LDS Joseph Smith was a Modalist

[drstevej]

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.

Maybe you need to understand what Trinitarians believe: "one God in three persons"

 

[ViaCrucis]

This here, by the way, is what a canonically appropriate image of St. Stephen's Martyrdom looks like,

Since, as stated already, depictions of the Father are not appropriate. And as stated also, yes the Father has been depicted in Western art, but this is not considered appropriate under the historic standards of the Christian Church.

"Show us the Father" - How The Father May or May Not be Depicted in Orthodox Iconography – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Relevant quote from the above:

"So then, when we speak about God or specifically about the hypostasis of the Father, in what way does He have iconicity? Orthodox theology of the Holy Trinity has long taught that God’s own thought-image of Himself, His own perception of Himself, His self-consciousness as it were, is realized in another hypostasis, the hypostasis of the Son. This is to say that the iconicity of the Father is realized by the Son. The only image of the Father that is possible is the very hypostasis of the Son. To put it another way, the Son is the natural image of the Father, as Jesus himself said to Philip, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9).

It can be said then that it is the property of the Father to be iconized, imaged only by His Son, and it is the property of the Son to iconize the Father. The iconicity of the Father is entirely and completely realized by the Son, so that there is no way that another image of the Father could exist alongside of and in addition to the Son. The Son entirely and completely exhausts in Himself the iconicity of the Father. So then, to see the Son is to see the only possible icon of the Father, and it is for this reason that no artistic icon of the hypostasis of Father is possible, for that icon is the Son of God himself. Therefore, a painted icon of the Son, the incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ, is a material image of the hypostatic image of the Father, an icon of an icon. We might say then that Orthodoxy has many images of the Father—the image of Christ Jesus Himself."

While the blog is specifically Eastern Orthodox, the theology here is simply orthodox Christian theology. It is also utterly and completely biblical.

"No one can come to the Father but by Me" is what Jesus says in John 14:6. This is frequently used to say that Jesus is how we go to heaven, but that's not really what Jesus is saying here is it, He's telling us the way we can know and approach God. There is no other way to see God or to know God apart from Jesus. Jesus is how God makes God known. To know the Son is to know the Father who sent Him. We behold the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in Jesus Christ Himself, as He is the image of the invisible God, the icon of the Father's Hypostasis, etc.

The Father cannot be depicted because the only way the Father has ever depicted Himself is through Jesus Christ, His eternal and only-begotten Son.

Depictions of the Father are theologically errant. That isn't simply my opinion, that is the consensus of the Holy Christian Church based on the emphatic teaching of Scripture, the Holy Apostles, the Creeds, and indeed of the whole Church of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[A New Dawn]

How could you be in a restoration church and be a modalist? You a 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.

Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Read what I said again. I acknowledge that the glory is the glory of the Father, what I am denying is that St. Stephen beheld the Hypostasis of the Father with his own bodily eyes--because the text never says he does, and the prophetical and apostolic witness is consistent concerning God's unseen nature.

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?

I also don't believe that the Lord GOD Saboath, The King Eternal, sits on a giant sky-chair. Indeed, what does Solomon say? "The heavens, not even the heavens of heavens can contain You." What does the Psalmist say? "The heavens are Your throne and the earth is Your footstool." What else do we read? "There is one God and Father who is over all, in all, and through all." What does the Apostle say? "In Him we move and breathe and have our being."

God is everywhere, filling all things. What I'm saying isn't twisting anything, it's simply what the Church has always believed and confessed.

So yes, the Lord Jesus reigns as Lord and Pantokrator, over all things. Seated at the right hand of power, above and beyond all things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Rescued One]

How could you be in a restoration church and be a modalist? You a 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.

Community of Christ Church has the "Inspired Version" of the Bible:
Luke 10:23
All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.
Luke

I doubt if they use CoJCoLDS scriptures!

 

[Peter1000]

This here, by the way, is what a canonically appropriate image of St. Stephen's Martyrdom looks like,

View attachment 244404

Since, as stated already, depictions of the Father are not appropriate. And as stated also, yes the Father has been depicted in Western art, but this is not considered appropriate under the historic standards of the Christian Church.

"Show us the Father" - How The Father May or May Not be Depicted in Orthodox Iconography – Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy

Relevant quote from the above:

"So then, when we speak about God or specifically about the hypostasis of the Father, in what way does He have iconicity? Orthodox theology of the Holy Trinity has long taught that God’s own thought-image of Himself, His own perception of Himself, His self-consciousness as it were, is realized in another hypostasis, the hypostasis of the Son. This is to say that the iconicity of the Father is realized by the Son. The only image of the Father that is possible is the very hypostasis of the Son. To put it another way, the Son is the natural image of the Father, as Jesus himself said to Philip, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9).

It can be said then that it is the property of the Father to be iconized, imaged only by His Son, and it is the property of the Son to iconize the Father.

The iconicity of the Father is entirely and completely realized by the Son, so that there is no way that another image of the Father could exist alongside of and in addition to the Son.

The Son entirely and completely exhausts in Himself the iconicity of the Father. So then, to see the Son is to see the only possible icon of the Father, and it is for this reason that no artistic icon of the hypostasis of Father is possible, for that icon is the Son of God himself. Therefore, a painted icon of the Son, the incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ, is a material image of the hypostatic image of the Father, an icon of an icon. We might say then that Orthodoxy has many images of the Father—the image of Christ Jesus Himself."

While the blog is specifically Eastern Orthodox, the theology here is simply orthodox Christian theology. It is also utterly and completely biblical.

"No one can come to the Father but by Me" is what Jesus says in John 14:6. This is frequently used to say that Jesus is how we go to heaven, but that's not really what Jesus is saying here is it, He's telling us the way we can know and approach God. There is no other way to see God or to know God apart from Jesus. Jesus is how God makes God known. To know the Son is to know the Father who sent Him. We behold the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in Jesus Christ Himself, as He is the image of the invisible God, the icon of the Father's Hypostasis, etc.

The Father cannot be depicted because the only way the Father has ever depicted Himself is through Jesus Christ, His eternal and only-begotten Son.

Depictions of the Father are theologically errant. That isn't simply my opinion, that is the consensus of the Holy Christian Church based on the emphatic teaching of Scripture, the Holy Apostles, the Creeds, and indeed of the whole Church of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

This here, by the way, is what a canonically appropriate image of St. Stephen's Martyrdom looks like,

That is according to what the Eastern churches would consider appropriate. But obviously not Western churches.

The iconicity of the Father is entirely and completely realized by the Son, so that there is no way that another image of the Father could exist alongside of and in addition to the Son.

Well, isn't that convenient. Somebody makes up a definition of how appropriate it is to iconocize God Himself, and then say, "so that there is no way that another image of the Father could exist alongside of and in addition to the Son.
Except the scripture says that Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. Now, that sounds very clear that the Holy Bible has a different, and obviously Biblically appropriate iconicity of God. Another Biblical appropriate image of the Father existing alongside of and in addition to the Son. Read it 100 times if you need to, to stamp the image of 2 Persons in your mind, as the vision was given to help people of the first century church to understand that Jesus was indeed the Son of God who stands in some scriptures and sits in some other scriptures on the right side of God. That They are 2 distinct and separate Persons.

And as you have appropriately stated, according to the Bible, in many scriptures, the nature and relationship of Jesus to God is clearly incompatible with the Trinity doctrine.

The Father cannot be depicted because the only way the Father has ever depicted Himself is through Jesus Christ, His eternal and only-begotten Son.

That is not Biblically true. The Father depicted Himself as clearly separate from the Son at the baptism of His Son.
He depicted Himself as separate at the vision of Stephen.
He depicted Himself separate in the book of Revelation, chapter 5. In this case God was sitting on the throne and had a book in His hand. Jesus was in front of the throne and reached out his hand and received the book. John saw 2 separate and distinct Persons.
He depicted Himself as a separate Entity at the transfiguration of His Son.
He depicted Himself standing next to His Son at the vision of JS.

So no, He does not only depict Himself through His Son Jesus. Too many examples that are clear that He depicts Himself as Himself and Jesus as himself, 2 separate and distinct Persons.

 

[Peter1000]

Community of Christ Church has the "Inspired Version" of the Bible.

Luke 10:23
All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.
Luke

I doubt if they use CoJCoLDS scriptures!

What version of the bible did your Luke 10:23 come from? I searched 30 versions and did not find this wording. All versions were near the KJV which says:
Luke 10:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

No version on Bible Gateway says what you have said. Your version completely changes the meaning of my version. Please explain.

To use the expression "CoJCoLDS" is way below your intellectual and moral capacities. An appropriate rendition is The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.

 

[Peter1000]

Read what I said again. I acknowledge that the glory is the glory of the Father, what I am denying is that St. Stephen beheld the Hypostasis of the Father with his own bodily eyes--because the text never says he does, and the prophetical and apostolic witness is consistent concerning God's unseen nature.



I also don't believe that the Lord GOD Saboath, The King Eternal, sits on a giant sky-chair. Indeed, what does Solomon say? "The heavens, not even the heavens of heavens can contain You." What does the Psalmist say? "The heavens are Your throne and the earth is Your footstool." What else do we read? What does the Apostle say? "In Him we move and breathe and have our being."

God is everywhere, filling all things. What I'm saying isn't twisting anything, it's simply what the Church has always believed and confessed.

So yes, the Lord Jesus reigns as Lord and Pantokrator, over all things. Seated at the right hand of power, above and beyond all things.

-CryptoLutheran

"There is one God and Father who is over all, in all, and through all."

This is certainly a true statement, but not in the way that you envision it. If your interpretation is correct, then you must include all the things that God is over and in and through as being part of the Godhead as being a part of God. That means that all the things that God is over and in and through are all part of the Godhead. Think about that for just one moment and you will know that your interpretation is made so that the Trinity is compatible with your thinking. But God to you is not just in Jesus and the Holy Ghost, He is in everything, therefore everything must be in Him and be part of the Godhead.

Which is not a true statement.

 

[Peter1000]

Maybe you need to understand what Trinitarians believe: "one God in three persons"

Do you understand, "one God in three persons"?

 

[Peter1000]

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.

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?

OK, let's go over this again.

Yes, the Fathers voice was heard AT THE JORDAN, was it not?
Answer: yes it was heard by people on the earth, but the people heard it coming from the heavens.
So yes the people heard it on earth, but the Father was in the heavens when He spoke.
God the Father was not on the earth when spoke, he was in the heavens, right?
IOW, since God the Father was in the heavens at the exact same time that Jesus was on the earth being baptized, it means they cannot be the same person. Right?

The Spirit descended on Christ IN THE JORDAN, right?
Answer: yes, the HG descended on Christ AS HE STOOD ON THE BANKS OF THE JORDAN RIVER.
But as the HG was descending from heaven, there was obviously a time when the HG had not fallen upon Jesus. IOW there was a time when the HG and Jesus were not one. Right?

Jesus was in the waters OF THE JORDAN - correct?

Answer: you are correct? But God the Father was not in the waters OF THE JORDAN, correct?
And there was a time when the HG was descending from heaven that he was not in the waters OF THE JORDAN with Jesus.

Bottom line: Yes, all 3 of the Godhead were at the baptism of Jesus, but none of them were in the exact same place and the exact same time. It is true that the HG eventually descended all the way from heaven and eventually he did fall on Jesus and they became one. But God the Father never came down from the heavens to fall upon Jesus.

So, there is a Trinity, made up of the Father and the Son and the HG. But not in the form of Trinity that you interpret it to be. The baptism of Christ event, is far more in line with how the Church of Jesus Christ understands the nature of the Godhead, 3 distinct and separate persons. This is the only way you can have them at the same event, but not all 3 in the same, exact location at the event. The Trinity doctrine falls apart at the baptism of Christ.

So the baptism of Christ does vindicate JS. Not Athenasius.

 

[Peter1000]

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?

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)

You need to study with someone from the Church of Jesus Christ. God and Jesus in our theology has no beginning and will have no end. Their forms may change, but their existence does not change.

The interesting secret is, your spirit did not have a beginning either, you have existed forever and will exist forever, just like God and Jesus. Your form will change also, but your existence will not change.

You can model your existence along the same line as Jesus. Your existence is just like his. God the Father is the same, but we haven't got as much information about Him as we do about His Son, Jesus. Jesus existed as a spirit forever. Then when it was time for his earthly ministry, his form changed from just a spirit to a body of flesh and bone, and blood and spirit.

When he died, his body of flesh and bone and blood went into the grave and his spirit lived on and went to the spirit world to take the thief on the cross to paradise, and to preach to the spirits in prison. After 3 days, his spirit came back into his body and he was resurrected. Now his form changed again into a body of flesh and bone and spirit, (no blood anymore). And this perfect, powerful, non-destructible body he will have forever and ever.

Your existence is modeled after the existence of Jesus Christ. And also that of God the Father, but again we do not have that information. So that is why we members of the Church of Jesus Christ believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone and spirit, because we believe that Jesus simply followed the model of his Father, God the Father, the scriptures tell us that he did. And so they both have bodies of flesh and bone and spirit.

in one sense both Father and Son started off as human and become divine later.

I hope you can see that you totally off base to make this statement.

 

[drstevej]

You need to study with someone from the Church of Jesus Christ. God and Jesus in our theology has no beginning and will have no end. Their forms may change, but their existence does not change.

Same for Heavenly Mom?

 

[Anto9us]

You need to study with someone from the Church of Jesus Christ.

If you mean by "Church of Jesus Christ" the religion formerly called "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (aka MORMONISM)...

No, I don't think I will be.

 

[Rescued One]

What version of the bible did your Luke 10:23 come from?

The JST. You ought to have used the link that was there.

I searched 30 versions and did not find this wording. All versions were near the KJV which says:
Luke 10:22 King James Version (KJV)
22 All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

No version on Bible Gateway says what you have said. Your version completely changes the meaning of my version. Please explain.

You're right.

To use the expression "CoJCoLDS" is way below your intellectual and moral capacities. An appropriate rendition is The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS.

 

[Rescued One]

If you mean by "Church of Jesus Christ" the religion formerly called "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" (aka MORMONISM)...

No, I don't think I will be.

John 16
12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. 15 All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Psalm 34
3 O magnify the LORD with me, and let us exalt his name together.

 

[Rescued One]

In the 1830s, the fact that a number of U.S. churches, including some Congregational churches and Restoration Movement churches, also used the name "Church of Christ" caused a considerable degree of confusion.[4] In May 1834, the church adopted a resolution that the church would be known thereafter as "The Church of the Latter Day Saints".[4][5] At various times the church was also referred to as "The Church of Jesus Christ",[6] "The Church of God",[6] and "The Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints".[3][4]
In the late 1830s, Smith founded a new headquarters in Far West, Missouri. At Far West on April 26, 1838, Smith recorded a revelation from God renaming the organization the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".[7][8] The church was known by this name until after Smith's death in 1844; occasionally the name would be written with a hyphen between the words "Latter" and "Day".
After Smith's death, competing Latter Day Saint denominations organized under the leadership of a number of successors. The largest of these, led by Brigham Young, continued using "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" until incorporation in 1851 by the legislature of the provisional State of Deseret, when the church standardized the spelling of its name as "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", which included a hyphenated "Latter-day" and a British-style lower-case "d".[9] In January 1855, the legislature of Utah Territory re-enacted the charter which incorporated the church under this name.[9]
Name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Wikipedia

 

[Rescued One]

In Mormonism exalted men have no beginning and no end.

D&C 132
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

 

[dzheremi]

That is according to what the Eastern churches would consider appropriate. But obviously not Western churches.

Western religious art depicting the full bodily form of the Father dates only to the 10th century at the very earliest, and was only found in publicly viewed arenas -- as opposed to privately held manuscripts -- after the Great Schism. (source)

 

[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...

A Mormon prophet, John Taylor, taught:
...In another point of view, we look at him[man] as emanating from the Gods—as a God in embryo—as an eternal being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal remains are mingled and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be resurrected and partake of that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of his evil deeds, according to circumstances. …

… What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire in the eternal world,

and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, true light, true knowledge,—that he may know himself—that he may know God—that he may know something about what he was before he came here—that he may know something about what he is destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds.4
Chapter 1: The Origin and Destiny of Mankind

"We come to this earth to nurture and discover the seeds of divine nature that are within us."
Rosemary M. Wixom, Primary General President, Discovering the Divinity Within, General Conference, October 2015
Discovering the Divinity Within - By Rosemary M. Wixom


"I’m grateful for the Lord and the eternal worth He sees in all of us. I’m grateful for inspired women like Sister Cook who strive to live the gospel and share its wisdom. I’m grateful for this life, for the miracle of our bodies and minds, and for the divinity within each of us."
Daiane Korth da Silva, Discovering My Divinity, Ensign, September 2018
Discovering My Divinity - ensign


Divine spark. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The divine spark is the idea, most common to Gnosticism but also present in other Western mystical traditions, that each human being contains within himself a portion of God.

 

[Peter1000]

A Mormon prophet, John Taylor, taught:
...In another point of view, we look at him[man] as emanating from the Gods—as a God in embryo—as an eternal being who had an existence before he came here, and who will exist after his mortal remains are mingled and associated with dust, from whence he came, and from whence he will be resurrected and partake of that happiness for which he is destined, or receive the reward of his evil deeds, according to circumstances. …

… What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He is a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame which was struck from the blaze of God’s eternal fire in the eternal world,

and is placed here upon the earth that he may possess true intelligence, true light, true knowledge,—that he may know himself—that he may know God—that he may know something about what he was before he came here—that he may know something about what he is destined to enjoy in the eternal worlds.4
Chapter 1: The Origin and Destiny of Mankind

"We come to this earth to nurture and discover the seeds of divine nature that are within us."
Rosemary M. Wixom, Primary General President, Discovering the Divinity Within, General Conference, October 2015
Discovering the Divinity Within - By Rosemary M. Wixom


"I’m grateful for the Lord and the eternal worth He sees in all of us. I’m grateful for inspired women like Sister Cook who strive to live the gospel and share its wisdom. I’m grateful for this life, for the miracle of our bodies and minds, and for the divinity within each of us."
Daiane Korth da Silva, Discovering My Divinity, Ensign, September 2018
Discovering My Divinity - ensign


Divine spark. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The divine spark is the idea, most common to Gnosticism but also present in other Western mystical traditions, that each human being contains within himself a portion of God.

Do you not believe that there is a portion of God in each of us?