Michael Servetus: Early Modern Abinadi

[JarMan]

Royal Skousen points out that the Book of Mormon has scenes of heretics being burned at the stake similar to early modern Europe. We've discussed similarities before regarding the descriptions in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. But I've been studying one particular execution lately that has some notable similarities to Abinadi's death. This is the execution of Michael Servetus in 1553 in Geneva at the instigation of Calvin. The most notable similarity is that both Servetus and Abinadi were "guilty" of the same heresy. Servetus taught that God the Father and Jesus were the same person. He believed that God/Jesus existed in spirit form before being born and taking on a human body. This was the same heresy that Abinadi was accused of.

Quote

Mosiah 17:

7 And he said unto him: Abinadi, we have found an accusation against thee, and thou art worthy of death.

8 For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

It's interesting that Abinadi's heresy seems to have been a pretext to execute him. The real reason is that he was speaking against Noah and his high priests. In fact, years before Noah had tried to kill him.

Quote

Mosiah 11:

26 Now it came to pass that when Abinadi had spoken these words unto them they were wroth with him, and sought to take away his life; but the Lord delivered him out of their hands.

27 Now when king Noah had heard of the words which Abinadi had spoken unto the people, he was also wroth; and he said: Who is Abinadi, that I and my people should be judged of him, or who is the Lord, that shall bring upon my people such great affliction?

28 I command you to bring Abinadi hither, that I may slay him, for he has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people; therefore I will slay him.

Many commentators for centuries have said the same thing about Calvin and Servetus. Calvin had a deep personal dislike for Servetus and vowed to a friend that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive if he ever came there. When he did pass through Geneva years later on his way to Italy fleeing the French Inquisition, Calvin had him arrested, tried, and executed. The pretext, according to some commentators, was heresy but the real reason was personal animosity.

A secondary heresy Servetus was executed for was his rejection of infant baptism. He believed people should be baptized only when they were old enough to understand the significance of their decision. Similarly, Abinadi taught that little children who died would have eternal life (Mosiah 15:25).

In an early modern context the story of Abinadi appears to be an attack on Calvin. When Abinadi says, "And if ye slay me ye will shed innocent blood, and this shall also stand as a testimony against you at the last day" (Mosiah 17:10), it reflects the view Calvin's opponents had for him. There are other anti-Calvinists tropes in the Book of Mormon, as well, so this one fits right in.

There are several other similarities between these two stories, but I will just start with these major ones.

[snowflake]

6 hours ago, JarMan said:

Mosiah 17:

7 And he said unto him: Abinadi, we have found an accusation against thee, and thou art worthy of death.

8 For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men; and now, for this cause thou shalt be put to death unless thou wilt recall all the words which thou hast spoken evil concerning me and my people.

Am I correct in pointing out that today's LDS leaders would reject that God himself would come down among the children of men? Jesus is God in the flesh. 

¹⁶ And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

Am I correct in pointing out that today's LDS leaders would reject that God himself would come down among the children of men? ................

........................

CFR

[Calm]

4 hours ago, snowflake said:

Am I correct in pointing out that today's LDS leaders would reject that God himself would come down among the children of men? Jesus is God in the flesh. 

¹⁶ And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

Not following your logic, please clarify. 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Am I correct in pointing out that today's LDS leaders would reject that God himself would come down among the children of men? Jesus is God in the flesh. 

¹⁶ And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

You are not correct.

[JarMan]

15 hours ago, snowflake said:

Am I correct in pointing out that today's LDS leaders would reject that God himself would come down among the children of men? Jesus is God in the flesh. 

¹⁶ And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

I agree that it's hard to square Abinadi's understanding of God with the modern Mormon view. Particularly Mosiah 15.

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—

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—

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.

I think Abinadi means that the Father and the Son are two dispositions of the same being. Not that they are one in purpose or one in some other way. Many others have also pointed this out.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I agree that it's hard to square Abinadi's understanding of God with the modern Mormon view. Particularly Mosiah 15.

Not really.  

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I think Abinadi means that the Father and the Son are two dispositions of the same being. Not that they are one in purpose or one in some other way. Many others have also pointed this out.

The Father, meaning Elohim, invested His authority in His Son after the Fall.  When Jesus responds to the request "Show us the Father," he says, basically, "Here I am."  Because he was the Father by divine investiture of authority.  You can see a similar thing in the Book of Revelation, when an angel comes to John and speaks as if he were the Lord, but when John starts to worship him, the angel says "See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God”.  See Rev. 22:8-9.

I recommend one read the "Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" entitled "The Father and the Son".  It's a bit too long to post here, but part 4, "Jesus Christ the “Father” by Divine Investiture of Authority" is the pertinent point.

[JarMan]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Not really.  

The Father, meaning Elohim, invested His authority in His Son after the Fall.  When Jesus responds to the request "Show us the Father," he says, basically, "Here I am."  Because he was the Father by divine investiture of authority.  You can see a similar thing in the Book of Revelation, when an angel comes to John and speaks as if he were the Lord, but when John starts to worship him, the angel says "See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God”.  See Rev. 22:8-9.

I recommend one read the "Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles" entitled "The Father and the Son".  It's a bit too long to post here, but part 4, "Jesus Christ the “Father” by Divine Investiture of Authority" is the pertinent point.

As I see it, the 1916 statement is an ad hoc explanation that doesn't agree with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

Edited September 13, 2019 by JarMan

[Stargazer]

4 minutes ago, JarMan said:

As I see it, the 1916 statement is an ad hoc explanation that doesn't agree with the Bible or the Book of Mormon.

I have to disagree, because I don't see that.

[JarMan]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I have to disagree, because I don't see that.

Where does the bible support the idea that Elohim is God the Father and Jehovah is Christ?

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Where does the bible support the idea that Elohim is God the Father and Jehovah is Christ?

Well, first of all, was Jesus talking to himself when he cried out on the cross "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" or "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34)  Or in any of the other instances when he was talking to God, such as when he told Mary Magdalene  "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."  Was he ascending to himself?  He was clearly not the Father, even if he was acting on the Father's behalf.

And then we have Isaiah 43:11 -- "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."  Which correlates with Acts 4:10-12, which reads:

10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

If (1) Jesus is not Elohim, or, the Father, and (2) there is no other name but Jesus's whereby we must be saved, and the Lord in the OT says beside me there is no savior, I think that the Bible supports the idea that Elohim is God the Father and Jehovah is Christ.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

[The Nehor]

54 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Where does the bible support the idea that Elohim is God the Father and Jehovah is Christ?

It does not. Those are just the names we use for them to avoid confusion. The need for distinction between the two is rare.

[The Nehor]

Is this another attempt to induce Groetus worship?

[JarMan]

34 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, first of all, was Jesus talking to himself when he cried out on the cross "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" or "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Mark 15:34)  Or in any of the other instances when he was talking to God, such as when he told Mary Magdalene  "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."  Was he ascending to himself?  He was clearly not the Father, even if he was acting on the Father's behalf.

And then we have Isaiah 43:11 -- "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."  Which correlates with Acts 4:10-12, which reads:

10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

If (1) Jesus is not Elohim, or, the Father, and (2) there is no other name but Jesus's whereby we must be saved, and the Lord in the OT says beside me there is no savior, I think that the Bible supports the idea that Elohim is God the Father and Jehovah is Christ.  Quod erat demonstrandum.

Isaiah 43

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord [Yahweh], and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me.

11 I, even I, am the Lord [Yahweh]; and beside me there is no saviour.

These verses don't support the idea that Elohim is Jehovah's father. Jehovah is saying there was no Elohim before him. So this is actually a direct contradiction to what you are claiming.

[JarMan]

18 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Is this another attempt to induce Groetus worship?

How long have you been holding on to this?

[Stargazer]

45 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Isaiah 43

10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord [Yahweh], and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God [Elohim] formed, neither shall there be after me.

11 I, even I, am the Lord [Yahweh]; and beside me there is no saviour.

These verses don't support the idea that Elohim is Jehovah's father. Jehovah is saying there was no Elohim before him. So this is actually a direct contradiction to what you are claiming.

It supports the idea that Jesus is Jehovah.  And Jesus wasn't praying to himself.  So who was he praying to?  Baal? 

It says "before me there was no God formed".  Was he formed, and who formed him?  I think I know where you're coming from, but all this means is that there is no other god -- you find similar language in the decalogue where it says thou shalt have no other god before me.  It doesn't contradict what I said at all.  Besides, the word elohim is used for the Hebrew god (along with el) all over the OT, along with the word translated in English as Lord. Don't get confused just because the Latter-day Saints use "Elohim" to designate God the Father, to distinguish between Him and the God of the OT, who was Jehovah/Jesus.  It's a "local convention" among us. Like @The Nehor said.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Stargazer

[JarMan]

17 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It supports the idea that Jesus is Jehovah.  And Jesus wasn't praying to himself.  So who was he praying to?  Baal? 

It says "before me there was no God formed".  Was he formed, and who formed him?  I think I know where you're coming from, but all this means is that there is no other god -- you find similar language in the decalogue where it says thou shalt have no other god before me.  It doesn't contradict what I said at all.  Besides, the word elohim is used for the Hebrew god (along with el) all over the OT, along with the word translated in English as Lord. Don't get confused just because the Latter-day Saints use "Elohim" to designate God the Father, to distinguish between Him and the God of the OT, who was Jehovah/Jesus.  It's a "local convention" among us. Like @The Nehor said.

Oh, I'm not confused. I'm pointing out that the bible and the Book of Mormon don't support the LDS view of God as propounded in the 1916 statement you referenced. Why do you think that is?

[Stargazer]

5 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Oh, I'm not confused. I'm pointing out that the bible and the Book of Mormon don't support the LDS view of God as propounded in the 1916 statement you referenced. Why do you think that is?

I cannot answer that question because I don't think that that is the case.  I think I've explained my thoughts on this, and I don't find yours very convincing.  Sorry about that, but I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree.

And I'm a couple of hours past my bedtime, so I need to scoot.  Happy Friday the Thirteenth!  

Edited September 13, 2019 by Stargazer

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

How long have you been holding on to this?

No time at all. It just hit me that the similarity in names could make for some fun so ran an image search.

[Bernard Gui]

Duplicate.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, JarMan said:

Oh, I'm not confused. I'm pointing out that the bible and the Book of Mormon don't support the LDS view of God as propounded in the 1916 statement you referenced. Why do you think that is?

 

Quote

A fourth reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43; see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10)**, and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and godship are concerned His

**

10 And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;

 

 

From the First Presidency declaration  and 3 Nephi. Seems compatible to me.

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

On 9/11/2019 at 11:46 PM, JarMan said:

Royal Skousen points out that the Book of Mormon has scenes of heretics being burned at the stake similar to early modern Europe. We've discussed similarities before regarding the descriptions in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. But I've been studying one particular execution lately that has some notable similarities to Abinadi's death. This is the execution of Michael Servetus in 1553 in Geneva at the instigation of Calvin. The most notable similarity is that both Servetus and Abinadi were "guilty" of the same heresy. Servetus taught that God the Father and Jesus were the same person. He believed that God/Jesus existed in spirit form before being born and taking on a human body. This was the same heresy that Abinadi was accused of.

It's interesting that Abinadi's heresy seems to have been a pretext to execute him. The real reason is that he was speaking against Noah and his high priests. In fact, years before Noah had tried to kill him.

Many commentators for centuries have said the same thing about Calvin and Servetus. Calvin had a deep personal dislike for Servetus and vowed to a friend that Servetus would never leave Geneva alive if he ever came there. When he did pass through Geneva years later on his way to Italy fleeing the French Inquisition, Calvin had him arrested, tried, and executed. The pretext, according to some commentators, was heresy but the real reason was personal animosity.

A secondary heresy Servetus was executed for was his rejection of infant baptism. He believed people should be baptized only when they were old enough to understand the significance of their decision. Similarly, Abinadi taught that little children who died would have eternal life (Mosiah 15:25).

In an early modern context the story of Abinadi appears to be an attack on Calvin. When Abinadi says, "And if ye slay me ye will shed innocent blood, and this shall also stand as a testimony against you at the last day" (Mosiah 17:10), it reflects the view Calvin's opponents had for him. There are other anti-Calvinists tropes in the Book of Mormon, as well, so this one fits right in.

There are several other similarities between these two stories, but I will just start with these major ones.

 

Very interesting point and find.  Thanks.  

[stemelbow]

Quote

for he has said these things that he might stir up my people to anger one with another, and to raise contentions among my people

Also, it appears to me, Noah sounds eerily similar to today's church.

[longview]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It does not. Those are just the names we use for them to avoid confusion. The need for distinction between the two is rare.

God the Father and His Son made the distinctive effort to both appear to young Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820.  The was NO blurring of the two.

[The Nehor]

16 minutes ago, longview said:

God the Father and His Son made the distinctive effort to both appear to young Joseph Smith in the spring of 1820.  The was NO blurring of the two.

I was talking about names. There was blurring with the name Jehovah being applied to both the Father and the Son in the early days of this dispensation.