51 replies to this topic

[Kosh]

tubaloth, on Jan 5 2005, 10:34 AM, said:

Maybe that is because Joseph Smith didn't write them. He "translated" them, and it shows from Book of Mormon -> Book of Moses -> To Abraham how each had a different author because each had a different (view point) of God.

No, this doesn't fit because, even if Joseph Smith "translated" the books (if you can call starring into his hat at a peep stone translating), he would have already known whether there was one God or multiple Gods -- having already physically witnessed God according to official accounts -- and corrected the text as it was translated.

It is very likely that Joseph Smith's plural view of God came almost a decade after the first written account of the First Vision and the writing of the Book of Mormon... with both texts being extremely monotheistic or modalistic.  Especially if you read the 1830 version of the BoM before the Church changed all of the verse referencing God to now read "...the Son of God..."  However, Mosiah 15 retains the monotheistic or modalistic view of God.  

Quote

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son�?¢â?¬â?

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son�?¢â?¬â?

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

The polytheistic view of God seems to be an evolution of theology.

BTW, I believe in the Trinity and so I only accept the possibility of the 1832 version of the First Vision -- where Joseph prays for forgiveness of his sins and only Jesus appears and forgives him -- with the monothestic depiction of God.

Edited by Kosh, 05 January 2005 - 01:04 PM.

[Benjamin McGuire]

It is interesting that there are those who claim that modalism is seen in the Book of Mormon. Vogel is once more looking for parallels and forcing connections.

Modalism, by its very nature implies that something comes in distinct modes. Its primary feature is that God can be any of the persons of the Godhead - the Father, the Son, the Spirit - but not at the same time. Thus, the traditional model is that the Father became the Son. The Book of Mormon teaches something quite different. Jesus is both the Father and the Son at the same time.

Is the Father the Son? Perhaps, reflecting on it, it isn't quite as strange as it seems. After all, the Old Testament refers to the Messiah (for unto us a child is born) as the "Eternal Father" - a title in the Book of Mormon of which Vogel makes a great deal of hay in his essay. Yet, no-one would claim that Isaiah was a Modalist. In fact, pre-exilic Israelite belief was not strictly monotheistic. YHWH was one of the sons of El in Canaanite belief. A model that actually fits Nephi's writings remarkably well.

Ben

[Kosh]

There was also a belief in Eloah... the breasted God.  Some Bible scholars believe that Elohim is the Hebrew word for the combining of the male El + the female Eloah.  

Isn't there also OT apocrapha and some verses in the OT that refer to Sophia and Wisdom as female deities?

Interesting stuff.  http://www.mormonapologetics.org/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

Quote

Modalism, by its very nature implies that something comes in distinct modes. Its primary feature is that God can be any of the persons of the Godhead - the Father, the Son, the Spirit - but not at the same time. Thus, the traditional model is that the Father became the Son. The Book of Mormon teaches something quite different. Jesus is both the Father and the Son at the same time.

You don�?¢â?¬â?¢t understand modalism, which is also called patripassionism since it�?¢â?¬â?¢s the Father who suffers on the cross.

According to Dionysius, bishop of Rome in the mid-third century, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1975), 7:365. The third-century heretic Noetus also believed that "Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died" (5:223).

Book of Mormon prophet Abinadi also explained the oneness of the Father and the Son in words that modalists would easily understand: "God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son--the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--and they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. . . . Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father" (Mos. 15:1-5,7).

The spirit is the Father and the flesh is the Son. This is modalism.

Quote

Is the Father the Son? Perhaps, reflecting on it, it isn't quite as strange as it seems. After all, the Old Testament refers to the Messiah (for unto us a child is born) as the "Eternal Father" - a title in the Book of Mormon of which Vogel makes a great deal of hay in his essay. Yet, no-one would claim that Isaiah was a Modalist. In fact, pre-exilic Israelite belief was not strictly monotheistic. YHWH was one of the sons of El in Canaanite belief. A model that actually fits Nephi's writings remarkably well.

You�?¢â?¬â?¢ve got this backwards. Modalists might quote Isaiah for proof. Isa. 9:6 actually says �?¢â?¬�??everlasting father.�?¢â?¬�? The BofM says �?¢â?¬�??the very Eternal Father.�?¢â?¬�?

[Kevin Christensen]

Interested parties should refer to "The Development of The Mormon Understanding of God:Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, FARMS Review of Books, 13:2, 2001, pages 109-169.  

Also relevant to the discussion,  Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. (London: SPCK, 1992).

Brant Gardner also gave an insightful talk on the topic at a FAIR conference, something which ought to be fairly easy to find for participants on this board.

Kevin Christensen
Bethel Park, PA

[kneehigh]

Maybe the Book of Moses deleted the Gods (plural) because at the time he wrote it, Isreal had a huge problem with 'other gods' due to the whole Egypt/Caananite things going on at the time.

Instead of dealing with the stiffnecks and hardhearts and confusing the issue, Moses just went to the pure Monothiestic veiw which defined Judism ever since? I mean, there was plenty of stuff kept from Isreal due to their 'issues' with the Higher truths.

Moses main focus was bringing Isreal back to the One true God, and getting to the promised land. After his first little issue with the broken stone tablets, and returning with the Big Ten, I doubt he was in any mood to deal with the general members confusing the Polythiestic truth of the Gods of Genesis with the false gods of Egypt.

And, if Joseph Smith was such a master manipulater and liar, he could have simply gone back and changed the Book of Moses to Gods and gotten away with it. Another revelation in D&C could have cleared up that little issue, and none of us ignorant, deceived Mormons would have given it a second thought, right?

Oh, or are we going to blame the KJV use of plural nouns in Genesis with God refering to himself as "us" and "our" image on Joseph Smith as well? Yeah, Joseph sure was good to get THAT lie into the perfect, god-breathed Bible.

[Dan Vogel]

Interested parties,

Apologetics by bibliography:

Quote

"The Development of The Mormon Understanding of God:Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" by Ari D. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, FARMS Review of Books, 13:2, 2001, pages 109-169.

This source is seriously flawed. I won�?¢â?¬â?¢t respond until someone bothers to outline the arguments in the paper.

Quote

Also relevant to the discussion, Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. (London: SPCK, 1992).

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t believe this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Mosiah 15 describes modalism.

Quote

Brant Gardner also gave an insightful talk on the topic at a FAIR conference, something which ought to be fairly easy to find for participants on this board.

I have no knowledge of this talk and how it relates to the subject at hand.

[William the Conqueror]

Dan Vogel, on Jan 9 2005, 09:07 PM, said:

Quote

Also relevant to the discussion, Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. (London: SPCK, 1992).

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t believe this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Mosiah 15 describes modalism.

I wonder if Margaret is a a descendant of the infamous Ma Barker the gang leader of the 30s who died in a ferocious gun battle with the FBI in 1935 with one of her four sons?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Quote

You don�?¢â?¬â?¢t understand modalism, which is also called patripassionism since it�?¢â?¬â?¢s the Father who suffers on the cross.

Oh, I think I do understand Modalism.

The question is, what kind of Modalism is represented in the Book of Mormon text. Obviously, Noetus (even supposing we can connect Joseph Smith to the polemics about Noetus and his teachings) is going to be of limited value. After all, the Book of Mormon goes to some length to suggest that it was the Messiah as Son of God and not as the Eternal Father who suffered.

Quote

You�?¢â?¬â?¢ve got this backwards. Modalists might quote Isaiah for proof. Isa. 9:6 actually says �?¢â?¬�??everlasting father.�?¢â?¬�? The BofM says �?¢â?¬�??the very Eternal Father.�?¢â?¬�?

No. The King James Version of Isaiah 9:6 says "everlasting father".  The NAS for example uses "eternal father". The two phrases represent the same Hebrew original.

Your theory however, comes from a purely 19th century origins position (which is understandable) but doesn't take into account how the text would be read in an ancient context (hence the relevance of Margaret Barker who does research in Israelite theology concurrent with the time of Lehi). In Pre-Josian reform theology, Israelite belief was largely binitarian. (It was also binitarian in post-exilic times but in a radically different way - the earlier belief was a Father/Son theology, while the later was a God/Wisdom theology). In pre-Josian reform theology, there were two specific divinities who held Israel's attention. The first was El, father of the Gods, ruler of the cosmos. The second was YHWH, one of the elohim, the son of El, and ruler of the gods (the elohim), who established creation from the pre-existent chaos. For both of these divinities, the term God is used in translation.

In this sense, Jesus could be both God and the Son of God (both elohim and the son of El) without creating a modalistic image. The term "Mother of God" could have been quite appropriate given the circumstances, yet, clearly, within early 19th century religious thought, quite confusing. If we take this kind of interpretation as a base line, the Mosiah passage then actually reads quite similarly to the creedal formulation found in the definition of faith at Chalcedon:

Quote

Following, then, the holy fathers, we unite in teaching all men to confess the one and only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. This selfsame one is perfect both in deity and in humanness; this selfsame one is also actually God and actually man, with a rational soul and a body. He is of the same reality as God as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we ourselves as far as his humanness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted.

This council was faced with trying to explain how Jesus was both God and man at the same time.

The passage in Mosiah 15 needs to be looked at first to see if there are multiple divinities being addressed:

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son�?¢â?¬â?
3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son�?¢â?¬â?
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men�?¢â?¬â?

It becomes an interesting exercise is to substitute the terms "immortal God" for "father" and "mortal man" for "Son" - yeilding this:

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.
2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of immortal god, being immortal god and mortal man�?¢â?¬â?
3 Immortal god, because he was conceived by the power of God; and mortal man, because of the flesh; thus becoming immortal god and mortal man�?¢â?¬â?
4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the mortal man to immortal god, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.
6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.
7 Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the mortal man being swallowed up in the will of the immortal god.
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the mortal man power to make intercession for the children of men�?¢â?¬â?

Hopefully you can see the similarities between the two texts. What the Mosiah text does not do is make a clear case for Modalism. The theology involved far exceeds the simple question of being Father and Son at the same time. This is not about "modes" or "offices" of the Godhead, but rather the dual-nature of Messiah.

When I read Mosiah 15, I read it suggesting a number of significant theological points. The Messiah needs to be both God and man - but exactly how this works is a question which deserved some effort in answering. The requirement of being man is essential - because it is the man that becomes the substitute - the proxy - for justice before God. Just exactly how one person can be both is one of those questions which Chalcedon was deeply concerned with. This seems to be the issue in Mosiah as well. And it is then a fascinating commentary on how Abinadi saw the role of Messiah - most specifically the fact that it was the mortal man component, not the immortal god, which makes intercession for mankind.

It is interesting that most of these things occur earlier (chronologically speaking - not necessarily by translation order) in the text. Later in the text, we see (at least in my opinion) the references to Messiah falling into identifiable liturgical patterns - but this might be just as attributable to a Mormon/Moroni redaction as anything else.

This is something which is largely ignored within studies of the Book of Mormon text. The Old Testament provides the Messiah with a compound name in Isaiah 9:6 (also found in 2 Nephi):

"His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace."

This is strikingly similar to the compund name found for Messiah in Mosiah 3:8:

"And he shall be called Jesus, Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning."

This works its way into (or already was a part of) the liturgical language presented in the Book. There are a couple of shortened versions - the most numerous of which is "Jesus Christ the Son of God".

In any case, the notion of calling Messiah "eternal God" is preceeded in the Old Testament - in a passage which cannot be classified as modalist (even if a modalist were to later use it as a prooftext). Whether or not its application in the text is consistent with the earlier referent should be explored. And because of this, there has to be a more consistent approach than has been given to date demonstrating that the Book of Mormon actually reflects a 19th century modalist line of thinking. And of course we then have to have the discussion on why the Book of Moses shows no modalism, or the Book of Commandments, etc.

Ben

[noel00]

Mr McGuire, just curious , are you one of those who argue or agree with those who argue that the BOA papyri are still lost? Or we are the papyri some catalyst for a BOA given by revelation? The older I get the less awe I have for those who may have a PHd, not just LDS, its no guarantee that they can argue logically.

[juliann]

Dan Vogel, on Jan 9 2005, 09:07 PM, said:

Quote

Also relevant to the discussion, Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. (London: SPCK, 1992).

I don’t believe this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Mosiah 15 describes modalism.

Then you need to state why.  Be very specific.

[Dan Vogel]

Juliann,

Quote

Quote

Quote

Also relevant to the discussion, Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God. (London: SPCK, 1992).

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t believe this is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Mosiah 15 describes modalism.

Then you need to state why. Be very specific.

Just a hunch. Note that I said "believe," otherwise I would have been more definite. I want Kevin to show how it relates rather than giving us sources without analysis.

But if you believe it relates, why don't you tell me?

[PGY]

I wish I can keep up with you guys but I cant i get lazy when reading your guys stuff.... but i still read it but my mind wonders off ^^ but I do find this topic intresting. I guess its the big words you all use like those words with ism after it 0.o
O and why does this make people lose faith in the church when the only thing keeping me in is the peaceful feelings i get when i read the BOM and Bible. We all base are facts on research right? Is'nt the research of any one not 100% true but they still agree with it as if it was the complete truth because they researched it. The way I accept something is by researching and praying and when god gives me a revelation about it in its plain truth and if you think im baseing my stuff on complete feelings and find that foolish then that meens you have not felt the spirit as many of us people of this church have. I know for sure that the only reason why people joine this church is by the comfort of god wich springs out of the church that is of god that teaches his truth and his truth by his mouth comforts us because they are plaine and simple all. The words of the book of moromon and wisdom in it is not ares but his and we just restate them so that the future generation may learn from it. To hope fully prevent catastrifies. When you have the spirit of the lord with you alot of things begin to make sense. Well im done for now and im tired so ill see if any one post something argumentive about my post or nothing at all because it verged of topic heh ^^;

[Benjamin McGuire]

noel00 writes:

Quote

Mr McGuire, just curious , are you one of those who argue or agree with those who argue that the BOA papyri are still lost? Or we are the papyri some catalyst for a BOA given by revelation? The older I get the less awe I have for those who may have a PHd, not just LDS, its no guarantee that they can argue logically.

Does it matter? I don't think I fit solidly into any of those categories. In my opinion, the BoA was translated entirely through revelation. Whether the papyri were merely a catalyst, or there was a mising text is of interest, but not decisive, and having it go one way or the other would do little to alter my understanding of the text.

Ben

[Kevin Christensen]

Benjamin McGuire has already explained why Barker's view is relevant to a discussion of Abinadi's view of God.  From a historicist perspective, Barker provides a context with we can compare,  explore, and test the Book of Mormon.  She's reconstructing pre-exilic Temple Theology, i.e., Jerusalem 600 B.C.  The Book of Mormon purports to be rooted in the same time and place.  How do the two pictures, based on radically different methods and sources, compare?  Astonishingly well, it turns out.  I've published four articles on the topic, including a new one in FRB 16-2, and continue to find it a fruitful and exciting enterprise.

I gave my take on Abinadi in a section of "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies", FARMS Occasional Papers, n2.  See the section on Theology and Paradigms.  

I mentioned that Brant Gardner has spoken at FAIR in 2003 on a similar theme.  See
http://www.fair-lds....D/FAIR-BG03-DVD

He has a good discussion of the differing contexts for the title "father."  One of the key texts on the topic is the Dead Sea Scrolls reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which describes Yahweh as a son of El Elyon (the Most High).  The Book of Mormon explicitly identifies Jehovah with Jesus.  An angel commends Nephi for believing in the son of the Most High.   So in the Book of Mormon, Jesus/Jehovah is the son of El Elyon.  Isaiah, as Ben has observed, applies the title of Everlasting Father to the "child is born" passage.  Can the Everlasting Father of Heaven and Earth be both a Father and a Son?  Why not?  I am both a father and a son, but I'm also not my father, nor am I my son.  It's not that difficult a concept.  Brant's FAIR discussion is very good.  Barker explains in The Great Angel that all Biblical texts distinguish between the sons of El Elyon, who are heavenly beings, and the sons of Jehovah, who are human.  All of this provides a context for the way believers can approach Abinadi.

One problem with "Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" in FRB is that it is condensed from a book length study.  But I also have a copy of the long version.  IMHO it is an impressive work.  Apologetics by bibliography may have it's weak points.  But it seemed to me that the discussion was rushing blithely along without any reference or acknowledgment that serious work on the specific topic has occured.  Sort of like George D. Smith writing at length in American Apocrypha about B.H. Roberts' questions, calling for the LDS to honor Roberts by recognizing those questions, and failing to so much as reference the single most relevant paper on the topic, aptly titled, "Answering B.H. Roberts Questions," by John W. Welch.  I could only conclude that Smith was not interested in answers, but in questions with which to hold belief at bay.  Those who are truely interested the questions ought to know where they can find out more.

Context, as I have argued in print on several occasions (RBBM 7/2, for example), can change meaning.  Dan Vogel made a similar comment in Indian Origins.  Believers in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, are not just entitled to explore how historical contexts might illuminate the text, but are obligated to do so.  In such a case, we are not at all obligated to defer to those who refuse to consider such contexts and accompanying illuminations.

Kevin Christensen
Pittsburgh, PA

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

[quote] It is interesting that there are those who claim that modalism is seen in the Book of Mormon. Vogel is once more looking for parallels and forcing connections.[/quote]

Not just me, but others far more theologically astute than I. You sound like you already know of them.

[quote]Modalism, by its very nature implies that something comes in distinct modes. Its primary feature is that God can be any of the persons of the Godhead - the Father, the Son, the Spirit - but not at the same time. Thus, the traditional model is that the Father became the Son. The Book of Mormon teaches something quite different. Jesus is both the Father and the Son at the same time.[/quote]

The key feature of modalism is that it does not distinguish between the �?¢â?¬�??person�?¢â?¬�? of the Father and the �?¢â?¬�??person�?¢â?¬�? of the Son. In other words, the Father not only begets the Son but becomes the Son; Jesus is literally both Son and Father. This position is also sometimes called "patripassianism," because the Father in the person of the Son suffers on the cross.

Part of my response to Blake Ostler can also apply to your insistence that modalists did not believe that �?¢â?¬�??Jesus was both the Father and the Son at the same time.�?¢â?¬�?

[quote] The passage clearly states that the Father becomes the Son in that his spirit dwells in the Son. Ostler believes that a modalistic reading of Mosiah 15 can be overturned by showing that Father and Son are not �?¢â?¬�??identical�?¢â?¬�? to one another. This approach incorrectly assumes that modalists believe the Father is--that is, is identical to--the Son, that when the Father becomes flesh, he ceases to exist as spirit. This mischaracterization originates not with modalists but with their opponents such as third-century theologian Tertullian, who accused them of believing that the Father died on the cross (referred to as patripassianism). Modalists did not believe that the Father is the Son but that the Father is in the Son and exists simultaneously as both Father and Son. Therefore, it was the Son who suffered and died, not the Father. (Making of a Prophet, 620, n. 24)[/quote]

[quote] In fact, pre-exilic Israelite belief was not strictly monotheistic. YHWH was one of the sons of El in Canaanite belief. A model that actually fits Nephi's writings remarkably well.[/quote]

Yes, I understand that Israel was actually henotheistic. But I cannot see how these many gods or even El and one of his sons YHWH relate to the description in Mosiah, especially in light that the BofM does not seem preoccupied with Jehovah.

[quote] Oh, I think I do understand Modalism.[/quote]

Ok. Maybe you do.

[quote] The question is, what kind of Modalism is represented in the Book of Mormon text. Obviously, Noetus (even supposing we can connect Joseph Smith to the polemics about Noetus and his teachings) is going to be of limited value.[/quote]

Of course, modalism can be discussed in various ways. JS would not have to know about Noetus, or even Sabellius for that matter, but may have come upon it himself as a compromise between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism. I do point out in my essay that there were modalists among JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s contemporaries.

[quote]After all, the Book of Mormon goes to some length to suggest that it was the Messiah as Son of God and not as the Eternal Father who suffered.[/quote]

But then again neither does the Bible, which never seemed to bother the modalists. Nevertheless, see my comment above to Ostler.

[quote][quote] Isa. 9:6 actually says �?¢â?¬�??everlasting father.�?¢â?¬�? The BofM says �?¢â?¬�??the very Eternal Father.�?¢â?¬�?[/quote]

The King James Version of Isaiah 9:6 says "everlasting father". The NAS for example uses "eternal father". The two phrases represent the same Hebrew original.[/quote]

Ok. How does this help your case that Mosiah 15 is not modalistic?

[quote] Your theory however, comes from a purely 19th century origins position (which is understandable) but doesn't take into account how the text would be read in an ancient context (hence the relevance of Margaret Barker who does research in Israelite theology concurrent with the time of Lehi). In Pre-Josian reform theology, Israelite belief was largely binitarian. (It was also binitarian in post-exilic times but in a radically different way - the earlier belief was a Father/Son theology, while the later was a God/Wisdom theology). In pre-Josian reform theology, there were two specific divinities who held Israel's attention. The first was El, father of the Gods, ruler of the cosmos. The second was YHWH, one of the elohim, the son of El, and ruler of the gods (the elohim), who established creation from the pre-existent chaos. For both of these divinities, the term God is used in translation.

In this sense, Jesus could be both God and the Son of God (both elohim and the son of El) without creating a modalistic image. [/quote]

Interesting, but I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t see how this helps explain Mosiah 15, which clearly states that God does not become the son until he became flesh.

[quote]The term "Mother of God" could have been quite appropriate given the circumstances, yet, clearly, within early 19th century religious thought, quite confusing. [/quote]

�?¢â?¬�??Mother of God�?¢â?¬�? makes perfect sense to both modalists and Trinitarians. I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t know why you think it would be a problem in the 19th century.

[quote]If we take this kind of interpretation as a base line, the Mosiah passage then actually reads quite similarly to the creedal formulation found in the definition of faith at Chalcedon: �?¢â?¬�?¦ [/quote]

Well, Jesus�?¢â?¬â?¢ nature is fully human and fully divine, but that has nothing to do with Mosiah 15, where God comes down and becomes the Son. The spirit is the Father and the flesh is the Son. This is repeated in 3 Nephi 1:14, where the pre-mortal Jesus declares: �?¢â?¬�??I come unto my own, �?¢â?¬�?¦ to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son�?¢â?¬â?of the Father because of me [i.e., spirit Jesus], and of the Son because of my flesh.�?¢â?¬�?

[quote] The passage in Mosiah 15 needs to be looked at first to see if there are multiple divinities being addressed:[/quote]

You don�?¢â?¬â?¢t answer that question, but I suppose you have similar interpretation as Ostler, that the text seems to describe two wills. I addressed this issue in my book as follows:

[quote] Abinadi clearly states that God the Father comes down to earth as spirit to dwell �?¢â?¬�??in the flesh�?¢â?¬�? as the Son. To escape the implied modalism, some have argued that Mosiah 15 assigns separate wills for the Father and Son, that the Son�?¢â?¬â?¢s will is �?¢â?¬�??swallowed up�?¢â?¬�? in the will of the Father, which is incompatible with modalism.29 There are indeed two wills described in the passage, but not the wills of separate persons or personalities, at least not in the sense of Joseph Smith�?¢â?¬â?¢s later teaching in Illinois that the Father and the Son are corporal beings, each with his own spirit and body (e.g., D&C 130:22). Rather, the passage describes the subjection of the will of the flesh (Son) to the will of the spirit (Father). In other words, �?¢â?¬�??the Son of God ... having subjected the [will of the] flesh to the will of the [spirit], being the Father and the Son. ... the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the [flesh] being swallowed up in the will of the [spirit]�?¢â?¬�? (Mos. 15:2, 7). This concept is consistent with 2 Nephi 2:29, which comments on �?¢â?¬�??the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein,�?¢â?¬�? and 2 Nephi 10:24: �?¢â?¬�??Reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh.�?¢â?¬�? Thus, Mosiah 15 is consistent with modalism in equating the Father with spirit and the Son with flesh.30[/quote]

[quote] Hopefully you can see the similarities between the two texts. What the Mosiah text does not do is make a clear case for Modalism. The theology involved far exceeds the simple question of being Father and Son at the same time. This is not about "modes" or "offices" of the Godhead, but rather the dual-nature of Messiah.[/quote]

In my opinion, you have compared two unrelated texts. Nevertheless, the dual-nature of the Messiah is only part of what is going on in the text; it is explaining how that dual-nature came to be and the relationship between the Father and the Son. It�?¢â?¬â?¢s not just about dual-nature, but also about �?¢â?¬�??God himself shall come down �?¢â?¬�?¦ dwelleth in the flesh �?¢â?¬�?¦ the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit,or the Son to the Father, being one God.�?¢â?¬�? That�?¢â?¬â?¢s modalism because there is no distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son.

[quote] In any case, the notion of calling Messiah "eternal God" is preceeded in the Old Testament - in a passage which cannot be classified as modalist (even if a modalist were to later use it as a prooftext). Whether or not its application in the text is consistent with the earlier referent should be explored. And because of this, there has to be a more consistent approach than has been given to date demonstrating that the Book of Mormon actually reflects a 19th century modalist line of thinking. And of course we then have to have the discussion on why the Book of Moses shows no modalism, or the Book of Commandments, etc.[/quote]

I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t believe JS was always consistent in his views, not even in the BofM, so trying to be systematic might be difficult. However, one must resist trying to be hermeneutical.

[enummaelish]

Dan,

I actually find myself somewhat in harmony with many of your points (I also appreciate your compilations for Signature BTW).  Have you read Hoskisson�?¢â?¬â?¢s article, �?¢â?¬�??The Fatherhood of Christ and the Atonement,�?¢â?¬�? Religious Educator (Spring 2000): 71-80.  If not, I have a sneaking suspicion you would find it hermeneutical but still might enjoy the read.

David

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Quote

The key feature of modalism is that it does not distinguish between the �?¢â?¬�??person�?¢â?¬�? of the Father and the �?¢â?¬�??person�?¢â?¬�? of the Son. In other words, the Father not only begets the Son but becomes the Son; Jesus is literally both Son and Father. This position is also sometimes called "patripassianism," because the Father in the person of the Son suffers on the cross.

Modalism - by definition - suggests that there is one God who reveals himself in three separate but distinct modes. It claims that there is no distinction of persons within the godhead. Patripassianism is not modalism itself, but a form of modalism - largely as depicted in polemical works.

Sabellianism which you referred to in your essay does not explicitly formulate such a doctrine (at least not in any extant work which I am aware of). It taught that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit were all temporary manifestations of the same being. Sabellius in particular taught a doctrine of succession. That God appears first as the Father in creation, then as the Son in the incarnation and later as the Spirit. Philip Schaff, in his article "The Development of Catholic Theology in Conflict with Heresy" in History of the Christian Church (1890) noted this:

Quote

Sabellius embraces the Holy Spirit in his speculation, and reaches a trinity, not a simultaneous trinity of essence, however, but only a successive trinity of revelation. He starts from a distinction of the monad and the triad in the divine nature. His fundamental thought is, that the unity of God, without distinction in itself, unfolds or extends itself in the course of the world�?¢â?¬â?¢s development in three different forms and periods of revelation and, after the completion of redemption, returns into unity. The Father reveals himself in the giving of the law or the Old Testament economy (not in the creation also, which in his view precedes the trinitarian revelation); the Son, in the incarnation; the Holy Ghost, in inspiration. The revelation of the Son ends with the ascension; the revelation of the Spirit goes on in regeneration and sanctification.

In other words, God is the creator - who then reveals himself as the Father. The Father ends when he becomes the Son. The Son ends when the redemptive work is completed, and becomes the Spirit, which will remain until the final act of santification is complete when once more, the "monad" which is God will exist without a distinct identity as any of the other three. This was Sabellianism. A theology which is strikingly foreign to the Book of Mormon context of Mosiah 15. Kevin Giles, in his recent article "The Doctrine of the Trinity and Subordinationism" in ERT 28:3 (2004), 270-284, notes:

Quote

One of the first suggestions as to how God might be three and one at the same time was that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were merely successive modes of revelation of the one God. This answer upheld the biblical truth that God is one, but it undermined the eternal distinct existence of the three divine persons, which the Bible also teaches. This error, which was called modalism, was rejected by the church Fathers, as it has been by subsequent orthodox theologians down to our day.

It is considered that the early polemical works merely inferred patripassianism - which is not a concept found in any extent modalistic work itself - but rather seems drawn from the notion of modalism which was taught as a way of criticizing it. Thus your citation of Noetus is not in fact a citation of Noetus but a quote from a polemical work against Noetus. (Of course, there are no surviving works by Noetus - at least none that I am aware of). But along these lines, we get similar statements - here for example, from the Journal of Early Christian Studies 7.4 (1999) 527-546, we have from Robin M. Jesen's article, "The Economy of the Trinity at the Creation of Adam and Eve", this statement:

Quote

Later writers would be called upon to defend the whole Trinity's involvement in the economy of creation and redemption partly in order to refute certain monarchian heresies put forth by Noetus, Praxeas, or Sabellius, that insisted on the singularity of one aspect or mode of God (appearing to us as Father, Son, or Spirit) in each of the acts of creation and salvation.

In essence, their doctrines followed the notions of other monarchial modalists - that it was a singular aspect (not a dula aspect such as father and son at the same time) which was engaged in each separate period of the redemptive process. And drawing from this, it was the critics who inaccruately portrayed the modalistic doctrine as saying that because the Father became the Son, it was in fact a claim that the Father suffered. Noetus likely would have disagreed with this distinction claiming of course that the Father and the Son were distinct and non-overlapping manifestations of the "monad" God.

So, the one question I am left with - does Millard associate Sabellius with patripassionism?

The passage in Mosiah 15, by the way, distinctly suggests that the Son (and not the Father) makes intercession for men.

Your response to Ostler, by the way, seems to me to reflect the same mischaracterizations which the early polemics of the "orthodox" fathers offered. A bold assertion I suppose, since this is exactly the charge you make against Ostler.

Quote

Of course, modalism can be discussed in various ways. JS would not have to know about Noetus, or even Sabellius for that matter, but may have come upon it himself as a compromise between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism. I do point out in my essay that there were modalists among JS�?¢â?¬â?¢s contemporaries.

Yes, but what kind of modalists were they? Were they patripassionists? Do you find distinct claims that the act of atonement was simultaneously made by the Father and the Son?

Quote

Ok. How does this help your case that Mosiah 15 is not modalistic?

Because it provides a non-modalistic source for the title as a title of the Messiah. That is to say that it becomes theologically unspecific in this regards. You suggest that it could have been used by modalists as a proof text - but was it ever used by modalists as a proof text? Instead, it seems to provide a reference (which is cited within the Book of Mormon) in which the Son of God (in either a trinitarian model, or the current LDS model of separation of the members of the Godhead as independant deities) can be called the "Eternal Father" without making him God the Father or confusing the persons of the Godhead.

Quote

Interesting, but I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t see how this helps explain Mosiah 15, which clearly states that God does not become the son until he became flesh.

It's possible - but such an interpretation runs into the clear statements of the pre-existence of Jesus Christ the "Son of God" as the Creator of the Heaven and Earth. In either case, however, the problem once more is over the model of modalism which Joseph likely was exposed to.

Quote

�?¢â?¬�??Mother of God�?¢â?¬�? makes perfect sense to both modalists and Trinitarians. I don�?¢â?¬â?¢t know why you think it would be a problem in the 19th century.

It seems to have been the Trinitarian implications that caused the text to be changed - however - not the modalistic ones.

Quote

That�?¢â?¬â?¢s modalism because there is no distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son.

And modalism isn't simply defined by the removal of the distinction between the persons of the Father and the Son but also by the expression of God in three successive "modes".

Ben

Edited by Benjamin McGuire, 12 January 2005 - 08:52 AM.

[juliann]

Dan Vogel, on Jan 10 2005, 09:17 PM, said:

I want Kevin to show how it relates rather than giving us sources without analysis.

But if you believe it relates, why don't you tell me?

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?

[Dan Vogel]

Kevin,

Thanks for the clarifications.

Quote

Benjamin McGuire has already explained why Barker's view is relevant to a discussion of Abinadi's view of God. From a historicist perspective, Barker provides a context with we can compare, explore, and test the Book of Mormon. She's reconstructing pre-exilic Temple Theology, i.e., Jerusalem 600 B.C. The Book of Mormon purports to be rooted in the same time and place. How do the two pictures, based on radically different methods and sources, compare? Astonishingly well, it turns out. I've published four articles on the topic, including a new one in FRB 16-2, and continue to find it a fruitful and exciting enterpris.

So far, I remain skeptical about the relevance of Barker�?¢â?¬â?¢s work to Mosiah 15, but I understand better why Mormons think there is. I haven�?¢â?¬â?¢t read your new essay yet, but you have made me curious.

Quote

I gave my take on Abinadi in a section of "Paradigms Regained: A Survey of Margaret Barker's Scholarship and Its Significance for Mormon Studies", FARMS Occasional Papers, n2. See the section on Theology and Paradigms.

Is this available on the FARMS site? Is there something specific that Ben and I should know or consider in forming our interpretations?

Quote

I mentioned that Brant Gardner has spoken at FAIR in 2003 on a similar theme. See
http://www.fair-lds....D/FAIR-BG03-DVD

He has a good discussion of the differing contexts for the title "father."

Something I would like to read, but not immediately available to me.

Quote

One of the key texts on the topic is the Dead Sea Scrolls reading of Deuteronomy 32:8-9, which describes Yahweh as a son of El Elyon (the Most High). The Book of Mormon explicitly identifies Jehovah with Jesus. An angel commends Nephi for believing in the son of the Most High. So in the Book of Mormon, Jesus/Jehovah is the son of El Elyon.

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.

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?¬�?

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?

Quote

An angel commends Nephi for believing in the son of the Most High. So in the Book of Mormon, Jesus/Jehovah is the son of El Elyon.

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.

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.

It seems to me that you are forcing a specific context onto the BofM that really doesn�?¢â?¬â?¢t apply. This is your argument:

The Book of Mormon explicitly identifies Jehovah with Jesus.
Nephi believes Jesus is the son of the Most High (El Elyon).
So in the Book of Mormon, Jesus/Jehovah is the son of El Elyon.

Yet, according to the evidence you have presented, Yahweh and El Elyon are separate entities, which conflicts with Mosiah 15. Now, somehow you believe this is relevant to this discussion, so to help you see that it isn�?¢â?¬â?¢t I have inserted the two names of deity.

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)

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.

Quote

Isaiah, as Ben has observed, applies the title of Everlasting Father to the "child is born" passage. Can the Everlasting Father of Heaven and Earth be both a Father and a Son? Why not? I am both a father and a son, but I'm also not my father, nor am I my son. It's not that difficult a concept. Brant's FAIR discussion is very good.

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.

Isaiah 9: My Interpreter�?¢â?¬â?¢s Bible tells me that vs. 6:

Quote

�?¢â?¬�?¦ appears to be a dynastic oracle uttered on the occasion of the anointing of a new king, or at the anniversary celebration of this event. �?¢â?¬�?¦ The idea is suggestive, but Ps. 2:7 shows that the oracles of Isa. 9:2-7; 11:1-9 have no necessary reference to a child-king; the king, as son of Yahweh, is metaphorically begotten on the day of his anointing. The language passes the bounds of ordinary human qualities in its description, because the monarch is no longer, in the though of the poet, an ordinary man but is the chosen and anointed son of Yahweh.

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.

Quote

Barker explains in The Great Angel that all Biblical texts distinguish between the sons of El Elyon, who are heavenly beings, and the sons of Jehovah, who are human. All of this provides a context for the way believers can approach Abinadi.

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.

Quote

One problem with "Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" in FRB is that it is condensed from a book length study. But I also have a copy of the long version. IMHO it is an impressive work.

I have talked about this essay with David Poulsen himself. The major problem I have with it is that it attempts to decide the issue of modalism by adding up the number of modalistic passages against what appear to be anti-modalistic passages, especially in 3 Nephi, and then concluding that the BofM is not modalistic because there are more anti-modalistic passages. Besides not being a legitimate methodology, most of the anti-modalistic passages are parallels to the Bible, and despite such Bible passages, there were modalists. I contend that the non-Bible passages take priority since that is where one expects less ambiguity. Additionally, the authors never explain Mosiah 15.

Quote

Apologetics by bibliography may have it's weak points. But it seemed to me that the discussion was rushing blithely along without any reference or acknowledgment that serious work on the specific topic has occured.

We all are in need of more information, but are you suggesting that every discussion on this board begin with a bibliography? And how can a list without annotation be helpful? What purpose can it serve than to give the impression that the apologists have refuted my position without having to deal with it specifically?

Quote

Sort of like George D. Smith writing at length in American Apocrypha about B.H. Roberts' questions, calling for the LDS to honor Roberts by recognizing those questions, and failing to so much as reference the single most relevant paper on the topic, aptly titled, "Answering B.H. Roberts Questions," by John W. Welch. I could only conclude that Smith was not interested in answers, but in questions with which to hold belief at bay. Those who are truely interested the questions ought to know where they can find out more.

The problem you describe might have occurred, at least in part, as a result of a long delay in compiling and publishing that collection of essays.

Quote

Context, as I have argued in print on several occasions (RBBM 7/2, for example), can change meaning. Dan Vogel made a similar comment in Indian Origins. Believers in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, are not just entitled to explore how historical contexts might illuminate the text, but are obligated to do so. In such a case, we are not at all obligated to defer to those who refuse to consider such contexts and accompanying illuminations.

Well, in Indian Origins I said context can change meanings, so getting the right context is important. If the BofM is not historical, then the meanings you find are erroneous. Look all you want into historical texts, which may or may not relate to the BofM (even if ancient), just keep in mind that no paradigm can be verified. Kevin Christensen has repeatedly made this statement in his various publications. On the other hand, it is not easy to falsify a paradigm either, not because it can�?¢â?¬â?¢t be disproved, but because proponents of that paradigm can make adjustments to background theories and invent ad hoc rationalizations in an effort to preserve it. Of course, this can happen on both sides of a paradigm debate. 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.

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. The real question is not whether critics respond to correlations the apologists think are significant (perhaps that needs to be done more), but whether the apologists have adequately responded to the anachronisms and other 19th century evidences. If disconfirming evidence is sustained, that changes the meaning of the correlations. In such case, one is justified in explaining correlations as coincidence and researcher ingenuity. The more you handle counterevidence by shelving them for another generation to solve, or respond with untestable ad hoc rationalizations (limited geography/population and translation factors), the less meaningful your correlations become.