Explanation for JS's initial first vision account?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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

Jay, what do you mean by early Christians? I don't think you see anything like the trinity develop in Christianity until Origen. So early third century. I could be wrong but I think guys like Tertullian believed in an embodied God.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by pelagius

I don't think the multiple accounts of the first vision are irrelevant in terms of the veracity of the first vision but I would like to ask another question about it.

Allow me to pull you back in and ask why not to the above. If I decide that notwithstanding empirical evidence for or against, that based upon spiritual evidences or based merely upon a choice to suspend disbelief, that I believe the foundational claims of the LDS church, why at that point do empirical evidences matter to me?

Of course I understand why it would matter to the dispassionate observer, but when it comes to the church I'm not sure I've met one of those.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Jay, what do you mean by early Christians? I don't think you see anything like the trinity develop in Christianity until Origen. So early third century. I could be wrong but I think guys like Tertullian believed in an embodied God.

Bad term. I'm talking the era leading up to Nicene creed.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Allow me to pull you back in and ask why not to the above. If I decide that notwithstanding empirical evidence for or against, that based upon spiritual evidences or based merely upon a choice to suspend disbelief, that I believe the foundational claims of the LDS church, why at that point do empirical evidences matter to me?

Of course I understand why it would matter to the dispassionate observer, but when it comes to the church I'm not sure I've met one of those.

Maybe I mispoke; I agree with what you wrote: you framed the issue nicely. I should have written that I think the question was worth talking about but I just didn't have much to add.

[SeattleUte]

Is the Mormons' "Father" different from the Father worshipped and prayed to by the Hebrews in the OT?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Is the Mormons' "Father" different from the Father worshipped and prayed to by the Hebrews in the OT?

Are you asking if Mormons understand the term "Father" differently? How can we really know unless we had an OT Hebrew before us?

It seems some Hebrew scribes might not have understood the same way as Mormons.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Are you asking if Mormons understand the term "Father" differently? How can we really know unless we had an OT Hebrew before us?

It seems some Hebrew scribes might not have understood the same way as Mormons.

SU, is interesting in this thread. He wants to once again to point out that Mormons believe the Jehovah = Jesus and Jehovah = God in the OT so "lets call the whole thing off." (i.e. the theological concept of divine investiture of authority proves the whole thing is a scam in SU eyes and he can't believe we could know about the issue and not think it is a scam).

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by pelagius

SU, is interesting in this thread. He wants to once again to point out that Mormons believe the Jehovah = Jesus and Jehovah = God in the OT so "lets call the whole thing off." (i.e. the theological concept of divine investiture of authority proves the whole thing is a scam in SU eyes and he can't believe we could know about the issue and not think it is a scam).

He would miss out on the lengthy and divisive discussions of Jehovah and Elohim, whether the same, different or different appellations used by different sources.

As a gadfly, I appreciate the consistency he provides, but he needs some new source material.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Are you asking if Mormons understand the term "Father" differently? How can we really know unless we had an OT Hebrew before us?

It seems some Hebrew scribes might not have understood the same way as Mormons.

Typical.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

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.

Dare I throw the 5th Lecture on Faith into this discussion? Though we don't have firm authority on the exact author, JS without a doubt approved it if not actually wrote it.

While he does detail 2 personages in that lecture, we also have him speaking of the Father as a personage of spirit.

It does seem as though even Joseph's understanding of the Godhead grew over time.