Explanation for JS's initial first vision account?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Tex

Dare I through 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.

Tex, I think the Lectures on Faith are a good example. I think there is a bit of a presentist bias when we discuss the first vision and it sometime spills over into an issue when people have trouble reconciling the different accounts.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Typical.

Okay empiricist and lawyer, how could you prove by clear and convincing evidence what a Pre-Exilic Jew believed regarding the terminology of Father, translated from the Hebrew, Aramaic or Persian of the time?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Okay empiricist and lawyer, how could you prove by clear and convincing evidence what a Pre-Exilic Jew believed regarding the terminology of Father, translated from the Hebrew, Aramaic or Persian of the time?

Given such complications, I can't imagine why JS would have been so lazy as to just plagiarize the KJV. In any event, if there's any concept that would seem to be translatable through all those dead languages and finally into English fairly intact it would seem to be "father." It's not that nuanced. It's about as clean as sex would be.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Given such complications, I can't imagine why JS would have been so lazy as to just plagiarize the KJV. In any event, if there's any concept that would seem to be translatable through all those dead languages and finally into English fairly intact it would seem to be "father." It's not that nuanced. It's about as clean as sex would be.

SU, where in the OT is Father used as a name or title for God? I don't think it used very often ...

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Given such complications, I can't imagine why JS would have been so lazy as to just plagiarize the KJV. In any event, if there's any concept that would seem to be translatable through all those dead languages and finally into English fairly intact it would seem to be "father." It's not that nuanced. It's about as clean as sex would be.

You speak Spanish, but it's clear you've not engaged in biblical studies if you believe any of the translation issues are unnuanced. Now I claim no proficiency in any of the ancient languages, so I'm certain those proficient therein can add there more meaningful two bits.

The terms are not clear as to what they mean in terms of separate identities. They are even confused why and how Elohim Jehovah are used apparently interchangeably.

The term in Greek is usually quite clear, but what translators often do is to look at context and then come to a conclusion based on their own understanding what should be inserted.

You can read even the ancient Church scholars who disagreed on homoousias versus homoiousias.

It is a good research project because I haven't reviewed what word in Hebrew is used for God Father.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

SU, where in the OT is Father used as a name or title for God? I don't think it used very often ...

For example,

"Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. (Deuteronomy 32:6)
"He will cry to Me, 'Thou art my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.' (Psalms 89:26)
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)
For Thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us, And Israel does not recognize us. Thou, O LORD, art our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Thy name. (Isaiah 63:16)
But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, We are the clay, and Thou our potter; And all of us are the work of Thy hand. (Isaiah 64:8)
"Have you not just now called to Me, 'My Father, Thou art the friend of my youth? (Jeremiah 3:4)
"Then I said, 'How I would set you among My sons, And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!' And I said, 'You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.' (Jeremiah 3:19)

[All-American]

Originally Posted by woot

The PoGP account was one of the later ones. 1842, as I recall. That explanation therefore doesn't work.

Edit: Swing and a miss. 1838 indeed. Still, it was one of the later accounts.

I know. Believe you me, I've looked into this quite a bit. The Pearl of Great Price is the third of the four first person accounts that we have from Joseph Smith on the First Vision, and every one of them gives more details than the last. The fact that he felt that there was information he was not at liberty to disclose in 1838 makes me wonder if there was not even more information he did not feel he could discuss in 1832.

I appreciate, by the way, the fact that you are at least a little more respectful when approaching this topic than others.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

For example,

"Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. (Deuteronomy 32:6)
"He will cry to Me, 'Thou art my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.' (Psalms 89:26)
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)
For Thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us, And Israel does not recognize us. Thou, O LORD, art our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Thy name. (Isaiah 63:16)
But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, We are the clay, and Thou our potter; And all of us are the work of Thy hand. (Isaiah 64:8)
"Have you not just now called to Me, 'My Father, Thou art the friend of my youth? (Jeremiah 3:4)
"Then I said, 'How I would set you among My sons, And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!' And I said, 'You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.' (Jeremiah 3:19)

nice you found some. However, its not the dominant way to refer to "God" in the OT. My point is why even use this "Father" thing when your goal seems to point out perceived inconcistencies between modern Mormon conceptions of God and OT conceptions of God. It is a strange way to articulate your point. In fact it is head scratching.

If your goal is to argue that the OT conception of God is different then modern LDS conceptions than you certainly won't get disagreement from me (atlhough there is clearly considerable overlap as well). I can't image why you expect consistency here or think it is important (unless for some reason you think most of us on cougarguard are fundamentalists.)

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

nice you found some. However, its not the dominant way to refer to "God" in the OT. My point is why even use this "Father" thing when your goal seems to point out perceived inconcistencies between modern Mormon conceptions of God and OT conceptions of God. It is a strange way to articulate your point. In fact it is head scratching.

If your goal is to argue that the OT conception of God is different then modern LDS conceptions than you certainly won't get disagreement from me (atlhough there is clearly considerable overlap as well). I can't image why you expect consistency here or think it is important (unless for some reason you think most of us on cougarguard are fundamentalists.)

Of course I am not advocating for any concept of "the godhead" as factual or true in an empricial sense. I believe the godhead is mythical, though its cosmology and development are facinating nonetheless. I'm glad you acknowledge lack of consistency here because my point is directed to the traditional LDS attitude that aesthetically or "logically" mainstream Christianity's Trinity is absurd. As you seem to acknowledge, the LDS concept is equally absurd. Perhaps it is aesthetically less satisfying as well. LDS leaders seem now to have acknowledged that the full force of the atonement doctrine requires that Jesus and the God of the Bible (s/k/a God the Father, if you will) be one and the same. This seems to me to render the Father an unaccountable redundancy and loose end, and the OT's usage of "The Father" inexplicable (the usage not all that infrequent, I contend, and it's frequent enough to be a problem for those claiming Christ is not the Father but is God).

From your moniker I can tell you're aware of all the wrangling that went on in late antiquity on this very issue. The Catholic articulation of the Trinity is actually a compromise between the two sides of the bloody argument. This was partly a political expediency but also prompted by the conundrum that arises from separating Jesus from "the Father," but acknowledging Jesus as the God of the OT (God the Father). I submit this is yet another example where Mormonism actually lacks any coherent doctrine, but is going on a crazy quilt of internally inconsistent folklore and prophet writings that may or may not make sense or be "doctrine."

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

As you seem to acknowledge, the LDS concept is equally absurd.

Wow, to conflate my admission of lack of consistency with and admission of absurdity is quite the misreading. That is pretty revealing. Might we say, "it speaks volume."

btw: I don't think the trinity is absurd either (I actually think it is pretty cool).