{"id":3787,"date":"2016-04-16T08:00:24","date_gmt":"2016-04-16T14:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/?p=3787"},"modified":"2016-04-15T18:33:27","modified_gmt":"2016-04-16T00:33:27","slug":"ces-reply-joseph-smith-trinitarian","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stallioncornell.com\/blog\/ces-reply-joseph-smith-trinitarian\/","title":{"rendered":"CES Reply: Joseph Smith – Trinitarian? (Part I)"},"content":{"rendered":"

11. The Book of Mormon taught and still teaches a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. Joseph Smith\u2019s early theology also held this view.<\/span><\/p>\n

It\u2019s not nearly that simple, as I\u2019ll discuss below.<\/p>\n

As part of the over 100,000 changes<\/a> to the Book of Mormon, there were major changes made to reflect Joseph\u2019s evolved view of the Godhead.<\/span><\/p>\n

100,000 changes? Actually, it\u2019s probably more than that. The Book of Mormon was submitted to the printer without any punctuation whatsoever, along with heaven knows how many spelling errors. (Oliver, why couldn\u2019t you have been an infallible speller?)\u00a0 So every single item of punctuation can rightly be considered a change in the original manuscript. Certainly the 100,000 are almost all punctuation additions and corrections.<\/p>\n

The handful of changes that have the slightest degree of doctrinal significance barely register in the double digits, making them approximately .01% of all the changes, total. So let\u2019s deal with those, most of which do, in fact, directly relate to the Trinitarian view, although I don\u2019t think it\u2019s appropriate to refer to them as \u201cmajor changes,\u201d for reasons I\u2019ll discuss below.<\/p>\n

Examples:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Original 1830 Edition Text <\/span><\/p>\n

View Online<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/td>\n

Current, Altered Text <\/span><\/p>\n

View Online<\/u><\/a><\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

1 Nephi 3 (p.25):<\/u><\/a><\/span>
\nAnd he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh. <\/span><\/td>\n		1 Nephi 11:18:<\/u><\/a><\/span>
\nAnd he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of <\/span>the Son of <\/span>God, after the manner of the flesh. <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1 Nephi 3 (p.25):<\/u><\/a><\/span>
\nAnd the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! <\/span><\/td>\n		1 Nephi 11:21:<\/u><\/a><\/span>
\nAnd the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even <\/span>the Son of <\/span>the Eternal Father! <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1 Nephi 3 (p.26):<\/u><\/a><\/span>
\nAnd I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; <\/span><\/td>\n		1 Nephi 11:32:<\/u><\/a><\/span>
\nAnd I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, <\/span>the Son of <\/span>the everlasting God was judged of the world; <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1 Nephi 3 (p.32):<\/u><\/a><\/span>
\nThese last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world; <\/span><\/td>\n		1 Nephi 13:40:<\/u><\/a><\/span>
\nThese last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is <\/span>the Son of <\/span>the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; <\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Your problem seems to be that the text was originally Trinitarian, while the changes are not. But that demonstrates a misunderstanding of doctrine of the Trinity, because even with the changes, these verses remain perfectly consistent with Trinitarian creeds.<\/p>\n

No Trinitarian would object to calling Jesus Christ the Son of God, or the Son of the Eternal Father. They fully believe that Jesus is the Son of God. They also believe that Jesus is his own father, as well as a separate individual from his Father, but that he is also not<\/i> separate from his Father. They believe there are definitely<\/i> three Gods, but more importantly, there is definitely<\/i> only one God.<\/p>\n

And if that makes no sense, it\u2019s because, by definition, it\u2019s not supposed to.<\/p>\n

From that great theological treatise, Eric Idle\u2019s movie \u201cNuns of the Run:\u201d<\/p>\n

Eric Idle: Let me try and summarize this: God is his son. And his son is God. But his son moonlights as a holy ghost, a holy spirit, and a dove. And they all send each other, even though they’re all one and the same thing.\u00a0<\/i><\/p>\n

Robbie Coltrane: You’ve got it. You really could be a nun!<\/i><\/p>\n

Eric Idle: Thanks! Wait –\u00a0 what I said \u2013 does that make any sense to you?<\/em><\/p>\n

Robbie Coltrane: Well, no. And it makes no sense to anybody. That\u2019s why you have to believe it.<\/em><\/p>\n

You can\u00a0watch the whole\u00a0scene below:<\/p>\n