This is Part 2 as a follow up to Part 1 covered here.
The Doctrine of the Lectures on Faith
Before I continue, I should note that it would be helpful to the reader to at least familiarize themselves with the The Lectures on Faith, in particular the 2nd and 5th Lecture. They are fairly short lectures and can be easily read in one sitting. The reason for becoming at least acquainted with these Lectures, is explained in the article, Was Joseph Smith A Monarchotheist? by Loren Pankratz, wherein she explains on pages 43-45 the following (emphasis added):
… in the winter of 1834–35, the [Lectures on Faith] were given in Kirtland, Ohio that served as an early attempt to “formulate a systematic Latter-day Saint theology.”[18] These lectures were published in the Church’s newspaper in May of 1835, and “All seven lectures were published together later that year in the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, the lectures constituting the ‘doctrine,’ and Joseph Smith’s revelations, the covenants.’”[19] While it is debated whether or not Joseph Smith personally delivered all of the lectures, the “inclusion of the lectures in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1835 strongly suggests that Joseph Smith approved of the content of the lectures.”[20] [[Note: Joseph Smith also edited the 1844 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants and in that 1844 edition Smith republished the Lectures on Faith as the Doctrine]]. These lectures have been said to represent the “breadth and depth of the mind of Joseph Smith.”[21]
“Lecture Fifth” of the Lectures on Faith teaches that Jesus [born of Mary as part human born of flesh, see Mosiah 15], having overcome, “received a fullness of the glory of the Father.”[22] Later, in “Lecture Seventh” of the Lectures on Faith, it is taught that Jesus Christ is the prototype of a saved and glorified person. He is the example for us to
follow, a person who, through faith, “has become perfect enough to lay hold upon eternal life.”[23]
This early summary of the theology Joseph Smith developed depicts Jesus [as an earthborn human] advancing from having a non-deified status [as flesh] to being one who takes hold of eternal life, having received a fullness of glory. ... [Christ] becomes the archetype [a] trajectory ... to divinity.
[Her footnotes:]
18. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Church History Topics, “Lectures on Theology (“Lectures on Faith”), ... Robert Millet calls the Lectures on Faith a “systematic study of faith.” See, Robert L. Millet, Precept Upon Precept: Joseph Smith and the Restoration of Doctrine (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016), 217.
19. “Lectures on Theology.”
20. “Lectures on Theology.” See also Charles R. Harrell, “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2011), 121. Harrell claims that the consensus concerning authorship of the Lectures on Faith is that Joseph Smith “ultimately endorsed their contents and
sanctioned their publication.” Joseph Fielding Smith reminds the reader that the Lectures “were not taken out of the Doctrine and Covenants because they contained false doctrine,” and that “the Prophet himself revised and prepared these Lectures on Faith for publication; and they were studied in the School of the Prophets.” See Joseph Fielding Smith, Seek Ye Earnestly (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1970), 194.
21. Millet, Precept Upon Precept, 236.
22. Joseph Smith Jr., Lectures on Faith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company,
1985), 60.
23. Smith, Lectures on Faith, 75.
I believe that the early LDS Godhead as contained in the original LDS Scripture Canon that contained The Lectures on Faith (which again was edited and republished by Joseph Smith himself in 1844 just before he died) -- and which is found in the New Testament as well -- is first of all better understood in the context of Protestant scholar Michael Heiser's research on the Two Powers and the Monogene (see summary here and videos here, here and here), as well as the first century authors of the New Testament themselves: who thought of God more in terms of the metaphor of a plant body duplicating its genome. See this short article here: Some Plants Regenerate by Duplicating their DNA by Diana Yates.
The authors of the New Testament were more involved in agricultural seed planting and a harvesting culture; which is why the New Testament is full of metaphors that describe God and the Kingdom of God in terms of planted seeds sprouting into a field of growing wheat or a vineyard: as a metaphor for Christians being implanted with God's seed which would sprout like a garden (see God's Garden by Jonathan Mitchell). If one reads the article linked above by Dianna Yates and then one reads Jonathan A. Draper's article Not by human seed but born from above to become children of God, the reader will see what I mean. Note that I have shortened Draper's article, focusing on key excerpts, for ease of reading here.
All throughout the New Testament we find the consistent metaphorical language of plants duplicating and sprouting their genome (meaning an organism's complete set of genetic information); wherein some plants replicate their genome to produce new genomic duplicate plant bodies. For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:35-55, Paul describes the Christian resurrecting from the dead by metamorphizing into a new type of body just like a plant seed is buried and sprouts and is clothed in a new body. As this site's commentary on verse 37 explains:
What is sown or planted in the ground is not the plant but a "bare kernel." He [Paul] compares this to our pre-death physical human bodies. These bodies that we know and are familiar with are like a seed compared to the plant in full bloom that grows from it.
This language implies that one's previous human genome inherited from Adam is left in the grave like a "bare kernel" or shell and what resurrects is one's implanted heavenly body which contains a complete set of new divine genetic information one received from Christ. So that upon resurrection from the dead the Christian is transformed or metamorphizes into a new type of body.
This metaphorical language of plant seeds sprouting from the earth is used all throughout the New Testament, from one of the chronologically first authors (the apostle Paul and his letters and epistles) to one of the last Gospels written called John (as part of the Johannine Community); with the author of the Gospel of John describing Christ as a metaphorical vine replicating his genome using vineyard metaphors: in order to describe how God implants and replicates his divine DNA through the language of God's divine seed (sperma) being implanted into humans which replaces their former Adamic nature with the new Christ nature; which again is covered in Jonathan A. Draper's article, Not by human seed but born from above to become children of God.
In John 12:24, we see the metaphor of seeds of wheat needing to die in order to sprout new wheat bodies as a metaphor for Christ being the first seed (i.e. genome or body of DNA), which is planted and sprouts (resurrects) in order to replicate the divine Image or nature of Christ that is implanted into Christians so that they have eternal "life in all its fullness [abundance]" (John 10:10 EXB). If you read the list of verses in the section titled cross references for John 12: 24 on Bible Hub, you can see multiple other New Testament verses focusing on the concept of Christ as a plant-like seed or genome replicating its DNA.
So before we proceed it's important to understand this core New Testament theme of God functioning in a way similar to some plants duplicating their genome: as a central metaphor of how God implants Christians with his divine Image (divine DNA) in order to sprout the Kingdom of God as an organic growing phenomenon on earth. For more details see the book length treatment of the subject in From Eternity to Here by Frank Viola.
Note: Jesus is Not Jehovah (for Jehovah is actually the Father) & "Elohim" is Not the name of the Father
Melodie Charles points out that:
“There is only one scriptural linking of Jesus with the name Jehovah, and in the same week Joseph Smith received that revelation he received a revelation calling the Father Jehovah and describing the Father as the God of Israel (D&C 109:4, 10, 22, 24, 29, 34, 42, 47, 56, 64, 68; and 110: 3-4).”
Source: New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, pg. 110; in the chapter titled Book of Mormon Christology by Melodie Charles.
In D&C 109 (written in 1836), Joseph Smith prays to the Lord God of Israel (who is the resurrected Jesus) in verse 1, which makes sense if he saw Jesus as Jehovah’s twin image. Then in verse 4, Jesus is identified as the Holy Father. The personage whom the prayer (in section 109) is addressed in verse 37 is clearly Jehovah (see verses 42, 56, 68); then in verse 77 Jehovah is addressed as “O Lord God Almighty.”
LDS scholar Blake Ostler confirms that "Elohim" is not the proper name of God the Father according to LDS Scripture. Instead, Ostler explains that LDS Scripture itself makes it clear that Jehovah is the Father. For example, Joseph Smith even prayed to Jehovah as the Father. In his essay Re-vision-ing the Mormon Concept of Deity, Ostler writes in footnote 30:
I note that there is no scriptural support for the view that Elohim is the proper name of the Father. Indeed, such use contradicts D&C 109 where Joseph Smith refers to Jehovah and Elohim interchangeably. Such usage could be adopted as a mere policy for purposes of keeping the divine persons distinct, but it also creates confusion regarding the identity of members of the Godhead. It must be recognized that no such usage is consistent in either the Bible or the Mormon scriptures.
Critics of Joseph Smith's Godhead theology have long speculated that he changed his mind about the nature of Deity, moving from modalism to binitarianism, to then tritheism. On this site I will argue against this idea that Joseph Smith was a modalist, which is the belief that the Father and Son in the Trinity are actually one single person or one personality, with the titles Father and Son understood in the Bible as only masks, "costumes," or roles that the one God as one person performs as the exact same person; thus manifesting himself as both Father God and Jesus like an actor playing different roles.
I will argue against this idea that Joseph Smith changed his mind about the nature of the Trinity by moving from modalism to binitarianism to then tritheism. On my theory, Joseph Smith always saw God the Father and Jesus as separate and distinct persons or individuals. I will show that Joseph Smith most likely always believed and taught that the earthborn Jesus and God the Father were separate and distinct persons, with Jesus being his own person as a body of Flesh (with separate human experiences), and God the Father being his own person.
In my Godhead theory, the Father and Jesus are only the same "God," that is they are one divinity, only in the sense that they are basically "identical twins": meaning they share the same divine genome or nature, similar to human twins and comparable to some plant bodies sharing the same genome: with the New Testament repeatedly using seed and plant metaphors to describe the Godhead and seeded Christians sprouting the Kingdom of God like a harvest; as the Father God and Jesus are the mirror image of each other as identical personages (as clarified in the publication of the 1835 Lectures on Faith, in particular Lecture 2 and 5).
So on my theory, what the 1830 Book of Mormon and subsequent LDS Scriptures are teaching is that there is a Supreme Being, one single God or Deity (as described in Lecture on Faith #2). I will explain below how the one Deity, the first God, expanded into other gods: with Christ as the first prototype of a human form or flesh body resurrecting and becoming fully divinized by the Father.
What I see LDS Scripture teaching as a whole, is that this first God chose to expand himself by replicating his divine genomic-like Image, by first forming himself (his genome) into a "non-flesh spirit body" (i.e. a noomatic body). To understand what I mean by "noomatic," see my post here on the divine substance I term "nooma." This is why this noomatic body of God the Father is called a "personage of spirit (i.e. nooma)" in Lecture #5.
The question then becomes, if there was a first God before all other gods, an original Deity that existed before the creation of mankind and all other gods, where did the very first God get its bodily personage or image from? I think Lectures 2 and 5, and D&C 121: 28, 32, give us the answer: which is that "the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was [i.e. before our earth was formed]" (D&C 121: 32, emphasis added), chose to form for himself in heaven a bodily personage made of heavenly nooma that was based on the exact same prototype image or personage of the future earthborn Jesus. The supreme independent being (the First Deity) described in Lecture 2, as an omniscient supreme being could see the future and in the First Deity's infinite mind the original Deity foresaw the earthly form of the earthborn Jesus which then became the prototype for forming the Deity's noomatic bodily personage as the Father-Jehovah (as explained in Lecture 5).
Another way to explain this is that because the earth had not yet been formed and the flesh life of earth had not yet been created according to D&C 121: 32, the Eternal God (First Deity) over all other gods, as an omnipresent independent being (per Lecture 2) was a bodiless omnipresent divine substance (and/or Divine Mind) according to Lecture 2 & 5, who then formed for himself a noomatic body based on the image in his divine mind of the future earth born Jesus of Nazareth. Note that this understanding of the First Deity as a bodiless Divine Mind aligns closely with the teachings of LDS apostles Parley and Orson Pratt: who taught that the forms or personages of all the gods was grounded in an omnipresent fluid substance or fluid spirit-matter called the Great God.
So the Eternal God over all other gods, i.e. the First God, that Orson Pratt described as the Great God (that grounds all other gods), who is the Deity of Lecture 2, this Deity first formed for himself a non-fleshly spirit personage (a body composed of nooma) that was a genomic copy of the future not yet born earthly form of Jesus (i.e. prior to Jesus being born from Mary's womb). So that God's spiritual-bodily-form (i.e. his spiritual/noomatic body) that appears in the Old Testament as Jehovah prior to the birth of Jesus, is a noomatic bodily form that looks exactly like Jesus: because Father-Jehovah is the genomic twin image of Jesus (as a personage composed of spiritual material) that was formed in heaven before Jesus was born of a woman on earth.
I put together the following illustrations to help explain visually my Twin Duplicate Godhead theory. Click on each visual below to enlarge the image:
Click image to enlarge
In this visual illustration above I begin in the left section by quoting Lecture 2, then illustrating how the pre-earth First Deity of Lecture 2 formed a noomatic body (a spirit/nooma body) called Jehovah (i.e. God the Father). So that the Father's Spirit/Nooma is in the Son (i.e. the Father's genome is duplicated as the bodily form of the Son/Jesus), as explained in Mosiah 15:1-5 and Lecture 5. In other words, Jesus received through the nooma the genomic twin genes of the noomatic body of Jehovah. In the next section of my visual above on the right, I show how the noomatic body of Jehovah is a twin duplicate of the earth-born Jesus. This is why Lecture 5 explains that Jesus is the express image (meaning exact form) of the Father-Jehovah. This is how Jesus can pray to the Father in the Book of Mormon as a separate person born of a woman, yet in the same Book of Mormon Jesus can call himself the Father and the Son: this is because although Jesus is his own person having had his own separate human life and experiences, he is also the very copy of the divine genome of the Father-Jehovah, having had the Father-Jehovah's exact genome imprinted into his body of flesh like a stamped seal; so that they are the same exact duplicate genome (the express/exact image) and thus they are one God as one duplicate divine genome.
This is why in Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible (JST) in 1830-1831, Joseph Smith produced Moses chapter 1 where Father-Jehovah appears to Moses and says to him in verse 6 (emphasis added, words in brackets my own):
... I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude [likeness/resemblance] of mine Only Begotten [i.e. Only Monogene]; and mine Only Begotten [Unique Gene] is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.
Joseph Smith composes the verse, "but there is no God beside me," because Jesus is not a second God to the Father; instead, Jesus is the same God as a duplicate of Father-Jehovah, as Jehovah says above that the future earthborn Jesus is "mine only begotten," meaning my only twin genome." Michael Heiser explains that "only begotten" means unique gene. For the term "only begotten" in the New Testament means in the original Greek language the monogenes. As this Christian article explains:
The phrase "only begotten" [in John 3:16] translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is variously translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten."
So what does monogenes mean? According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BDAG, 3rd Edition), monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." This is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham’s "only begotten son" (KJV). Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. Therefore, it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.
The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John 3:16 (see also John 1:14, 18; 3:18; 1 John 4:9). John was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God’s Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God’s sons and daughters by adoption (Ephesians 1:5). Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.
So the "only begotten" means the monogenes of the Father, meaning an exact genetic and/or image replica of the Father as his only duplicate genes, hence mono-genes, i.e. one-and-only-genes. This is further confirmed in Joseph Smith's dictation of Mosiah 15:1-5 where the term Son is defined as only referring to the flesh-body of Jesus with verse 2 explaining the Jesus is called the "Son, because of the flesh; ..." Here is Mosiah 15:1-5 with emphasis added:
And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself [Father-Jehovah] shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he [the Father] dwelleth in flesh [i.e. because he duplicated himself, his divine genome, into a fleshly body] he [Jesus, as the monogenes of Jehovah] shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will [genes] of the Father, being the Father [God's monogenes] and the Son [born of Mary as flesh]—The Father, because he [Jesus] was conceived [in Mary's womb] by the power of God [the divine gene/genus of the Father was supernaturally implanted into Mary through the holy nooma]; and [thus Jesus is called] the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son [i.e. Jesus became "God's monogenes in the flesh" at his birth]— And they [Jehovah and Jesus] are one God [one duplicated genome or divinity], yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
In post here I explain in more detail how Jesus is the Only-Gene / Monogene of Jehovah, but to summarize: this means that only the earthborn Jesus is an exact genomic duplicate of Jehovah. Thus, only Christ is the Monogene of Jehovah which explains the language of Jesus as the Only Begotten of the Father-Jehovah. Here is another visual I made to help illustrate this:
The "Word" in John 1:1 as a Portion of the Deity's Divine Power and Fluid Fullness, Being Manifest as the Gospel-Message through Christ as the Monogene
In Moses 1:6 covered above, we saw how there is only one God (i.e. the Deity of Lecture 2: who is the independent, supreme governing power). God then says in Moses 1: 32 (emphasis added): "And by the word of my power, have I created them [the earthly forms], which ["word"] is mine Only Begotten Son, who is full of grace and truth." Note that word "Son" here is defined earlier in the 1830 Book of Mormon in Mosiah 15: 1-5 as meaning merely the flesh body of Jesus (conceived in the womb of Mary). We can now ask why is the prototype image of Jesus's body (as the Son/Flesh as the duplicate prototype mold of Father-Jehovah) said to be full of grace and truth? This language of being filled up by God's fullness is meant literally, as it is referring to the Deity's divine nooma (or fluid spirit-material substance). As we read in Lecture 2:2 (emphasis added):
God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. ...
Then in the section "Questions and Answers on the Foregoing Principles" in Lecture 2 we read:
Question 1: Is there a being who has faith in himself independently?
There is.
Question 2: Who is it?
It is God.
Question 3: How do you prove that God has faith in himself independently?
Because he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life, and in him all fulness dwells Eph. 1:23: Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Col. 1:19: For it pleased the Father, that in him should all fulness dwell. (2:12)
As we can see, the Lectures on Faith clearly explain that the first God's omnipresent being, is an omnipresent fluid substance as all truth and light that literally fills all of creation; and the bodily image (i.e. prototype or personage) of the earthborn Jesus is the Deity's chosen bodily image or form in which God's omnipresent noomatic fullness reveals itself in form (as the chosen Image of the Godhead).
As Lecture 5 clearly explains, the omnipresent Deity's fullness is in the earthborn Jesus who is the Father-Jehovah's only begotten (only monogene); meaning, Jesus is the Father's identical genomic form. Here are the actual words from Lecture 5:2-3 (words in brackets my own):
2 There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power [i.e. the Deity of Lecture 2] over all things—by whom all things were created and made ...—They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father [compare Moses 1: 6, 32] a personage of tabernacle [i.e. flesh], made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his [Jesus'] likeness, and in his image;—he is also the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Father; being begotten of him, ... And he [Jesus] being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth [i.e. full of nooma], and having overcome, received a fulness of the [noomatic] glory of the Father—possessing the same mind with the Father [i.e. the same noomatic nature or fluid nooma], which mind is the Holy Spirit [Sacred Nooma], that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the [nature of God's being as the] great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory[/splendor], power and fulness: Filling all in all—the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind, glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit[/Nooma], glory and power of the Father—possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom: sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father—a Mediator for man—being filled with the fulness of the Mind of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit[/Nooma] of the Father: which Spirit is shed forth [like an impouring liquid] upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments: and all those [humans] who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; possessing the same mind [nooma], being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one.
3 From the foregoing account of the Godhead, which is given in his revelations [i.e. LDS Scriptures], the Saints [LDS Christians] have a sure foundation laid for the exercise of faith unto life and salvation ... even that of partaking of the fulness of the Father and the Son, through the Spirit [compare 2 Peter 1:4]. As the Son partakes of the fulness of the Father through the Spirit [Nooma], so the saints [i.e. Christians] are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fulness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so in like manner the saints are to be one in them, through the love of the Father, the mediation of Jesus Christ, and the gift of the Holy Spirit; they are to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ.
This clearly teaches that Jesus is an identical copy of Jehovah based on the 1828 dictionary definition of the word express in verb transitive definition #4 and in the adjective form in definition #2 which reads, "Copied; resembling; bearing an exact representation." The section above further explains that Jesus is the only begotten, so only he is the exact duplicate of Father-Jehovah as a literal "copied genome; resembling; bearing an exact representation" of Father-Jehovah. The Sacred Nooma then imparts the divine nature of Christ into Christians so they too can be "partakers of the same fulness, to enjoy the same glory." Yet Christians having mortal fathers are not exact genomic copied representations of Jesus (like Jesus is a genomic copy of Father-Jehovah); instead, Christians recieve the seeded gene of immorality but retain their human personhood from their mortal parents. For only Jesus is the Only Begotten (Unique Monogene).
We then see this further corroborated in Lecture 5 in the Q&A section:
Question 10: Does he [Jesus] possess the fulness of the Father?
He does. Colossians 1:19: For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell. [2:9]: For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Ephesians 1:23: Which is his [Christ's] body, the fulness of him that fills all in all.
Question 11: Why was he called the Son?
Because of the flesh. Luke 1:33: That holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be called the Son of God — Matthew 3:16-17: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straitway out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he [John] saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting upon him: and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Lecture 5 further explains all of this in the Q&A section:
Question 7: What is the Son?
First, he is a personage of tabernacle. (5:2)
Question 8: How do you prove it?
John 14:9-11: Jesus says unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? He that has seen me has seen the Father; and how do you say then, Show us the Father? Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwells in me, he does the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me. Secondly, and being a personage of tabernacle, was made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man. (5:2) Philippians 2:5: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of man, and, being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Hebrews 2:14, 16: Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels: but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Thirdly, he is also in the likeness of the personage of the Father. (5:2) Hebrews 1:1-3: God, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past to the fathers, by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who, being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person. Again, Philippians 2:5-6: Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.
In other words, Jesus is an exact genomic copy or duplicate of the form of Father-Jehovah's bodily person (ie. his personage of nooma). Here is my illustration again to better understand this through a visual:
Click image to enlarge
So with this understanding in mind, Moses 1: 32 is best interpreted as God's word made into form is of God, part of God (as part of the fullness of the Deity of Lecture 2) in that the image of Jesus is the genomic duplicate, identical twin Image, of Father-Jehovah. In other words, the word of God's power (his divine truth, wisdom and light) was formed on earth and given a part-human voice as the earthborn Jesus (as a copy of Father-Jehovah's noomatic form).
How Christ is of God as the noomatic twin image of God as the word (meaning the light, truth and wisdom of God made in flesh), is further explained in Joseph Smith's Bible Translation (JST), where Smith modified the "Word" in John 1:1 and changed the wording to read thus in the JST John 1:1 (emphasis added):
In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.
Note that the wording is changed to the gospel/message is now the "word" which is God's divine light and truth (i.e. nooma). This word (eternal truth) was with or alongside the Son who's with the Father. Then it says the Son is of God. What does this mean? Mosiah 15: 1-5 explains that Jesus is only called the Son on account of his earthborn body of flesh being concieved by God, so how was "the Son with the Father" before Jesus was even born? Recall how Moses 1:32 describes the word of God's power as his "Only Begotten Son ... who is full of grace and truth." If the word Son meant the earthborn flesh body of Jesus, why is the word Son being used in both Moses 1 and JST John 1? The answer is simple, the word Son is obviously referring to the mere Image (or prototype) of the earthborn Jesus, who is called the Son due to his being born with a body of Flesh (as explained in Mosiah 15:1-5). This prototype Image or genome of the Son/Fleshly Form is shared by the Father and Jesus, as they are basically genomic twins. The wording of "Only Begotten" means God's Only Monogene, meaning Father-Jehovah stamped his personage of spirit into Flesh, making the Son (the flesh born body of Jesus) the twin duplicate genomic image (prototype) of Father-Jehovah. So the "Son was with the Father" means God had the image (or genetic blueprint) of Christ within his divine Mind prior to the birth of Jesus. Hence the use of the word Son prior to the birth of Jesus, is referring to the blueprint form or prototype personage of the future earthborn Jesus.
This is made clear in Moses 1:6, wherein Father-Jehovah says, "and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me ..." The word "Son" then only refers to the fleshly bodily image of and future status of the the earthborn Jesus as the Savior. The wording "but there is no God beside me ..." makes it even clearer that this language is not meant to describe the Son as a pre-mortal Jesus as a literal second Deity alongside the one and only Deity. When God says Moses was made "in the similitude of mine Only Begotten ...", the Deity is saying that my (mine) image (personage) that I choose to represent myself as during Old Testament times (as a personage of spirit), is an exact noomatic duplicate of the future earthborn personage of Jesus (which I foresaw in my prescient divine mind), as the blueprint form/image I utilized to form you (Moses) as a human in my image (which is the exact image of the future Jesus born of Mary).
Lecture 2 explains that the Deity had faith in himself and not in another deity; so too, the Deity had in his omnicient prescient mind the concept of Jesus' genome before the birth of Jesus. As Moses 1:6 makes clear, there is no other God standing beside the Deity, as in there is the one Deity per Lecture 2, and Jesus is an exact genomic copy of the Father's noomatic body. So that a version of monotheism is retained as God was only copying his genome and then allowing Christians to partake/share in the one divine fulness. In other words, Jesus is of God as a duplicate genome of Jehovah as the only begotten/monogene.
The above understanding is corroborated in the rest of JST John chapter 1, which goes on to explain all this in verses 13-14, 16 (words in italics are from the original LDS version, words in brackets are my own):
13 He [Jesus] was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. [Compare Mosiah 15: 1-5] 14 And the same word [see Moses 1:32] was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth [i.e. filled with divine light, truth and wisdom as the embodied "word of God's power" as Gods spokesman in the flesh as the Only Monogene].
... 16 For in the beginning was the Word, even the [conceptualized image of the] Son, who is made flesh [i.e. the Father who is a 'personage of spirit' was then genomically duplicated to form Jesus' body of Flesh], and sent unto us by the will of the Father [again see Mosiah 5:1-5]. And as many as believe on his [Jesus'] name shall receive of his fullness. And of his fullness have all we received, even immortality and eternal life, through his grace [see Lecture 5 quoted above where "fullness" refers to the divine spirit/nooma filling individuals with the divine genes of Christ to make them holy and divine by grace].
17 For the law was given through Moses, but [eternal] life and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 For the law was after a carnal commandment, to the administration of death; but the gospel was after the power of an endless life [the seed of immortality], through Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son, [i.e. the duplicate Monogene of Father-Jehovah in the Flesh], who is in the bosom of the Father [compare Moses 1:6, where "in the bosom of the Father" implies that the conceptual image of the Son (Fleshy Jesus) was with God as in within the Deity's prescient divine mind] 19 And no man hath seen God [the omnipresent Deity of Lecture 2] at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son [i.e. the first Deity is omnipresent and is known bodily through the conceptual image of Jesus prior to his birth as Jehovah as a personage of nooma, who then duplicates his Jehovian genome to form Jesus in the flesh so that the Father and Son are both only seen looking like Jesus who was born of Mary]; for except it is through him [that is the genome of Christ that imparts/shares the immortal gene to resurrect into a holy being, as explained in Lecture 7] no man can be saved.
For the independent being, the supreme governing power (the Deity) of Lecture 2, had simply formed a prototype genome with Jesus' Image, through which the one God, the Deity, could duplicate the divine genome of his "personage of spirit/nooma" (see Lecture 5) by forming his duplicate genome as the earthborn Jesus, the Only Begotten/Monogene; and so then through the resurrected Christ's divine genome, God could further transfer or literally pour the divine genes of immortality into humans through the indwelling/inpouring nooma so that Christians partake of (or share) in the divine nature/genome (see 2 Peter 1:4).
So in the illustration below I used the language of the Lectures on Faith which describe a single Supreme Deity in Lecture 2: this Deity was the first God. Then I show how the Divine Mind (Deity) then formed a personage of nooma (in the genomic form of Jehovah) before the creation of Mankind; then that divine genome (Jehovah) was duplicated to form the earthborn Jesus, as illustrated below:
In the illustration above I emphasize the divine fullness of the Deity. The Lectures on Faith emphasize divine theosis or deification through humans receiving the pneumatic ("noomatic") fullness of the Godhead. This fulness is a literal filling up of a divine fluid material substance (as explained by early LDS Apostles Parley and Orson Pratt). This is further substantiated scripturally in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of John 3: 34-36, presented here below. Note that this is from the book Joseph Smith Translation by Kenneth and Lyndell Lutes: wherein the Lutes show the original King James version which Joseph Smith was working from so that the words added by Joseph Smith are in bold; and the words crossed out are the words Joseph Smith took out of his translation. Now here is JST John 3: 34-36:
34 For he whom God hath sent, speaketh the words of God; for God giveth him not the Spirit by measure
unto him, for he dwelleth in him, even the fullness.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his
handhands.
36 And he
thatwho believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and shall receive of his fullness.andBut hethatwho believeth not the Son, shall notsee lifereceive of his fullness;butfor the wrath of Godabidethisonupon him.
We can thus see that Joseph Smith had a clear understanding that divine life given through the Son was the receiving of the divine fullness of the Godhead through the Spirit (or Nooma). This is reiterated later in D&C 131:7-8 when Smith clarifies that all spirit (nooma) is refined spirit matter or "spirit atoms" (as explained by Orson Pratt). So that the fulness of God is basically the divine energy and intelligence that controls and propels all matter and energy in the universe, as a divine fluid substance that can fill up anything or depart from something leaving only inert matter; and can transform a human body into a divine celestial body. This divine fluid fulness is called the Holy Spirit and/or the Mind of God, as well as the "Spirit of the Father" in the 5th Lecture on Faith: wherein the 5th Lecture explains that this Mind (Fulness) literally fills up Jesus with the Deity's divine substance (the will of the Father that swallows up/fills up Jesus, in the language of Mosiah 5:1-5); and this omnipresent fulness can do the same for Christians so that they too are one in fullness with the Godhead. This is explained further in the 7th Lecture. I explain how early LDS doctrine distinguished between the Holy Spirit (God's omnipresent fulness) and the Holy Ghost (the third personage in the Godhead) in this blog post here.
Again, I put together these illustrations below to further help visualize the original LDS Godhead and how the first God formed the noomatic body of Jehovah based on the prototype of the future earthborn Jesus born of Mary, which the first Deity was able to foresee in his prescient omnipresent mind:
Click image to enlarge
Click image to enlarge
Why Seeing Jesus Means Seeing the Father:
The supreme independent Deity (described in Lecture 2) had implanted his divine genome into the womb of Mary, so that while Jesus was born of a human woman and thus had a human nature from Mary, he was also an exact copy or genomic twin duplicate of God the Father, as a stamped seal of the Father in the Flesh. So that Jesus could say, "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9). This is echoed in the Book of Mormon in Ether 4:12 wherein Jesus says, "He that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father." Jesus says this because they are an exact genomic copy of each other, similar to identical twins. In fact, Joseph Smith reiterates this again around 1831 after the publication of the Book of Mormon by changing the verse in Luke 10:22 to read in The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of Luke 10:23 the following (emphasis added):
No man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.
The Son reveals "it" (their identical twin nature) because seeing Jesus on earth was the same as seeing God the Father. In other words, the personage of spirit/nooma (God's noomatic body) described in Lecture 5, is the identical twin image of the earthborn Jesus (who appears in the Old Testament as Jehovah) before Jesus was born. So that whoever had seen Jesus on earth has seen God the Father because they are identical twins: in the sense that they have the exact same genomic DNA as an exact genomic copy of each other.
Apostle Orson Hyde's First Vision version and The Father and Son Resembling Each Other Exactly in Features and Stature
According to this site, the LDS Apostle “Orson Hyde wrote a treatise on the faith, doctrine, and history of the [LDS] Church, which he then translated and published in German. Hyde’s work was titled Ein Ruf aus der Wuste, which was the first time an account of the First Vision was published in a foreign language.” In his 1842 description of Joseph Smith's First Vision, Orson Hyde clarifies things with an integrated version that combined some of the content of the 1832 and 1838 First Vision versions. Here is what Hyde wrote about Joseph Smith's First Vision experience:
He considered this scripture (James 1:5) an authorization for him to solemnly call upon his creator to present his needs before him with the certain expectation of some success. ... At this sacred moment, the natural world around him was excluded from his view, so that he would be open to the presentation of heavenly and spiritual things. Two glorious heavenly personages stood before him, resembling each other exactly in features and stature. They told him that his prayer had been answered and that the Lord had decided to grant him a special blessing. He was also told that he should not join any of the religious sects or denominations, because all of them erred in doctrine and none were recognized by God as his church and kingdom. …
Note that in Hyde's version, he emphasizes that God the Father and Jesus are two personages "resembling each other exactly in features and stature." Note that this adds further clarification to what the 5th Lecture means by Christ is the express image of the Father, which means that they resemble each other exactly: as they are an exact duplicate genome and/or identical twin personage of each other.
The 1832 First Vision emphasizes that Jesus is Lord and in this version only Jesus is seen in the vision; while Joseph Smith receives a forgiveness of sins. If, as early as 1830, Smith understood the Father and Son to be identical twin genomes or personages (as I argue above), then Smith only mentioning Christ in his 1832 version is understandable and even to be expected. For in Smith's mind, to see Christ was the same as seeing the Father; so in the 1832 version he mentions Christ because in that version he is emphasizing his desire to be forgiven of his sins which is available through Christ. So obviously he talks about seeing Christ and being forgiven of his sins. This does not necessarily mean that he was intentionally excluding mentioning the Father or that he didn't think of the Father as a separate personage. For if he thought Christ was the identical prototype image of the Father, then in his mind only mentioning Christ would suffice in his private journal entry in 1832.
In Hyde's version above, Christ gives him a "blessing" which could have been in reference to a forgiveness of sins like in the 1832 version. So in Hyde’s version we see what Joseph Smith may have meant by the 1832 account that only mentions Jesus, which is that because Jesus and God the Father “[resemble] each other exactly in features and stature” (as Hyde puts it), it is understandable that Joseph Smith would only mention Christ in the 1832 version, as seeing Christ was in his mind the same as seeing the Father. As we read in John 14:8-9 (NKJV):
Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
Hyde also combines elements of the 1838 account about Smith saying he was told not to join any of the sectarian denominations, with Hyde adding in his 1842 account, “They told him that his prayer had been answered and that the Lord had decided to grant him a special blessing.” Note that while they are both present, it is the Lord (presumably Christ) that grants a special blessing. This "special blessing" could have been in reference to Smith seeking a forgiveness of his sins in the 1832 version; with Smith feeling that his sins were forgiven by Christ. So we see that while in Smith's 1832 version, only Christ is mentioned forgiving his sins, in Hyde's version the two personages that resembled each other exactly (down to their features and even their stature) appear to him but then the Lord or Christ gives him a blessing which could have been referring to them forgiving him of his sins.
Note that in the 1832 version by The Joseph Smith Papers, they quote Joseph writing, "a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord [16]." Note his being filled by the spirit (nooma) of God. This footnote 16 states (with emphasis added):
[Joseph Smith] later recounted [in 1838] that he saw two “personages,” that one appeared after the other, and that “they did in reality speak unto me, or one of them did.” Other accounts identify the two personages as God the Father and Jesus Christ. (JS History, vol. A-1, 3; JS, Journal, 9–11 Nov. 1835.)
If Joseph Smith was recounting in 1832 what he understood about the Godhead (as twin identical personages with exact features and stature), then saying he saw the Lord in the 1832 version would make sense on my Godhead theory, because seeing the Father was for him the same as seeing the duplicate form of the Father which was Jesus the Lord; in other words, on my theory, Smith only mentioned seeing Jesus in 1832 is consistent with my version of his Godhead theology from 1830 onward: wherein God the Father and Jesus were the exact same identical personages in likeness, features, and even in stature. So Smith saying he saw the Lord (Christ) does not exclude his believing that the Father was also present in the vision. Smith simply only mentions Christ because Jesus is the one who said "your sins are forgiven." For, if Joseph understood the Father and Son as identical personages in 1832, then saying he only saw Jesus in 1832 and then clarifying he saw two personages in the 1834 - 1835 First Vision, matches the language of other Trinitarian visions of the day. For example, his 1815 vision of Christ, Norris Stearns, says he saw "two spirits" and
"One was God, my Maker, almost in bodily shape like a man. His face was, as it were a flame of Fire, and his body, as it had been a Pillar and a Cloud. In looking steadfastly to discern features, I could see none, but a glimpse would appear in some other place. Below him stood Jesus Christ my Redeemer, in perfect shape like a man--His face was not ablaze, but had the counteance of fire, being bright and shining. His Father's will appeared to be his! ..."
In 1816, an Elias Smith had a similar vision and says that when he "went into the woods" then "a light appeared to shine from heaven" and he then says, "My mind seemed to rise in that light to the throne of God and the Lamb." In 1821, Charles Finney had a similar visionary experience and says, "I knew that it was God's word, and God's voice, as it were, that spoke to me. I cried to him, 'Lord, I take Thee at Thy word ... Thou hast promised to hear me."
So we can see that other Trinitarian Christians of the day had a similar view of God the Father having a spiritual bodily form alongside Jesus' resurrected-form (even if the Father's spiritual form was seen more as a theophany); so that Joseph Smith not mentioning the spiritual form of the Father in 1832 just means he likely did not feel like he needed to emphasize that because of the Trinitarians of the day already having the same understanding of the Trinity. Note as well that in Joseph Smith's 1832 vision, he does have Jesus say he will come "<clothed> in the glory of my Father." This matches Norris Stearns' vision above when he says, "His Father's will appeared to be his!" Note as well that the footnote 18 in the Joseph Smith Papers after the sentence "<clothed> in the glory of my Father" explains that this phrase aligns with the 1832 D&C 76:41 and the 1831 D&C 45:8, which distinguishes between God the Father and the resurrected Christ.
In the historical introduction to the 1832 account, the Joseph Smith Paper's historians add:
Records predating 1832 only hint at Joseph Smith’s earliest manifestation. The historical preamble to the 1830 “Articles and Covenants,” for example, appears to reference Joseph Smith’s vision in speaking of a moment when “it truly was manifested unto this first elder, that he had received a remission of his sins.”[6] Initially, Joseph Smith may have considered this vision to be a personal experience tied to his own religious explorations. He was not accustomed to recording personal events, and he did not initially record the vision as he later did the sacred texts at the center of his attention. Only when Joseph Smith expanded his focus to include historical records did he write down a detailed account of the theophany he experienced as a youth.
Footnote 6 above from the historical introduction reads:
Articles and Covenants, ca. Apr. 1830 [D&C 20:5–8]. In the circa summer 1832 history, Christ’s first message to Joseph Smith is “thy sins are forgiven thee.”
So we see that the 1832 First Vision version aligns with D&C 20:5–8, while the 1838 version aligns with the ideas in the 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon: which describes various Christians throughout history forming false Creeds requiring Christ to present the pure doctrine of Christ in 2 Nephi 31.
On my Godhead theory, the 1830 Book of Mormon also supports my identical twin genome theory, and thus Joseph Smith is not adding a second personage to the Godhead in his 1838 version, but instead Joseph Smith had believed that the Father and Son were separate individuals as early as 1830.
Monotheism and the Trinity?
