus, standing on the right hand of God, or something like that (my Bible bashing days were long ago)? That scripture didn't have much effect on the Christian world. JS's vision was no different.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Probably the most profound doctrine in Mormonism is the idea of Theosis. I'm not sure that the First Vision sheds much light on that concept.

FYI, Theosis is Greek.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

That's a good point. Why couldn't God be one person, yet still appear as two? Doesn't the NT talk about Jesus, standing on the right hand of God, or something like that (

I think that is in Acts during Stephen's martyrdom.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

AFter I re-read your post I withdraw my assertion about your assumption. I thik we agreea this point, right?

Yep I am on board "Creekster's limits of theological understanding of the first vision train."

[creekster]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Yep I am on board "Creekster's limits of theological understanding of the first vision train."

LOL. If it is a train, I am only the caboose.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

That's a good point. Why couldn't God be one person, yet still appear as two? Doesn't the NT talk about Jesus, standing on the right hand of God, or something like that (my Bible bashing days were long ago)? That scripture didn't have much effect on the Christian world. JS's vision was no different.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

--John 1:1

[creekster]

Here it is; Acts 7:

55 But he, being full of the aHoly Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the bglory of cGod, and dJesus estanding on the fright hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I asee the heavens bopened, and the cSon of man standing on the right dhand of eGod.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their aclothes at a byoung man’s feet, whose name was Saul.

59 And they astoned bStephen, ccalling upon dGod, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my espirit.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by creekster

Your question assumes, at least to some extent, that JS had a clear mindset on the Godhead at the time of the first vision. Perhaps he was not clear at the time. Perhaps it did nto occurr to him to try to specifiy the relationship of the members of the godhead until later when he was more doctrinally mature. He may not have appreciated how revolutionary some of the details were/are.

I am no scholar in this area, as you know, and this is only my own specualtion, which is relatively uninformed.

After reading Pelagius' post and your response, it makes me think.

We have instances in Bible that Godhead seems to be obviously seperate.
--Christ's baptism
--Christ referring to Father as entity outside himself
--Christ referring to Holy Ghost as seperate entity
--Stephen's vision at his stoning

Early Christians had all this as evidence, but still persisted in the Trinity doctrine.

Maybe Joseph Smith's vision did NOT bring new evidence to mankind on the nature of God. Maybe it's not so hard to believe that Joseph did not walk away perfectly understanding things. In that context, it might even be easier to understand why he would describe them as one personage.

?

Maybe I'm stretching.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by jay santos

After reading Pelagius' post and your response, it makes me think.

We have instances in Bible that Godhead seems to be obviously seperate.
--Christ's baptism
--Christ referring to Father as entity outside himself
--Christ referring to Holy Ghost as seperate entity
--Stephen's vision at his stoning

Early Christians had all this as evidence, but still persisted in the Trinity doctrine.

Maybe Joseph Smith's vision did NOT bring new evidence to mankind on the nature of God. Maybe it's not so hard to believe that Joseph did not walk away perfectly understanding things. In that context, it might even be easier to understand why he would describe them as one personage.

?

Maybe I'm stretching.

I guess I should have read the rest of the thread. You guys beat me to the punch.