Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Michael Servetus: Early Modern Abinadi


JarMan

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Well, as you surmised, there is a Grotius connection here. Grotius despised Calvin (who had died two decades before Grotius had been born) and Calvinism, in general. He was thrown in jail by Calvinists when they beheaded his mentor and sent the rest of the Dutch Arminians into exile. Anyway, later in his life Grotius discovered a now-famous letter from Calvin to one of his friends in which Calvin said that if Servetus ever came back to Geneva he would make sure he was killed. This was quite scandalous because it showed pre-meditation and that personal animosity was likely at the root of Calvin's prosecution of Servetus. Also, Servetus was something of a proto-Arminian. He strongly supported the idea of free will over the Calvinist ideas of predestination. At one point Calvin sent him a copy of his Institutes and Servetus returned it to him all marked up in the margins describing how Calvin was wrong about everything. No doubt this contributed to the ill-will Calvin felt toward him.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:
From the First Presidency declaration  and 3 Nephi. Seems compatible to me.

But in what sense are the Father and the Son one? The 1916 statement offers several suggestions but they aren’t really found in the Book of Mormon or bible. That’s why I think the explanations are merely ad hoc. And certainly the Elohim/Yahweh dichotomy in Mormonism is not biblical. 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JarMan said:

Well, as you surmised, there is a Grotius connection here. Grotius despised Calvin (who had died two decades before Grotius had been born) and Calvinism, in general. He was thrown in jail by Calvinists when they beheaded his mentor and sent the rest of the Dutch Arminians into exile. Anyway, later in his life Grotius discovered a now-famous letter from Calvin to one of his friends in which Calvin said that if Servetus ever came back to Geneva he would make sure he was killed. This was quite scandalous because it showed pre-meditation and that personal animosity was likely at the root of Calvin's prosecution of Servetus. Also, Servetus was something of a proto-Arminian. He strongly supported the idea of free will over the Calvinist ideas of predestination. At one point Calvin sent him a copy of his Institutes and Servetus returned it to him all marked up in the margins describing how Calvin was wrong about everything. No doubt this contributed to the ill-will Calvin felt toward him.

I played the Pope in a recent game of "Here I Stand" and I got one of my debaters to burn Calvin at the stake for his heresy so I am sympathetic to that view.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, JarMan said:

But in what sense are the Father and the Son one? The 1916 statement offers several suggestions but they aren’t really found in the Book of Mormon or bible. That’s why I think the explanations are merely ad hoc. And certainly the Elohim/Yahweh dichotomy in Mormonism is not biblical. 

It is quite plain to me. It doesn’t bother me that it is not spelled out the way you seem to want it in the Bible. Much of the Bible is incomplete or unclear. That’s why there was a Restoration. That issue was resolved by the First Vision.

Which meaning of ad hoc are you using? 

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment

In Mosiah 14, Abinadi quotes one of Isaiah’s Messianic prophesy.

Quote

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

This makes a distinction between the one who is made an offering for sin and the “Lord [who is pleased] to bruise him,” the one whose soul is afflicted and the one who sees the affliction and is satisfied. It makes no sense if they are the same person.

I see the First Presidency’s explanation of divine investiture of name and authority compatible Abinadi’s explanation of the unity of the Father and the Son.

Edited by Bernard Gui
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It is quite plain to me. It doesn’t bother me that it is not spelled out the way you seem to want it in the Bible. Much of the Bible is incomplete or unclear. That’s why there was a Restoration. That issue was resolved by the First Vision.

Which meaning of ad hoc are you using? 

Your explanation is actually a pretty good example of an ad hoc argument, sometimes called an ad hoc rescue or ad hoc rationalization. 

Link to comment

One of the arguments presented in favor of Jehovah not being the premortal Jesus seems to be strongly connected with the belief in the early LDS church that they were different people.  Are we really going to give primacy of place to what could have been an early and not fully formed doctrine?  If we were to do this, then we might as well go along with the Nicene Creed, which is even older than our more recent doctrinal excursions.  Is it not at least possible that an early belief in the Church was not quite mature doctrine?  

I'm still trying to process who Jesus was in the pre-mortal council if he was not Jehovah of the Old Testament.  Was Jehovah then God the Father? 

Link to comment
16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

One of the arguments presented in favor of Jehovah not being the premortal Jesus seems to be strongly connected with the belief in the early LDS church that they were different people.  Are we really going to give primacy of place to what could have been an early and not fully formed doctrine?  If we were to do this, then we might as well go along with the Nicene Creed, which is even older than our more recent doctrinal excursions.  Is it not at least possible that an early belief in the Church was not quite mature doctrine?  

I'm still trying to process who Jesus was in the pre-mortal council if he was not Jehovah of the Old Testament.  Was Jehovah then God the Father? 

We should be giving primacy to the Book of Mormon when it comes to doctrine. Should we say that Abinadi or Alma, who presumably recorded his history, or Mormon who abridged it all didn't understand the relationship between the father and the son? If early Mormonism had simply used their founding scripture as a guide they wouldn't have ended up all over the place on this doctrine.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I played the Pope in a recent game of "Here I Stand" and I got one of my debaters to burn Calvin at the stake for his heresy so I am sympathetic to that view.

I'm not sure if you're joking here. Is there really a game called "Here I Stand?" It was Luther who said that, of course, so I can't tell if you're making some sort of metaphorical point or what.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, JarMan said:

We should be giving primacy to the Book of Mormon when it comes to doctrine. Should we say that Abinadi or Alma, who presumably recorded his history, or Mormon who abridged it all didn't understand the relationship between the father and the son? If early Mormonism had simply used their founding scripture as a guide they wouldn't have ended up all over the place on this doctrine.

As to primacy, I'd count the Book of Mormon as very important, but more important is the Doctrine and Covenants, and at the tip top of all that is continuing revelation.  That's how I see it, anyway.

Did Mormon understand the relationship between the father and son better than Russell M. Nelson does now?  A good question.  I do know that Nephi (the first) was told a lot more than he was allowed to write.  He was shown much, "But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them."  Did Mormon know more than he was allowed to write?

I tend to hold the prophets of old in great esteem and regard, but to give primacy to an ancient scripture over continuing revelation seems more like a Catholic or Protestant practice.  "A Bible! A Bible!" they say, "We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."  To which the Lord responds "Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word?"  and "Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written."  And I dare to paraphrase as follows: "...neither need ye suppose that I shall not cause more to be written."  

Does the Book of Mormon contain a complete and ultimate statement of doctrine of the nature and relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?  To which nothing more can be added?  I say not.

I also say that the 1916 declaration is not false doctrine.  Your mileage may differ, but that is how I roll with regard to this matter.

Link to comment
On 9/13/2019 at 12:04 AM, JarMan said:

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

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 Church has never taught Modalism.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

As to primacy, I'd count the Book of Mormon as very important, but more important is the Doctrine and Covenants, and at the tip top of all that is continuing revelation.  That's how I see it, anyway.

Did Mormon understand the relationship between the father and son better than Russell M. Nelson does now?  A good question.  I do know that Nephi (the first) was told a lot more than he was allowed to write.  He was shown much, "But the things which thou shalt see hereafter thou shalt not write; for the Lord God hath ordained the apostle of the Lamb of God that he should write them."  Did Mormon know more than he was allowed to write?

I tend to hold the prophets of old in great esteem and regard, but to give primacy to an ancient scripture over continuing revelation seems more like a Catholic or Protestant practice.  "A Bible! A Bible!" they say, "We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."  To which the Lord responds "Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word?"  and "Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written."  And I dare to paraphrase as follows: "...neither need ye suppose that I shall not cause more to be written."  

Does the Book of Mormon contain a complete and ultimate statement of doctrine of the nature and relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?  To which nothing more can be added?  I say not.

I also say that the 1916 declaration is not false doctrine.  Your mileage may differ, but that is how I roll with regard to this matter.

It's a Protestant practice, but not a Catholic one. The whole point of the Reformation was that the church had wandered away from scripture as a result of the assumption the pope had sole authority to interpret it. So the idea that modern revelation can trump scripture is an ancient Catholic practice in a slightly different form. But isn't this what lead to the great apostasy and all of the abuses of the church? Isn't Mormonism susceptible to the same dangers if they just pick and choose which doctrines in the scriptures they want to keep?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JarMan said:

And why haven't they? It's in the Book of Mormon.

Jar, it is a matter of interpretation. I understand your position on those versus when taken in alone; however, when taken in the context of other versus in the Book of Mormon, I simply see a different interpretation. Cherry picking is seldom a successful process to understand scripture of any kind.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, JarMan said:

It's a Protestant practice, but not a Catholic one. The whole point of the Reformation was that the church had wandered away from scripture as a result of the assumption the pope had sole authority to interpret it. So the idea that modern revelation can trump scripture is an ancient Catholic practice in a slightly different form. But isn't this what lead to the great apostasy and all of the abuses of the church? Isn't Mormonism susceptible to the same dangers if they just pick and choose which doctrines in the scriptures they want to keep?

I suppose so, if we were in the same circumstances as the Catholics, i.e. no prophetic leadership.

But   Pope ≠ Prophet

Link to comment
5 hours ago, JarMan said:

I'm not sure if you're joking here. Is there really a game called "Here I Stand?" It was Luther who said that, of course, so I can't tell if you're making some sort of metaphorical point or what.

There is such a game. It is one of my favorites. The Hapsburgs, the French, the English, the Ottomans, the papacy, and the Protestants all vie to become a supreme power. Burning heretics scores the Papacy a lot of bonus points.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/242722/here-i-stand-500th-anniversary-reprint-edition

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Jar, it is a matter of interpretation. I understand your position on those versus when taken in alone; however, when taken in the context of other versus in the Book of Mormon, I simply see a different interpretation. Cherry picking is seldom a successful process to understand scripture of any kind.

Well, a worse way to try to understand scripture is to try to harmonize it all. That's what lead to the mystery doctrine of the trinity in the first place. The LDS version is no less mysterious. Actually, it's more mysterious since it has to harmonize not just the bible, but the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the PofGP, and generations of commentators. What makes the most sense is that everybody is wrong and we don't really know.

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I suppose so, if we were in the same circumstances as the Catholics, i.e. no prophetic leadership.

But   Pope ≠ Prophet

Are you saying the prophet is infallible?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, JarMan said:

Well, a worse way to try to understand scripture is to try to harmonize it all. That's what lead to the mystery doctrine of the trinity in the first place. The LDS version is no less mysterious. Actually, it's more mysterious since it has to harmonize not just the bible, but the Book of Mormon, the D&C, the PofGP, and generations of commentators. What makes the most sense is that everybody is wrong and we don't really know.

Are you saying the prophet is infallible?

Yeah....no. It is not difficult at all. What did Joseph say about the Godhead? Look at the simple statement of the 1st Article of Faith - no mystery, no challenge to understand, simple. It is when you try to use a specific scripture, out of context of all other scripture that you run into problems. If you want to find a problem, that is a sure way to do it. No, harmonizing scripture is what leads to wisdom. 

Link to comment
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Saying someone is not like the pope suggests they are infallible? That is a bit of a head scratcher.

I see what you are getting at. But the context is that I compared the Mormon church to the Catholic church since they both have leaders who claim the right to interpret scripture as opposed to Protestants who believe in sola scriptura. I pointed out that this approach lead to corruption and abuses in the Catholic church. I believe Stargazer was essentially saying that the pope doesn't have real authority, but that the prophet does, so corruption and abuse shouldn't be a problem for Mormons. The challenge I was bringing was squaring this belief with the principle that the prophet is infallible. What good is it to have a prophet interpret scripture if the prophet is fallible? Having fallible prophets who can re-interpret scripture as they please means that Mormon doctrine is constantly a moving target. Mormon doctrine is the proverbial slippery bar of soap.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah....no. It is not difficult at all. What did Joseph say about the Godhead? Look at the simple statement of the 1st Article of Faith - no mystery, no challenge to understand, simple. It is when you try to use a specific scripture, out of context of all other scripture that you run into problems. If you want to find a problem, that is a sure way to do it. No, harmonizing scripture is what leads to wisdom. 

Scripture and prophetic commentary over the years is contradictory on this subject pure and simple. What you are asking is to ignore contradictions and pretend they don't exist, claiming this leads to wisdom. I would suggest the best approach to contradictions is not to start with the assumption that they can all be reconciled: especially since we don't believe in infallibility of prophetic sources. Let's identify the contradictions and embrace them as part of a complex heritage of religious understanding. That seems like the honest approach to me.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Scripture and prophetic commentary over the years is contradictory on this subject pure and simple. What you are asking is to ignore contradictions and pretend they don't exist, claiming this leads to wisdom. I would suggest the best approach to contradictions is not to start with the assumption that they can all be reconciled: especially since we don't believe in infallibility of prophetic sources. Let's identify the contradictions and embrace them as part of a complex heritage of religious understanding. That seems like the honest approach to me.

I guess I walked across this topic bridge so long ago that I have lost interest in it. I get that it is a problem for you; I understand your position. I just disagree with you. Cheers,

Link to comment
19 hours ago, JarMan said:

Are you saying the prophet is infallible?

No, not really, but certainly much less fallible than the pope.

I rely upon this:

President Wilford Woodruff once said, “I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” Discourses of Wilford Woodruff

This was quoted in a General Conference address by Elder A. Theodore Tuttle in April 1973: What Is A Living Prophet?

Link to comment

For those who may be interested in Servetus' story, here are a few more similarities with Abinadi. Servetus, a Spaniard, had actually come to Geneva years before. He was essentially driven out after a year or two because of his unorthodox views. He fled to France where he lived under an assumed name for many years. Calvin found out where he was and alerted the French inquisition. They arrested him and were holding him in jail when he escaped. He was fleeing to Italy when he stopped in Geneva and was spotted at a church service and arrested.

In a general way this is similar to Abinadi's story who came among Noah's people twice. The first time he was driven out because of his teachings and prophesies. Two years later he reappeared, this time  in disguise, but was arrested.

Some of the details of the two trials are similar. For example, Servetus was forced to defend his views regarding Isaiah 53. In Mosiah14 we have Abinadi reciting Isaiah 53. Servetus and Abinadi make similar statements about allowing themselves to be captured in order to testify against their captors (Mosiah 17:9). 

There are other similarities regarding the aftermath of Servetus' execution which I am still researching.

 

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

No, not really, but certainly much less fallible than the pope.

I rely upon this:

President Wilford Woodruff once said, “I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.” Discourses of Wilford Woodruff

This was quoted in a General Conference address by Elder A. Theodore Tuttle in April 1973: What Is A Living Prophet?

If I proclaim that the Lord will not permit me to lead anyone astray, are you obligated then to believe me? 

Put another way, if a prophet is fallible, then we can have no assurance that Wilford Woodruff's statement is true in the first place.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...