LDS Joseph Smith was a Modalist

[Peter1000]

Yes. But the question of whether one can see Jesus is answered by the fact that He's human, with a human body, flesh and bone which He received from His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

-CryptoLUtheran

Yes, you are absolutely right. But you are caught between a rock and a hard spot.

If you maintain that Jesus is God, then you must maintain that God has a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Am I correct?

 

[Anto9us]

The Father's voice was heard AT THE JORDAN, was it not?
The Spirit descended on Christ IN THE JORDAN, right?
Jesus was in the waters OF THE JORDAN - correct?

Same Bat-Time -- same Bat-Place.

What is to be vindicated about JS?
That he was NOT a Modalist?
That he was correct about Father having a body?

To me, JS seems to say one thing one time and place, another thing another time and place.

Many things that Phoebe Ann has posted in this sub-forum in the past year show JS saying this one time, that another time -- from Mormon writings -- seems goofy to me.

 

[Anto9us]

To me, the Deity of Christ -- His Divine Nature -- had no beginning.
His Human Nature did have a beginning -- He "became" flesh and dwelled among us.

What I get out of Mormon writings is that Jesus' Divine Nature had a beginning at sometime (and that the Father's divinity did too) - Mormon views of Christ's human nature fly off into obscurity- in one sense both Father and Son started off as human and become divine later.

But it is hard to line up for a field goal regarding the ever-shifting goalposts of Mormonism, with its field of varying vision accounts and teachings that say THIS one year and THAT another year.

Even the different accounts of the so-called "First Vision" contradict each other -- is it ANGELS? Is it Father and Son as in the picture?

Seer-stone one year -- Urim and Thummim another year -- which one will come out of the hat?
Which one is IN the hat, what is being looked through as the 'translation' occurs?

 

[Solomon Smith]

OK, but is Jesus God?

He’s God the Son.

 

[Rescued One]

To me, the Deity of Christ -- His Divine Nature -- had no beginning.
His Human Nature did have a beginning -- He "became" flesh and dwelled among us.

What I get out of Mormon writings is that Jesus' Divine Nature had a beginning at sometime (and that the Father's divinity did too) - Mormon views of Christ's human nature fly off into obscurity- in one sense both Father and Son started off as human and become divine later.

But it is hard to line up for a field goal regarding the ever-shifting goalposts of Mormonism, with its field of varying vision accounts and teachings that say THIS one year and THAT another year.

Even the different accounts of the so-called "First Vision" contradict each other -- is it ANGELS? Is it Father and Son as in the picture?

Seer-stone one year -- Urim and Thummim another year -- which one will come out of the hat?
Which one is IN the hat, what is being looked through as the 'translation' occurs?

 

[Rescued One]

"There is no salvation in believing any false doctrine, particularly a false or unwise view about the Godhead or any of its members. Eternal life is reserved for those who know God and the One whom he sent to work out the infinite and eternal atonement...

"Thus there are, in the Eternal Godhead, three persons—God the first, the Creator; God the second, the Redeemer; and God the third, the Testator. These three are one—one God if you will—in purposes, in powers, and in perfections. But each has his own severable work to perform, and mankind has a defined and known and specific relationship to each one of them. It is of these relationships that we shall now speak.

"We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator."
Our Relationship with the Lord - Bruce R. McConkie - BYU Speeches

As soon as I heard that, I thought of all the times that Christ was specifically worshiped. I asked a friend how McConkie could be right. She said it was the wise men who were wrong.

“Three separate personages--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exists. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship.”
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 576


Years ago I asked a Mormon who was online, "Who do you worship?"

He replied, “I worship God the Father in his proper role as the Father. I worship Christ in his proper role as the creator, the redeemer, and mediator to the Father. I worship the Holy Ghost in his proper role as the testator of truth, and comforter.”


2 Nephi 25
29 And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

And Adam is Michael God and all the God that we have anything to do with.
Journal of Wilford Woodruff; April 9 1852; Quoting Brigham Young.

???

It seems to me that Mormons don't agree! Is there any doctrine more important?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Sorry, but the scripture clearly has Stephen seeing Jesus, and someone or some thing standing on Jesus's left side. The scripture calls that thing God.

I do not think the scripture says that Stephen looked in the heaven and saw Jesus only. Doesn't it say Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God?

So I believe that for the most part, Jesus is the one whom the Father works through and God the Father stays in the background and is not seen. But there are certain times when He has been seen, only a few times in the history of the world. Very rare occasion when the 2 of them are seen together.

In the case of Stephen, God the Father wanted the early Christians to know that He and Jesus were not actually the same God, but that They were 2 separate and distinct Beings. That is why Stephen saw Jesus (1) standing on the right hand of God (2). It was a teaching moment that lasted for centuries, until the learned doctors of religion began to play with the nature of God and His Christ, and ignored the scriptures, and came up with their Nicene God, a God that could eventually fit everyone's agenda, and create unity in the Roman/Christian empire.

Acts 7:54-60 New International Version (NIV)
The Stoning of Stephen
54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

It does not say God the Father had a physical form or looked like a man..

 

[Daniel Marsh]

:
You are right, the story of the baptism of Christ does squash the idea that the Trinity is modalistic.

But the story of the baptism also brings up concerns for the Trinity. Let me explain:

You say that in the story of the baptism, "the 3 PERSONS of the Triity all apear independently doing something in the same place at the same time".

You are right about at the same "time", but you are not right about in the same "place".
For instance: Jesus was on the earth coming up out of the waters of the river Jordan(1), God the Father was in the heavens, telling everyone that "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well please"(2), and the HS was in between the Father in the heavens and the Son on the earth, but eventually did fall upon Jesus on the earth, but there was a time when he had not fallen
upon him (3).
So you see, Jesus and God the Father and the HS, were indeed there at the same time, but they surely were not in the same place at the same time. The 3 were indeed independent, and were at different locations at the same time.
God the Father in heaven.
Jesus on earth.
HS in between God the Father and Jesus.

So the story of the baptism is tough on the Trinity concept, and vindicates JS.

That is a bit of a reach to get out of the plan picture of one person speaking, one being baptized and one appearing as a dove.

Dicache,

Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

The Fathers:

St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians (C. 98 A.D.):

"Do we not have one God, one Christ, and one Spirit of Grace poured out upon us? And is there not one calling in Christ?"

The Martyrdom of St. Polycarp (C. 155 - 157 A.D.):

"...In this way and for all things I do praise you, I do bless you, I do glorify you through the eternal and heavenly High Priest Jesus Christ, your beloved child: through whom be glory to you with Him and with the Holy Spirit, both now and through ages yet to come. Amen."

St. Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus (181 A.D.):

"The three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, His Word, and His Wisdom."

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies (C. 180 A.D.):

"If any one, therefore says to us, ‘How then was the Son produced by the Father?’ we reply to him, that no man understands that production, or generation, or calling, or revelation, or by whatever name one may describe His generation, which is in fact altogether indescribable. Neither Valentinus, nor Marcion, nor Saturninus, nor Basilides, nor angels, not archangels, nor principalities, nor powers (possess this knowledge), but the Father only who begat, and the Son who was begotten. Since therefore His generation is unspeakable, those who strive to set forth generations and productions cannot be in their right mind, inasmuch as they undertake to describe things that are indescribable."

St. Ambrose of Milan, Hexameron (Post 389 A.D.):

"But let us consider the course of our own creation. He says: ‘Let Us make man to our image and to our likeness.’ Who says this? Is it not God, who made you?...To whom does He say it? Certainly not to Himself, for He does not say ‘Let Me make’ but ‘Let Us make.’ Nor to the Angels, for they are ministers; and servants can have no partnership in the operation of the master, nor works with their author. It is the Son to whom He speaks, even if the Jews will not have it and the Arians fight against it...[And it is the Son] who is the image of God the Father, the Son who always is and who was in the beginning."Catholic Apologetics - Lumen Verum part 1

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Yes, you are absolutely right. But you are caught between a rock and a hard spot.

If you maintain that Jesus is God, then you must maintain that God has a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Am I correct?

If you are saying my friend, that God means the Father then that is illogical, just assuming something about the Father that the Bible does not teach.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The Father's voice was heard AT THE JORDAN, was it not?
The Spirit descended on Christ IN THE JORDAN, right?
Jesus was in the waters OF THE JORDAN - correct?

Same Bat-Time -- same Bat-Place.

What is to be vindicated about JS?
That he was NOT a Modalist?
That he was correct about Father having a body?

To me, JS seems to say one thing one time and place, another thing another time and place.

Many things that Phoebe Ann has posted in this sub-forum in the past year show JS saying this one time, that another time -- from Mormon writings -- seems goofy to me.

Is the appearances at the Baptism theophany?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

To me, the Deity of Christ -- His Divine Nature -- had no beginning.
His Human Nature did have a beginning -- He "became" flesh and dwelled among us.

What I get out of Mormon writings is that Jesus' Divine Nature had a beginning at sometime (and that the Father's divinity did too) - Mormon views of Christ's human nature fly off into obscurity- in one sense both Father and Son started off as human and become divine later.

But it is hard to line up for a field goal regarding the ever-shifting goalposts of Mormonism, with its field of varying vision accounts and teachings that say THIS one year and THAT another year.

Even the different accounts of the so-called "First Vision" contradict each other -- is it ANGELS? Is it Father and Son as in the picture?

Seer-stone one year -- Urim and Thummim another year -- which one will come out of the hat?
Which one is IN the hat, what is being looked through as the 'translation' occurs?

Part of the attributes of the True God is that he had no beginning. The LDS god has a beginning therefore the LDS god is not the True God because he lacks an essential attribute.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

read to here, thanks all

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, you are absolutely right. But you are caught between a rock and a hard spot.

If you maintain that Jesus is God, then you must maintain that God has a body of flesh and bone and spirit. Am I correct?

I get the impression that you think you are going to attain some sort of "gotcha!" as though Christianity hasn't had 2 thousand years of established teaching by which we understand this issue.

Jesus Christ is simultaneously God and human. So, yes, absolutely, we can say that God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, has a human body, and thus is flesh and bone. The Definition of Chalcedon states that Christ as true man has a rational soul and body, i.e. a human soul and a human body--as a human being.

But we also don't confuse the two natures, there is no confusion to be had here: God in His essence as God has no body, no flesh, no bones, He's God.

We neither confuse the natures nor divide the Person. That is the chief article of orthodox Christology. So we never say that the Divine nature is physical, nor do we say that the human nature is incorporeal. Instead we say that what is Divine is Divine, eternal, uncreated, etc. And what is human is human, created and conceived in the womb of St. Mary Theotokos by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God as the uncreated Son and Word who is homoousios with the Father--eternal, unmade, by whom all things were made. Jesus is human by His conception in the womb of Mary, as flesh of her flesh. As such He is both true God and true man. Since we do not divide the Person we do not say "only man was born of Mary", but instead that Jesus Christ was born of Mary, for this reason we call her the Bearer (or Birth-Giver) of God (Theotokos) and the Mother of God (Mater Theou), because the Person she conceived and gave birth to is God the eternal Son and Word, Jesus Christ. Likewise we do not say that only the humanity suffered and died, we say that Jesus Christ "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, and dead". We speak of the undivided Person, as such we are neither confusing the natures neither are we separating the natures thereby dividing the Person. For there is one Person of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, God the Word who is of the Father's own Being from all eternity, with neither beginning nor end who was conceived and born of Mary the God-bearer, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, dead, who rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, in glory, until the day He comes again as judge of the living and the dead.

I'm just saying, if you somehow think you are going to set up some sort of theological trap here, you're at least 1,600 years too late.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Acts 7:54-60 New International Version (NIV)
The Stoning of Stephen
54 When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55 But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 “Look,” he said, “I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.”

57 At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58 dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep.

It does not say God the Father had a physical form or looked like a man..

It also is clear that Stephen saw Jesus who is at the right hand of the Father, it does not say St. Stephen saw the Father.

It's not that the text is explicit that Stephen didn't see the Father, it's that the emphasis is clearly on seeing Jesus. To say that Stephen also saw the Father directly with his own two eyes would be to contradict the unanimous consensus of the entire biblical narrative as we have it. A vision of the Lord Jesus, in glory, is itself sufficient to speak of Him as on the right hand of the Father, a term describing not a literal location, but Christ's exalted status as Pantokrator, Jesus Christ is Lord over all things, for all things are subject to Him. Iesous Christos Kurios.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Peter1000]

It also is clear that Stephen saw Jesus who is at the right hand of the Father, it does not say St. Stephen saw the Father.

It's not that the text is explicit that Stephen didn't see the Father, it's that the emphasis is clearly on seeing Jesus. To say that Stephen also saw the Father directly with his own two eyes would be to contradict the unanimous consensus of the entire biblical narrative as we have it., Jesus Christ is Lord over all things, for all things are subject to Him. Iesous Christos Kurios.

-CryptoLutheran

A vision of the Lord Jesus, in glory, is itself sufficient to speak of Him as on the right hand of the Father, a term describing not a literal location, but Christ's exalted status as Pantokrator

Wow, you sound like a third century doctor of philosophy. Let me break this down for you:
First: "A vision of the Lord Jesus, in glory, is itself sufficient to speak of Him as on the right hand of the Father." I'm not sure who you think you are talking to, but I am not some illiterate third century farmer that can't read and write and think except how to best slop the pigs.

This is a resounding denial of the text of the scripture itself. To say that seeing Jesus in his glory is so sufficient, that even though God and His glory were not there, we can still say that Jesus was standing on the Father's right hand.

Second: a term describing not a literal location, but Christ's exalted status as Pantokrator.
Wow, talk about twisting the text of the scripture. You say that when the scripture talks about Jesus "standing on the right hand of the God", it is not talking about his literal location as in really standing on the right hand of God, but it is only referring to Jesus's exalted status as Pantokrator?

So in your skillful manipulation of the text, you are saying that Stephen looked up and only saw Jesus and that vision of Jesus was sufficient to also say that he was standing on the right hand of God, even though God was not there, or God was in Jesus, and there really was no other person standing at the right hand of Jesus. Well good going doctor.

The real test says Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Now anyone with a little bit of sense would not try to wiggle out of that sighting with your third century logic. In fact all of the pictures that depict this vision show 2 persons standing above him in the air. So spin all you wish, but nobody believes you.

Stephen saw the exact vision as JS saw. Jesus (1) standing on the right hand of the Father (2) and the HS was in Stephen (3). Pretty simple.

 

[Peter1000]

I get the impression that you think you are going to attain some sort of "gotcha!" as though Christianity hasn't had 2 thousand years of established teaching by which we understand this issue.

Jesus Christ is simultaneously God and human. So, yes, absolutely, we can say that God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, has a human body, and thus is flesh and bone.

The Definition of Chalcedon states that Christ as true man has a rational soul and body, i.e. a human soul and a human body--as a human being.

But we also don't confuse the two natures, there is no confusion to be had here: God in His essence as God has no body, no flesh, no bones, He's God.

We neither confuse the natures nor divide the Person. That is the chief article of orthodox Christology. So we never say that the Divine nature is physical, nor do we say that the human nature is incorporeal. Instead we say that what is Divine is Divine, eternal, uncreated, etc. And what is human is human, created and conceived in the womb of St. Mary Theotokos by the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus is God as the uncreated Son and Word who is homoousios with the Father--eternal, unmade, by whom all things were made. Jesus is human by His conception in the womb of Mary, as flesh of her flesh. As such He is both true God and true man. Since we do not divide the Person we do not say "only man was born of Mary", but instead that Jesus Christ was born of Mary, for this reason we call her the Bearer (or Birth-Giver) of God (Theotokos) and the Mother of God (Mater Theou), because the Person she conceived and gave birth to is God the eternal Son and Word, Jesus Christ. Likewise we do not say that only the humanity suffered and died, we say that Jesus Christ "suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, and dead". We speak of the undivided Person, as such we are neither confusing the natures neither are we separating the natures thereby dividing the Person. For there is one Person of Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son, God the Word who is of the Father's own Being from all eternity, with neither beginning nor end who was conceived and born of Mary the God-bearer, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, buried, dead, who rose from the dead, ascended into the heavens, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, in glory, until the day He comes again as judge of the living and the dead.

I'm just saying, if you somehow think you are going to set up some sort of theological trap here, you're at least 1,600 years too late.

-CryptoLutheran

Jesus Christ is simultaneously God and human. So, yes, absolutely, we can say that God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, has a human body, and thus is flesh and bone.

If God the Father and Jesus Christ and the HS are 3 persons in 1 God, then that 1 God has to have a body of flesh and bone and spirit, because we know 1 of the members has that form, and therefore if there is only 1 God, all three members are in that 1 form.

 

[Rescued One]

If God the Father and Jesus Christ and the HS are 3 persons in 1 God, then that 1 God has to have a body of flesh and bone and spirit, because we know 1 of the members has that form, and therefore if there is only 1 God, all three members are in that 1 form.

How did you come up with that?!

If Mormons are required to have exalted bodies of flesh and bone to become Gods, what is your Holy Spirit --- a non-god?

 

[A New Dawn]

I am sixty-six years young. I know about modalism too. T.D. Jakes has been characterized as a modalist.

What I have found out to be true about studying various cults, sects, and denominations is that different sources provide different "facts." I grew up in a Restoration Movement church - the Mormons were a product of the original Restoration Movement with Sidney Rigdon joining with Joseph Smith and Rigdon's followers coming along - and I once told another Restoration Movement church member that Alexander Campbell was a slave owner. In fact students at Betheny College, founded by Alexander Campbell, nearly burnt the campus to the ground after they learned that Campbell had been a slave owner. I told this to another Restoration Movement member, one older than me, and he insisted that I was a liar, no matter what I used as my sources for this information. We can split hairs but I am certain that Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer are created beings. I have studied this too. Even some "traditional" Christians teach that Jesus was created, seemingly without understanding that's what they're doing, and do so by denying the preexistence of the Son.

If you grew up a member of a Restoration Movement church (which restoration movement are you talking about, though?) then you'd know that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, and the original edition of the Book of Mormon has several verses in it that deeply suggests that Joseph Smith's view of God at the time he was writing the Book of Mormon was modalistic. I, too, was a member of a restoration church, and I, too, was modalistic because the BoM I used was one that was reverted back to the 1st edition (the one without all the changes.)

 

[Peter1000]

It also is clear that Stephen saw Jesus who is at the right hand of the Father, it does not say St. Stephen saw the Father.

It's not that the text is explicit that Stephen didn't see the Father, it's that the emphasis is clearly on seeing Jesus. To say that Stephen also saw the Father directly with his own two eyes would be to contradict the unanimous consensus of the entire biblical narrative as we have it. A vision of the Lord Jesus, in glory, is itself sufficient to speak of Him as on the right hand of the Father, a term describing not a literal location, but Christ's exalted status as Pantokrator, Jesus Christ is Lord over all things, for all things are subject to Him. Iesous Christos Kurios.

-CryptoLutheran

I know you have to emphasize Jesus, because in a Trinity vision, Stephen would have looked into the heavens and only see 1 personage. So you have to go to great lengths to cut out God and His glory from the vision.

But it is precisely that Stephen has declared to the Jews that he is looking into the heavens and sees 2 personages, Jesus and Jesus standing next to God. Beccause of this declaration, the Jews killed him, because in their religion there is only 1 God, not 2, and Stephen was declaring he saw 2.
So Stephen declares 2 personages, the pictures declare 2 personages, other scriptures declare 2 personages, and finally JS declares 2 personages.

 

[Peter1000]

If you grew up a member of a Restoration Movement church (which restoration movement are you talking about, though?) then you'd know that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, and the original edition of the Book of Mormon has several verses in it that deeply suggests that Joseph Smith's view of God at the time he was writing the Book of Mormon was modalistic. I, too, was a member of a restoration church, and I, too, was modalistic because the BoM I used was one that was reverted back to the 1st edition (the one without all the changes.)

How could you be in a restoration church and be a modalist? You could be a trithiest, but not a modalist. The BOM and the D&C and the Pearl of GP and other writings of JS and the prophets since him, clearly show us that we are not modalists, and never have been.