. . . as of 1835, the Son, in Smith’s
theology, remained only a vessel for the father’s spirit emanation, if not his spirit
personage. As the lectures states, “The Son . . . possess[es] all the fulness
of the Father, or, the same fulness with the Fathe[r]; being begotten of him. .
. . The Father and Son possess the same mind, . . . the Son being filled with the
fulness of the Mind of the Father, or in other words, the Spirit of the Father.”
(D&C, 1835 ed., 53, 54)
Because the fifth lecture described
the Father and Son as personages but not the Holy Spirit, some have concluded that
this represents a shift to binitarianism. Binitarianism, the belief that the
Godhead consists of two personages and that the Holy Spirit is “a divine
emanation of God,” was popular among primitivistic Christians such as David Millard,
a leader in the “Christian Connexion” movement, and apparently Alexander
Campbell, as well. However, while the lecture described the Son as a “personage”
of flesh, it fails to define the Son as a person distinct from the
father and therefore may only be a variation of modalism—albeit, one that
allows for the simultaneous appearance of the Father and Son. The
binitarian-like-formulation of the Godhead in the fifth lecture may be due, in
part to former Campbellite Rigdon’s participation in preparing the lectures. (Dan
Vogel, Charismas Under Pressure: Joseph Smith American prophet 1831-1839 [Salt
Lake City: Signature Books, 2023], 397)
It
is unfortunate, though not surprising, that Vogel repeats this stupidity in an
attempt to defend desperately his thesis that early LDS Christology was a form
of Modalism.
For a refutation of the claim that the Book of Mormon, JST Luke 10, and 1832 First Vision is consistent with modalism, see:
Early Mormon Modalism? A Dialogue with Stephen Murphy
For a direct refutation of the claim that the Lectures of Faith is consistent with modalism, I discuss it at about the 2:05:25 mark of
One can see the slides without commentary at:
Modalism in Lectures on Faith #5?
