51 replies to this topic

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

Quote

But you are getting analysis along with very sound sources. What I find troubling is that you swat away very sophisticated and documented responses with a wave of your hand yet you offer very little support for your own theories beyond your own work. That creates somewhat of a circular argument don't you think?

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think quoting myself is circular if I include the arguments and evidence. It just saves myself some time.

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think I�?¢â?¬â?¢m out of line if I request Kevin to explain why he thinks these sources relate to the discussion. After all, he responded and I learned a lot about his thinking on this matter. How can you criticize that?

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t mean to �?¢â?¬�??swat away�?¢â?¬�? sources like Barker. That�?¢â?¬â?¢s not the issue. I want to know how the person sourcing it thinks it�?¢â?¬â?¢s relevant. I haven�?¢â?¬â?¢t access to Gardner�?¢â?¬â?¢s talk, although it sounds interesting. I have read the Poulsen item and wasn�?¢â?¬â?¢t impressed with the methodology.

[Beowulf]

Dan, I get the impression that you have not yet read Barker. Dismissing her as irrelevant to the issue in Mosiah 15 may be just a bit premature.

She shows, in The Great Angel, Israel's Second God, that there was indeed more than one god in ancient Israel, according nicely with modern LDS belief.

But more to your point, she shows that Names in the OT were constantly mixed and matched. Yahweh is confused with Elyon. Father and Son are mixed together. In my mind, this is what is happening in Mosiah 15, but it is not Modalism, because that particular idea did not yet exist. Abinadi is taking an OT look at the Father and Son gods. He follows Barker's OT worldview very consistently.

Read Barker, and then come back and we can discuss this again.

Yours,

Respectfully,

Beowulf

P.S. I have been away from the list for several weeks. (Christmas with the family, can you believe it.) But I did pick up your book and start reading. Only finished the Intro so far.

[hooberus]

I don't think that Barker's theories are consistent with the belief of the inspiration, and preservation of the Hebrew scriptures. I think that one must deny one (or both) of these in order to accept her theories.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Quote

This is an interesting fact in understanding the development of the Israelite concept of God, I admit, but how that correlates to Mosiah 15, as you and Ben explain, seems problematic to me. You have Yahweh, the Son, becoming the �?¢â?¬�??son of God,�?¢â?¬�? whereas in Mosiah 15 it is the Father who becomes the Son. When the pre-mortal Jesus appears to the brother of Jared, he declares that he is �?¢â?¬�??the Father and the Son�?¢â?¬�? (Ether 3:14). There is no talk of his being the Son of God the Father (El Elyon) as a separate person; nor is there mention of a council of gods.

Some further comments -

The Josian reform occurs at about 622 BC. Presumably well within the lifetime of Lehi. In the Mosiah passage, we are dealing with Abinadi. There is some question as to whether or not Nephi's writings are available to Abinadi (certainly the small plates are not). In Nephi, the evidence for early Israelite traditions is strongest. The Mosiah material in question would come (following the texts chronology) several hundred years later.

Your terminology is a little confused - and I want to correct a few things. Elyon means "highest". El Elyon means "higest God" or, as the KJV renders it, "most high God". Elyon is only used in reference to El, and Elyon is used by itself as a reference to El. Thus, in Psalm 82, the phrase bene Elyon is used as "sons of the highest [God]." YHWH is the name of one of the elohim who are collective considered the bene Elyon - the "Sons of God". Early Canaanite theology presents seventy elohim among whom the nations of the earth were divided. Each one receiving one of these nations as an inheritance. Not until the DTRH revision of Jeremiah do we get a condemnation for the foreign nations in their worshipping these other divinities. In Deuteronomy 4, for example, the worship of these others by the foreign nations is divinely appointed by God.

In the Old Testament YHWH is never referred to specificall as a "Son of God" - except in the greater concept of his being one of the bene elyon. Thus we have the sons of the Most High who are divinities under the Most High within the divine hierarchy, and each one becomes the father of mankind. Where there are overlaps or competing divinities (in the case of Israel, for centuries we have Ba'alism and YHWHism competing), we find declarations that one is greater than the other. YHWH (like Ba'al) established his position (in Israelite theology) as king of the gods (the elohim) by defeating primordial chaos (represented by Rahab/Tiamat the "dragon" of the abyss). This comes traditionally after an act of sacrifice in which El turns over his son to chaos either to die or as a slave. In Israelite theology this is not as apparent as it is in Canaanite theology where we have the more complete mythological narrative cycles in the Ugaritic texts. El hands Ba'al over to Yaam (the god of primordial chaos). Ba'al, instead of becoming Yaam's slave, defeats Yaam and establishes creation. Levenson argues that this creates the original setting for child sacrifice which culminates in the imagery and setting of the Christian views of Jesus. In any case, YHWHism follows the same pattern largely until the Josain reform, which sees a move towards stricter monotheism which continues after the return from exile.

Within semitic literature, El is never called simply "father".

YHWH is typically referred to as YHWH elohim (LORD God) or variations on the them including YHWH your elohim or "the LORD your God".

In Ether 3:14, we have a chiastic structure in the identification of the terms "father" and "son" relative to the reasoning behind those titles:

Quote

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 life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

A I am the Father
B and the Son
B' In me shall all mankind have life,
A' and they shall become my sons and my daughters

He is the Son because he atones for (becomes the sacrifice) mankind and he is the Father because mankind becomes (adoptively or otherwise) his children.

This fits within the semitic frame of reference. Jesus Christ becomes the Son in his role of sacrifice. It is this role that defines the Sonship of God. But within the semitic context of 7th century B.C., the Son that is sacrificed is the Son of El. A divinity and not a mere mortal. Only through this sacrifice can death be beaten (see for example the Ugaritic texts dealing with the sacrifice of Ba'al to Mot (Death) and his ensuing resurrection).

Moving out from this a bit, rarely in the Old Testament is the Divine Assembly referred to. The two most visible instances are Psalm 82, and in Job (where, by the way, Satan is referred to as one of the elohim). In Psalm 82, (which is somewhat generic in its application), we get this statement in verse one. God (elohim arises in the Assembly of God (El). He judges among the gods (elohim). These elohim have not judged faithfully or maintained the cosmic order. The results of this action are a state of darkness, earthquakes, and the fall of these elohim (also called the "shining ones" and the bene elyon) from the heavens. These are the traditional eschatalogical portents of the end of the earth - the "signs of the times". In a plea to end the chaos, the congregation at the end of the Psalm pleads for God (elohim) to arise - not to judge - but to inherit the whole earth (not just Israel) and thus restore order to the cosmos. The elohim in question (we presume YHWH although such a hymn would have worked equally well for those Israelites who worshipped Ba'al elohim. In any case, the context deals with eschatalogical moment. The Book of Mormon suggests that as a general rule, the Nephite people expected the first appearance of Jesus to be that eschatalogical moment. And going back to the reference, it is in the eschatalogical moment when YHWH elohim becomes the "Father" of all the peoples of the earth, and not just his own inheritance of Israel. And it is this which is alluded to in Ether. But the lack of reference to the Divine Assembly is not surprising. Particularly if we consider that by the time Lehi departs there is already a movement towards a binitarian system.

You further write:

Quote

The situation described in the DSS and Barker seem more in line with later Mormon teaching, where the Father and Son are clearly separate persons in the preexistent council of gods, than it is to Mosiah 15 and other BofM passages. This brings us back to the old debate about JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s evolving theology. The BofM equates Jesus with Jehovah, because Jesus is God, and not just �?¢â?¬�??a God,�?¢â?¬�? but the God, the �?¢â?¬�??very Eternal Father of heaven and earth.�?¢â?¬�?

We are going to get to this in more detail in a moment.

Quote

On Deuteronomy 32:8-9: I might be missing something, but isn�?¢â?¬â?¢t the DSS reading problematic for the thesis of Deuteronomic reforms? And how does that mesh with Abraham�?¢â?¬â?¢s equating El Elyon with Yahweh in Gen. 14:22?

Scholars have never taken the different MS versions of Deut. 32 to be a hindrance to the thesis of Deuteronomic reforms. There is a fairly large body of literature devoted to the discussion of the Deuteronomist revisions. Much of that discussion hinges around the relationship of the DtrH material to Jeremiah, and the possible later revisions of Jeremiah. There is a firmly established case for a proto-D which revolves significantly around the kingship codes and other core elements of Deuteronomy which are referred to and quoted in other texts - most specifically in Jeremiah. The DtrH may have modified a great deal of material, but quite a bit comes through. Deuteronomy 32:8-9 for example is represented in its original form in the LXX which predates the DSS by a considerable amount of time. The DtrH final redaction would have been exilic or post-exilic in time frame. But the differences between the LXX/DSS and the MT are witness to either late changes, or to multiple manuscript families in circulation.

Quote

When you assert so definitely that El Elyon lies behind JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s translation �?¢â?¬�??Most High,�?¢â?¬�? I wonder on what criteria you question his translation in other situations.

"Most High" would be simply Elyon. As far as the rest of them, I have lots of criteria. But that's a different discussion. Nor does the text have to be consistent in its presentation (although we would hope that the translation is consistent).

Quote

Of course, the NT refers to Jesus as �?¢â?¬�??the Son of the most High God�?¢â?¬�? (Mk. 5:7; Lk. 8:28). So the BofM, specifically 1 Ne. 11:6, presents no problem that we didn�?¢â?¬â?¢t already have. Yet modalists who read these same passages in the Bible were not troubled.

Of course they weren't troubled. The text becomes largely indifferent to such theological constructs. The model that you approach the text with will generally be found there. But the text itself does not suggest a specific approach. So while Modalists would not have any problems with the passage, it, in and of itself, does not suggest modalism. So now we get to your reconstruction of the text:

Quote

And God [Jehovah] himself shall come down among his people. �?¢â?¬�?¦ And because he dwelleth in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father [El Elyon], being the Father [El Elyon] and the Son [Jehovah] --the Father [El Elyon], because he was conceived by the power of God [El Elyon]; and the Son [Jehovah], because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father [El Elyon] and Son [Jehovah] --and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father [El Elyon] of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son [Jehovah] to the Father [El Elyon], being one God ... the will of the Son [Jehovah] being swallowed up in the will of the Father [El Elyon]. (15:1-5, 7)

And I woudn't reconstruct it this way. You seem to have missed my point that "father" in this passage is not a reference to El. And in fact, as you note, reading it this way is largely incoherent. We would have this:

Quote

And YHWH himself shall come down among his people. �?¢â?¬�?¦ And because he dwelleth in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, having subjected the flesh to the will of the Most High God, being the Most High God and YHWH --the Most High God, because he was conceived by the power of The Most High God; and YHWH, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Most High God and YHWH --and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Most High God of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or YHWH to the Most High God, being one God ... the will of YHWH being swallowed up in the will of the Most High God. (15:1-5, 7)

Which of course is confusing and has no real meaning.

At the same time, a modalistic reading runs into many of the same problems. It isn't a very coherent text. Yet, if we presume that the role of the Son is that of sacrifice, then the notion of being the Son "because of the flesh" becomes very relevant. And further, Abinadi's comment which is very, very significant from the thoelogical side of things - that it the Son who has "power to make intercession for the children of men�?¢â?¬â? Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and bsatisfied the demands of justice." This is the definition of God as "Son of God". The sacrifice by which mankind is intervened for. And how is he the Father? Abinadai continues:

Quote

And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed? Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord�?¢â?¬â?I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

And thus he is the father because he has seed. Not because he is El Elyon or because he is God the Father. His fatherhood is defined by those who are his sons and duaghters. A notion which is consistent with my reading of Ether 3.

The future tenses of course are generally maintained. "He shall be called ..." Which is to say that "Eternal Father" is as much a future title as is "The Creator of All Things From the Beginning" and "Son of God".

Quote

As you can see, the context you propose does not work. It�?¢â?¬â?¢s impossible to separate the Father and the Son, other than to say that the spirit is the Father and the flesh is the Son. So something else must be going on in the text and Barker is irrelevant.

And I never tried to separate them in Mosiah 15, where I never argued there was a reference to two separate persons (generally speaking. I might argue that "God" in "Son of God" might refer to an second person).

Quote

In general, using the metaphor of father for Jesus, the Messiah, is not a problem. The problem arises when you try to apply that model to Mosiah 15 and associated passages, because �?¢â?¬�??Father�?¢â?¬�? is not being used in a figurative sense, but as an identity.

And this seems to me hard to justify when it is so clearly described as a description of a role created by his actions, and simply as some ontological title.

Quote

This puts quite a different context on the Messiah being the �?¢â?¬�??everlasting Father�?¢â?¬�? or �?¢â?¬�??A Father forever,�?¢â?¬�? than what you and Ben are. Perhaps this interpretation has change with more recent scholarship of which I am unaware. Regardless, the modalists have not trouble with Isaiah.

True. But your continuted insistence that the "modalists have not had trouble" doesn't mean much, since trinitarians haven't "had trouble" either.

Quote

Still, you are suggesting that the Son begat himself, which is not what happens in Mosiah. In Mosiah, God the Father comes down and dwells in the flesh as the Son.

No. The text doesn't say this. It says that God comes down. It is you who read this as God [the Father] comes down.

Quote

But at the moment the historicist position is far more vulnerable to counterevidence and is heavily laden with ad hoc rationalizations than is the 19th century paradigm.

What you haven't done yet, is to show specifically what kinds of modalistic information and theologies were present for Joseph Smith to digest. You talk about Noetus, about Patripassionims. About Sabellianism. Which of these were present in Joseph's environment, and how does Mosiah 15 fare when compared to the specific models of modalism present in that environment.

Ben

[Confidential Informant]

Wow, Ben, that was.....great!  I'm not sure what was more impressive, the fact that you know all that or the fact I even understood most it.

Thanks for a great discussion.

C.I.

[Kevin Christensen]

Besides material that Ben has ably replied to, Dan V asked with respect to the Dead Sea Scrolls reading of Deut. 32:8-9.  �?¢â?¬�??And how does that mesh with Abraham�?¢â?¬â?¢s equating El Elyon with Yahweh in Gen. 14:22?�?¢â?¬�?

It happens that just today, in re-reading Barker�?¢â?¬â?¢s Temple Theology: An  Introduction (London: SPCK, 2004),  page 56:

�?¢â?¬�??How did there come to be two Hebrew version of this verse which was so important for Christians? Consider too the story in Genesis 14 where Melchizedek meets Abram. In all other ancient versions Melchizedek�?¢â?¬â?¢s God is named simply God Most High (Gen. 14.22), but only in the Masoretic Hebrew is Melchizedek�?¢â?¬â?¢s God named LORD God Most High, not distinguishing �?¢â?¬�??the LORD�?¢â?¬â?¢ and �?¢â?¬�??God Most High�?¢â?¬â?¢ as Father and Son.  There are many other examples.�?¢â?¬�?

Even our texts have a history and a context it seems.  Barker's essay "Text and Context" in The Great High Priest gets more into that sort of thing.  It's available online on a Greek Orthodox site for the price of a google search.

Dan writes: �?¢â?¬�??It seems to me that you are forcing a specific context onto the BofM that really doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t apply.�?¢â?¬�?

Jerusalem and 600 B.C. with respect to a specific tradition, that of the First Temple, could hardly be more specific, in my opinion.

Dan gives the best assessment of the tension between falsification and verification in paradigm debate that I have seen him make to date.  My compliments.  I see progress. Then Dan says:
[Vogel]  A maneuver I find particularly distressing is the use of comprehensiveness to justify ignoring counterevidence.
You seem to say that because critics refuse to consider ancient evidence, believers should not listen to them. I find your advice most unscholarly. It is just another attempt to insulate believers from negative evidence, which is all your appeal to Kuhn and Barbour are designed to do.

[Kevin C.]  You misunderstood.  I said that believers need not defer to interpretations and valuations offered by unbelievers.  Quoting from above: �?¢â?¬�??In such a case, we are not at all obligated to defer to those who refuse to consider such contexts and accompanying illuminations.�?¢â?¬�?   I try to keep up on skeptical arguments.  But I do not defer to them, waiting on permission to believe, from say, the very bright but very skeptical David Wright.   Not deferring to is not the same thing as insulating from.  It's a matter of keeping perspective.  

I do think believers have the right to give questions time to work out.  In my own experience, I can look back on lots of questions I have had, and decided to keep on a back burner.  It is the presence of those open questions that helps me appreciate and value the kinds of things I learn from Barker, and various others.  It is my recurring experience with resolutions that justifies my ongoing patience with open questions.  This is what Kuhn called, �?¢â?¬�??The essential tension.�?¢â?¬�?

It happens that my essay in the FARMS Review 16-2 responds directly to a number of charges of anachronism and counter-evidence in the Book of Mormon, offered up by such people as Alexander Campbell, Melodie Charles and David Wright.  If I had caved in to their conclusions and evidences when I first ran across their essays, I would not have experienced the pleasure in finding the resolutions.  And would not even have known what I was missing.

I'm often reminded on Nibley's observation (in "Before Adam" in Old Testament and Related Studies) that "It's sad to think about how many of those telling points that turned so many of our best students away from the gospel turned out to be dead wrong."

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh. PA

Edited by Kevin Christensen, 13 January 2005 - 12:30 PM.

[juliann]

Benjamin McGuire, on Jan 13 2005, 06:28 AM, said:

And thus he is the father because he has seed. Not because he is El Elyon or because he is God the Father. His fatherhood is defined by those who are his sons and duaghters. A notion which is consistent with my reading of Ether 3.

I'm going on memory, but I'm quite sure there is a discussion of son/father in a (Valentinian?) Nag Hammadi text.  Considering Barker's theory on the survival of first temple traditions this may become even more appropriate to the discussion.   I'll have to look for it.

At any rate,  I'm bumping this up so that Dan has an opportunity to respond.

[Confidential Informant]

Please don't stop fellows.  This discussion is fascinating.

C.I,

[Confidential Informant]

So, is this thread dead now?

C.I.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Yeah, I think so. Which is too bad. It was getting interesting.

Ben

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Sorry I left you all hanging, but I had a deadline and a response to your long post seemed to require too much time. Even now, I must be brief.

Your discussion on El Elyon is interesting enough, but still not relevant to Mosiah 15 as I interpret it. That�?¢â?¬â?¢s why I questioned the relevancy from the beginning, because I knew your interpretation of Mosiah 15 was different than mine. El Elyon is relevant only if one accepts your interpretation of Mosiah 15. That�?¢â?¬â?¢s exactly the kind of question-begging that Christensen is known for.

Ether 3:14 is not chiastic, by the way. Parry doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t even include it.

Quote

Quote

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 life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

He is the Son because he atones for (becomes the sacrifice) mankind and he is the Father because mankind becomes (adoptively or otherwise) his children.

I can see how you interpret the passage the way you do. However, you are interpreting �?¢â?¬�??Father�?¢â?¬�? metaphorically as a reference to those who become �?¢â?¬�??my sons and my daughters,�?¢â?¬�? whereas I see �?¢â?¬�??Father�?¢â?¬�? as a literal reference to �?¢â?¬�??Son.�?¢â?¬�? But why can�?¢â?¬â?¢t it be both? You are assuming there is another �?¢â?¬�??Father,�?¢â?¬�? when the text does not tell you that.

Quote

Quote

Of course, the NT refers to Jesus as �?¢â?¬�??the Son of the most High God�?¢â?¬�? (Mk. 5:7; Lk. 8:28). So the BofM, specifically 1 Ne. 11:6, presents no problem that we didn�?¢â?¬â?¢t already have. Yet modalists who read these same passages in the Bible were not troubled.

Of course they weren't troubled. The text becomes largely indifferent to such theological constructs. The model that you approach the text with will generally be found there. But the text itself does not suggest a specific approach. So while Modalists would not have any problems with the passage, it, in and of itself, does not suggest modalism.

My point is that the non-biblical texts in the BofM are more important because the biblical-based texts are so problematic.

Quote

So now we get to your reconstruction of the text: �?¢â?¬�?¦ And I woudn't reconstruct it this way. You seem to have missed my point that "father" in this passage is not a reference to El. And in fact, as you note, reading it this way is largely incoherent. We would have this: �?¢â?¬�?¦ Which of course is confusing and has no real meaning.

This is my point. Your reading does not work. Modalism works. That�?¢â?¬â?¢s why Poulson couldn�?¢â?¬â?¢t deal with it. Ostler tried, but failed. Many theologically trained people have concluded similarly.

Quote

At the same time, a modalistic reading runs into many of the same problems. It isn't a very coherent text. Yet, if we presume that the role of the Son is that of sacrifice, then the notion of being the Son "because of the flesh" becomes very relevant. And further, Abinadi's comment which is very, very significant from the thoelogical side of things - that it the Son who has "power to make intercession for the children of men�?¢â?¬â? Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and bsatisfied the demands of justice." This is the definition of God as "Son of God". The sacrifice by which mankind is intervened for. And how is he the Father? Abinadai continues: �?¢â?¬�?¦

Not as cogent as the modalist interpretation, in my opinion.

Quote

And thus he is the father because he has seed. Not because he is El Elyon or because he is God the Father. His fatherhood is defined by those who are his sons and duaghters. A notion which is consistent with my reading of Ether 3.

See above. You are assuming that Father can�?¢â?¬â?¢t be both literal and metaphorical. If Jesus has seed, and is a Father in that sense, that does not preclude his also being the Father.

Quote

And I never tried to separate them in Mosiah 15, where I never argued there was a reference to two separate persons (generally speaking. I might argue that "God" in "Son of God" might refer to an second person).

It might be late, but this doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t make sense to me.

Quote

Quote

Still, you are suggesting that the Son begat himself, which is not what happens in Mosiah. In Mosiah, God the Father comes down and dwells in the flesh as the Son.

No. The text doesn't say this. It says that God comes down. It is you who read this as God [the Father] comes down.

The passage definitely equates God with Father and spirit, while the son is the flesh, which together become the Father and Son.

Quote

What you haven't done yet, is to show specifically what kinds of modalistic information and theologies were present for Joseph Smith to digest. You talk about Noetus, about Patripassionims. About Sabellianism. Which of these were present in Joseph's environment, and how does Mosiah 15 fare when compared to the specific models of modalism present in that environment.

Assessing Mosiah 15 as modalistic does not require a source in JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s environment for that idea, although there were advocates of it. Personally, I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think it came from his environment and I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think there is a systematic theology in the BofM. I think JS was attempting a compromise with Unitarianism and Trinitarianism in this earliest composed portion of the BofM.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Quote

Your discussion on El Elyon is interesting enough, but still not relevant to Mosiah 15 as I interpret it. That�?¢â?¬â?¢s why I questioned the relevancy from the beginning, because I knew your interpretation of Mosiah 15 was different than mine. El Elyon is relevant only if one accepts your interpretation of Mosiah 15. That�?¢â?¬â?¢s exactly the kind of question-begging that Christensen is known for.

But, comparatively speaking, how do we determine which model of interpretation is to be preferred?

The explanation I gave was not to deal with your interpretation, but rather to deal with your charges of internal inconsistency in mine. I gave you several other reasons why I feel your own interpretation is inconsistent.

Quote

Ether 3:14 is not chiastic, by the way. Parry doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t even include it.

Since literary criticism and the usage and demonstration of rhetorical devices within a text is something I know quite a bit about, perhaps you would like to make an argument for this instead an appeal to silence via an authority figure. I didn't go so far as to say it is a chiasm, but rather that it is a chiastic structure. You can argue that point if you want, but you are going to lose. The question of whether it is a chiasm or not is perhaps open to debate. And I would enjoy such a discussion with you.

Quote

I can see how you interpret the passage the way you do. However, you are interpreting �?¢â?¬�??Father�?¢â?¬�? metaphorically as a reference to those who become �?¢â?¬�??my sons and my daughters,�?¢â?¬�? whereas I see �?¢â?¬�??Father�?¢â?¬�? as a literal reference to �?¢â?¬�??Son.�?¢â?¬�? But why can�?¢â?¬â?¢t it be both? You are assuming there is another �?¢â?¬�??Father,�?¢â?¬�? when the text does not tell you that.

Assuming that the text is what it claims to be, cultural context provides such an assumption. On the other hand, "Father" cannot be taken as a literal reference to "Son" as both are applied to a single person. You yourself do not take this literally in the sense that you interpret it through a lens of a modalistic-like theology.

Quote

My point is that the non-biblical texts in the BofM are more important because the biblical-based texts are so problematic.

All texts are problematic. You aren't displaying a preference for a text so much as displaying a preference for an interpretation of a text.

Quote

This is my point. Your reading does not work. Modalism works. That�?¢â?¬â?¢s why Poulson couldn�?¢â?¬â?¢t deal with it. Ostler tried, but failed. Many theologically trained people have concluded similarly.

My point is that your reading of Modalism does not work. So far in this thread, you have offered absolutely nothing to show us how the Book of Mormon contains Modalsim. Your paper (which was linked here in this forum) discusses modalism in terms of Sabellius and Sabellianism. Yet, the modalism of Sabellius doesn't resemble at all the modalism which you propose in the Book of Mormon. The Modalism of Sabellius was sequential. God first reveals himself as the Father, then as the Son, and then as the Holy Spirit in three consecutive modes of salvation. God does not reveal himself as more than one at a time. Once the salvific process is completed, God will stop being any of the three and return to his original state. So what does Sabellian Modalism have to do with the Book of Mormon?

Quote

Not as cogent as the modalist interpretation, in my opinion.

And since I find your modalist interpretation to be built on an artificially defined modalism, I reject your model as well.

Quote

See above. You are assuming that Father can�?¢â?¬â?¢t be both literal and metaphorical. If Jesus has seed, and is a Father in that sense, that does not preclude his also being the Father.

The text explicitly defines the notion of Father being connected with his seed. Where does the text explicitly connect the title of Father with the notion of "God the Father"?

Quote

It might be late, but this doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t make sense to me.

I am not sure I understand your confusion. In Mosiah 15, according to my interpretation, all references of "father" and "son" refer to a single person.

Quote

Assessing Mosiah 15 as modalistic does not require a source in JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s environment for that idea, although there were advocates of it. Personally, I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think it came from his environment and I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t think there is a systematic theology in the BofM. I think JS was attempting a compromise with Unitarianism and Trinitarianism in this earliest composed portion of the BofM.

The problem is Dan is that I want to see evidence of how this is a compromise between modalism (of the types which were taught during Joseph's early life) and trinitarianism. In part, I want this because you seem to be consistently misrepresenting modalism. I want to know if your misrepresentation is consistent with with how early 19th century Americans viewed the nature of God.

Ben

Edited by Benjamin McGuire, 24 January 2005 - 07:47 AM.