Putting my thoughts together on a subject I have been thinking about for awhile...

From reading Mormon Think, the recent Church essay on the different versions of the First Vision, Lectures on Faith, the Book of Mormon, the D&C, etc, I have come to realize that Joseph Smith's view on God evolved over time and it was well documented in scripture if you take the time to connect the dots. JS's view goes from a more traditional Trinitarian view of God to a view that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct
personages (as well as the Holy Ghost being separate too) If Joseph's view on God truly evolved over time after the Church was organized in 1830, this directly contradicts the 1838 account of the 1820 First Vision that is canonized within the Church where JS sees God the Father and Jesus Christ as two separate beings.

Here are just a few examples that document Joseph Smith's evolving view of God (there are many more out there...this is just the tip of the iceberg):

1. "The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh, revealed himself in Jesus Christ (see Abinadi's sermon to King Noah in Mos. 13-14).... there is little evidence that early church doctrine specifically differentiated between Christ and God. Indeed, this distinction was probably considered unnecessary since the early discussion also seems to have supported trinitarian doctrine. Joseph Smith's 1832 account of his first vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version. (from Mormon Think: http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#nature)

2. The Book of Mormon tells of a visitation of the Father and the Son to the "brother of Jared," but the account is not speaking of two separate personages. Only one personage appears, and this personage says:"Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light... they shall become my sons and my daughters." (Ether 3:14) (from Mormon Think: http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#nature)

3. Lectures on Faith #5 states: "They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in is image..." (Exerpt from Lectures on Faith #5: You can read the whole thing at the following link: http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/doctrine-and-
covenants-1835#!/paperSummary/doctrine-and-covenants-1835&p=61)

So how do we reconcile this? Why does the 1838 version of the First Vision (God the Father and Jesus Christ as separate personages) contradict this while the 1832 version (just the Lord appearing) seem to actually fit what early LDS scripture states?

More from Mormon Think (http://www.mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#nature):

"Marvin S. Hill, professor of American history at the church's Brigham Young University, tried to defend the idea that Joseph Smith had an important religious experience in the grove, but he had to admit that Joseph Smith's official 1838 account has some real problems. He, in fact, suggested that the 1832 account of the vision was probably more accurate than the official account and that Joseph Smith may have changed his theological views concerning God:
"It seems to me that everybody has approached the issue from the wrong end, by starting with the 1838 official version when the account they should be considering is that of 1832. Merely on the face of it, the 1832 version stands a better chance of being more accurate and unembellished than the 1838 account... I am inclined to agree that the religious turmoil that Joseph described which led to some family members joining the
Presbyterians and to much sectarian bitterness does not fit well into the 1820 context detailed by Backman. For one thing, it does not seem likely that there could have been heavy sectarian strife in 1820 and then a joint revival where all was harmony in 1824. In addition, as Walters notes, Lucy Mack Smith [Joseph Smith's mother] said the revival where she became interested in a particular sect came after Alvin's death, thus almost certainly in early 1824.... An 1824 revival creates problems for the 1838 account, not that of 1832...."

Wow, a BYU professor is actually calling this out!!!

The whole First Vision controversy creates some interesting questions.

--Why are there differing accounts of the First Vision? Why did these
accounts seem to evolve over time?

--Did Joseph Smith embellish these accounts over time? If so, why?

--Why were Joseph's other revelations changed so much? (will have links to document changes later on)

From intensive study of scriptural accounts of the nature of God, I think that Joseph Smith truly had an evolving view of the nature of God over time. There is much documentation surrounding the changing of scripture in the Book of Mormon and the D&C which lead many to believe that these changes were made as a "retrofit" to reflect this changing view.

You be the judge. See the following links as an introduction to this thought:

http://mormonthink.com/d&c.htm#changes
http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changingtherevelations.htm

This whole scenario naturally has at least couple of serious implications to the official story the LDS Church tells to the world and how a traditional TBM views the current and past leadership of the Church.

What are some these implications?

1) This puts the nature of Joseph's revelation into serious question. If God was truly talking to Smith directly as we are led to believe, why does he not get the full story the first time? Why does the story instead evolve?

2) If JS revelation was not directly with God face-to-face, then how does the current leadership converse with God? Do they really converse with God? Is the leadership of the LDS Church really any more inspired than leaders of other Churches? If not, this takes much of their power that the members percieve away from them. Suddenly the major bands of control evaporate.

Here is what I think actually happened regarding JS's view of God and the development of Church doctrines (the "world according to zenmaster", so to speak):

I believe JS was an avid student of religion. Through his study over time, he began to form his concept of God. As study continued and he read and learned and internalized new ideas based on his readings and studies from several different sources, his concept of God changed over time. Because this concept changed, his earlier revelations needed to be retrofitted to accomodate his changing views. I can liken this to Agile software development (I'm a serious student of IT). In a nutshell, one one the main concepts of Agile software development (extremely high level) is that the business has limited knowledge of what the system needs to be prior to it being built. As they see the system and use it, their "picture of the universe evolves" They develop a clearer picture of what is needed and requirements for building the system are added. This often requires existing code to be refactored to accomodate the new functionality. The system ends up evolving into the finished product based on the knowledge gained over time.

The Church teaches a lot about receiving personal revelation. Here is a link from LDS.org on that subject and some quotes from that link listed below:

https://www.lds.org/topics/revelation?lang=eng

--"The scriptures tell of different types of revelation, such as visions, dreams, and visitations by angels. Through such channels, the Lord has restored His gospel in the latter days and revealed many truths. However, most revelations to leaders and members of the Church come through the whisperings of the Holy Ghost."

--"When seeking specific guidance, we should study the matter out in our minds. At times the Lord's communication will come only after we have studied a matter out in our minds."

--"He speaks to the mind and heart in a still, small voice. The Lord taught: “I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation” (D&C 8:2-3). Although such revelation can have a powerful effect on us, it almost always comes quietly, as a “still small voice” (see 1 Kings 19:9-12; Helaman 5:30; D&C 85:6)."

--"Patiently seek God's will. God reveals Himself “in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will” (see D&C 88:63-68). Revelation will often come line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. We should be patient and trust in the Lord's timing."
Personally, I equate this to inspiration (which definitely can come from God, depending on your belief). I know I have experiences like this regularly in my day to life, not necessarily about things of a religious nature. Inspiration about a direction to take on a work project, inspiration in creative matters like art, writing, or even developing a computer system, etc, etc, etc.

I really don't think JS necessarily had these grand revelations like members of the Church are led to believe (he may have been inspired, but not in the way we are led to believe).

Yes, I am giving JS much more credit than many of you in this forum. That's just my nature :)

Based on scriptural evidence surrounding Joseph's evolving view of God, I believe the tenets of the LDS faith according to JS were developed over time based on JS learnings from various sources available to him. One of the big critiques of the BOM is it seems to come from many different sources (i.e Late War, View of the Hebrews, etc.). Even LDS doctrine like the Plan of Salvation was already out presented (i.e Swedenborg; see the following link: http://newearth.org/swedenborg/writings/hh/hh05.html) and JS had the opportunity to hear/read the ideas presented by Swedenborg. I'm betting that Joseph read and studied material like that and felt "aha, that makes sense! I really believe that." Thus it was incorporated into the LDS faith.

Then why the need for or mention of these "grand revelations" by Joseph Smith?

For one, talk of revelations like Joseph had were very common in the day. There were many accounts from different people saying they had visions.
(see Mormon Think: http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#having)

Perhaps to have any credibility in forming a religion (and power and authority thereafter), these visions were fundementally necessary (assuming he didn't truly have them like we have been taught in the Church)

This opens up to a slew of additional questions as you might imagine (just hitting the tip of the iceberg, of course). Here are just a few that come to mind (and I'll end it here):



--Why did Joseph feel the need to embellish the First Vision story?

--Why did Joseph need to say he had visions at all?

--Did Joseph have personal motives for creating the Church?

--Do you think Joseph really had the visions in the way he implied he did?

--What is wrong with Church doctrine evolving "precept upon precept"? Will the Church ever admit that is the way it really happened? (there is a ton of evidence pointing to that conclusion)

--What implications does it have for the Church as an organization if JS really didn't have "grand visions"?

--Why can't the Church admit to Joseph's evolving view of the Nature of God? Why the need to cover it up? (for example: Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C in 1921).

One of the first things that came to mind reading Old Joes lamentation from the Liberty jail ... he didn't have a stinking clue about who was who or who God is .

How much of his changing theology had to do with the folks from Ohio. Being heavily grounded in scripture and theology, Sidney Rigdon and the Pratt brothers could have brought new ideas and concepts that JS added to his recipe of the nature of God. John Taylor probably put in his two cents as well. Same with the Freemasons. The temple stuff definitely came from them. His initial prayer in the grove (or wherever) was to seek forgiveness of his sins rather than ask which church is true. Rewriting history is necessary when you rewrite your concept of God. JS was losing followers when the 1838 version of the first vision came out. Why not rewrite the script with the most fantastic players - Heeeeere's Elohim and Jesus!! Am I not the best prophet of all?