Amulek and "one God"

[EverASurprise]

I have yet to figure this out for myself, so I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

Alma 11

27 And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God.

28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God?

29 And he answered, No.

30 Now Zeezrom said unto him again: How knowest thou these things?

31 And he said: An angel hath made them known unto me.

This is a very monotheistic statement, more than just "one god that we deal with" sort of thing. I think it would be different if it was just Amulek speaking but he said an angel made these things known to him.

So... one god or many? Was the angel incorrect?

[Obiwan]

This issue is really simple.....

There is One God, as the Trinity.

There is One God, as the Father.

There are many Ggods, as the Trinity

There are many gods, as the rest of us.....

The word "God" and "god" or "Gods" and "gods" have several uses and meanings in scripture.

Sometimes the God being referred to is God as a Trinity, sometimes it's God the Father, sometimes it's Christ, sometimes it's other annointed that are gods, sometimes it's us who are to be as the gods. etc. etc.

This is all a "language" issue of the ancients, how language was used in ancient scripture.

ENGLISH simply doesn't translate the "nuances" of use of the same word. But if a person actually reads the scriptures, they will SEE that all the various "nuances" are there. And to make it clear, Christ himself made it clear. He said there was only One God, and that was the Father, and that was whom we were to worship and be like, yet, Christ did not think it robbery to be equal to Him, and even be as He.

[Mike Reed]

This issue is really simple.....

There is One God, as the Trinity.

There is One God, as the Father.

There are many Ggods, as the Trinity

There are many gods, as the rest of us.....

The word "God" and "god" or "Gods" and "gods" have several uses and meanings in scripture.

Sometimes the God being referred to is God as a Trinity, sometimes it's God the Father, sometimes it's Christ, sometimes it's other annointed that are gods, sometimes it's us who are to be as the gods. etc. etc.

This is all a "language" issue of the ancients, how language was used in ancient scripture.

ENGLISH simply doesn't translate the "nuances" of use of the same word. But if a person actually reads the scriptures, they will SEE that all the various "nuances" are there. And to make it clear, Christ himself made it clear. He said there was only One God, and that was the Father, and that was whom we were to worship and be like, yet, Christ did not think it robbery to be equal to Him, and even be as He.

Actually... I think the answer is even simpler than what you speculate. I propose that the reason is simply because Smith didn't develop his Henotheistic Hierarchal model by the time the Book of Mormon was produced.

[Obiwan]

Actually... I think the answer is even simpler than what you speculate. I propose that the reason is simply because Smith didn't develop his Henotheistic Hierarchal model by the time the Book of Mormon was produced.

Boring.... Ya, of course that's what the simple minded think, rather than looking closer at the details.

Further, your wrong because "Joseph's" ideas exist both in the Bible AND in the Book of Mormon.

Only by micro-focusing on a few Biblical and BOM scriptures while ignoring others does one make such an "assumption".

And before you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm a case in point.

I knew nearly ALL LDS teachings from the Bible alone long before I had even heard of the LDS Church. So stick it.

Oh, and just in case you don't understand english, this subject IS "one" of those teachings that are in the Bible.

[Mike Reed]

Boring.... Ya, of course that's what the simple minded think, rather than looking closer at the details.

Further, your wrong because "Joseph's" ideas exist both in the Bible AND in the Book of Mormon.

Only by micro-focusing on a few Biblical and BOM scriptures while ignoring others does one make such an "assumption".

And before you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm a case in point.

I knew nearly ALL LDS teachings from the Bible alone long before I had even heard of the LDS Church. So stick it.

Oh, and just in case you don't understand english, this subject IS "one" of those teachings that are in the Bible.

"Simple minded"? "Stick it"? You are quite intolerant towards opinions that are contrary to yours. I wonder why that is, Obiwan. Are you feeling insecure?

BTW... I am quite aware of Henotheism in the Bible. In fact, I wrote a paper on the topic in grad school. I have read more than a few books and articles on the topic, including Mark S. Smith's "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts" and "The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel", and Margaret Barker's "The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God". I wonder what your not-so-simple mind has read.

[The_Monk]

First, who says Amulek has to be right, just because it's written in the BoM? We're not into inerrancy, plus there's that pesky "line upon line" principle that Nephi enumerates

On a more serious and deeper level, saying "one God" or something similar isn't necessarily indicative of strict monotheism the way we popularly conceive of it.

Egypt was clearly polytheistic, and yet we find the statement "all the gods of Egypt are three, and there is no second god to him." In Babylon at some point, all deities were thought to be expressions of one god, Marduk.

The Jewish historian Yehezkel Kauffman wrote that Israelites could acknowledge the existence of other deities and even offer sacrifice to them, and as long as they were considered not in competition with the One God of Israel, the term monotheism still applies.

Moreover, in most polytheistic systems I'm aware of, each deity has its own domain of power and control- a sun god, a storm god, a sea god, etc. Each deity must be appeased for the rain to fall, the crops to grow, and so on. In Israel, even when other divine beings or gods were held to exist, they never had their own sphere of power. The one God controlled everything. Assuming a Mesoamerican setting for the BoM, they may be asking or framing their question to Amulek something like "Is there one God who saves us from death and others who control the rain, crops, etc.?" to which the correct answer is, "no, one God controls all of those."

Perhaps Hashbaz can enlighten me on how the polytheism worked in Mesoamerica.

My 2 cents.

[johnny]

EverASurprise

I have yet to figure this out for myself, so I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

I think like the apostle Paul thinks ... Paul said, "there is none other God but one ... to us there is but one God, the Father, ... and one Lord Jesus Christ" (1Cor 8:4-6).

So... one god or many?

Joseph Smith taught "three Gods".

Was the angel incorrect?

The angel sounds like he was correct, the angel is consistent with the apostle Paul.

I think the apostle Paul was correct and Joseph Smith was incorrect.

[charity's child]

I lean toward the "in relation to this world" theory. The definitions of one god are all in relation to us. There is one God for us to worship and he has delegated his authority to make a god of his son, Jesus, and to make a god of the Holy Spirit. Personal theory only folks, not official doctrine!

[erichard]

I have yet to figure this out for myself, so I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.

This is a very monotheistic statement, more than just "one god that we deal with" sort of thing. I think it would be different if it was just Amulek speaking but he said an angel made these things known to him.

So... one god or many? Was the angel incorrect?

Hi EverASurprise,

What about Doctrine and Covenants 20 (April 1830):

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

...

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ARE ONE GOD, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

Was the Word of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph incorrect?

Possibly the issue you should consider is not whether there is one God or many gods, but rather how does one define the word "one"?

The philosophical idea that the term "one" can only be as ascribed to something without "parts" is not taught in any scripture.

The Bible speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as if they each are "God". How can three separate beings be "one" God? Does the Bible teach there are three Gods?

Not necessarily. There are 100 US Senators, but ONE US Senate. Can 100 person be ONE thing? Why not?

So, even without the Trinity doctrine, the Bible does not teach there are three Gods. Because three personages can be ONE God. And as taught in John 17, they are in perfect unity, so their oneness is very real.

In my Mormon faith, there is ONE God as Amulek taught, and as the Word of the Lord to Joseph Smith taught.

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE God. They are three separate, finite, exalted personages in perfect Unity.

Also, in my faith, the Father was once a Son, and also has a Father. And so on without beginning.

So this INFINITE family of finite personages is ONE God. They are in perfect unity.

There is no problem with my saying I believe in ONE God, unless someone passes a law against speaking of a group of more than one personage as ONE something.

I doubt the ONE US Senate will pass such a law.

Richard

[johnny]

erichard

Not necessarily. There are 100 US Senators, but ONE US Senate. Can 100 person be ONE thing? Why not?

How does your logic of Senators and Senate compare to the Bible?

There are not "three Gods" in the Godhead, in Christ dwelt "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9).

So, even without the Trinity doctrine, the Bible does not teach there are three Gods. Because three personages can be ONE God. And as taught in John 17, they are in perfect unity, so their oneness is very real.

The "may be one" in John 17 comes from the fact that "Father, art in me, and I in thee" (John17:21). "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself " (2Cor 5:19). The Father that dwelt in the Son did the works (John 14:10).

In my Mormon faith, there is ONE God as Amulek taught, and as the Word of the Lord to Joseph Smith taught.

The Mormon faith teaches "... the Godhead: ... God the Father: ... Elohim . . . God the Son: The God known as Jehovah is the Son . . God the Holy Ghost: The Holy Ghost is also a God."

There is not God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost as the Mormon faith teaches. There is God the Father, the Son of God, and the Holy Ghost who are each "God".

The Father is God (divine nature), the Son is God (divine nature), the HG is God (divine nature) which equals three persons who are God (divine nature).

Also, in my faith, the Father was once a Son, and also has a Father. And so on without beginning.

Our Heavenly Father did not become God. God is God from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2).

[lostindc]

"Simple minded"? "Stick it"? You are quite intolerant towards opinions that are contrary to yours. I wonder why that is, Obiwan. Are you feeling insecure?

BTW... I am quite aware of Henotheism in the Bible. In fact, I wrote a paper on the topic in grad school. I have read more than a few books and articles on the topic, including Mark S. Smith's "The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts" and "The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel", and Margaret Barker's "The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God". I wonder what your not-so-simple mind has read.

Frankly I think his response was appropriate and well communicated. Its odd that you are surprised given the manner of the situation

[Billy]

What about Doctrine and Covenants 20 (April 1830):

Was the Word of the Lord to the Prophet Joseph incorrect?

D and C 20:17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

Do you believe the D and C in this verse? That God was God from everlasting to everlasting "the same unchangeable God"?

[The_Monk]

Billy, if you don't have anything to say about Amulek, stay off the thread. Go derail something else. You're a broken record.

[Billy]

First, who says Amulek has to be right, just because it's written in the BoM? We're not into inerrancy, plus there's that pesky "line upon line" principle that Nephi enumerates

What about the statement in the Intoduction to the Book of Mormon

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction

INTRODUCTION

Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: â??I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.â?

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/introduction

[Billy]

Billy, if you don't have anything to say about Amulek, stay off the thread. Go derail something else. You're a broken record.

A little testy this morning?

Do you even know the title of the thread?

If you even knew the title of the thread you would clearly see that my post IS relevant to the topic.

Here it is if you missed it

" Amulek and "one God"

[The_Monk]

A little testy this morning?

Do you even know the title of the thread?

If you even knew the title of the thread you would clearly see that my post IS relevant to the topic.

Here it is if you missed it

" Amulek and "one God"

yes. And you've posted at length about the one God aspect. But not Amulek or understanding him in context. (As I testily said above, "if you don't have anything to say about Amulek, stay off the thread".) You've simply done the equivalent of handing out your same old pamphlet, as you do an any vaguely related thread.

In fairness, if the original poster didn't want your same old stuff, he should have posted it in a different section.

"most correct" as you're surely aware, is a superlative, not an absolute. That means, if I have 15 people and the one of greatest height is 4'3, that person is the most tall of those people. Most correct doesn't mean absolutely correct, perfect, infallible, without error, etc.

[erichard]

Do you believe the D and C in this verse? That God was God from everlasting to everlasting "the same unchangeable God"?

Hi Billy,

Absolutely. Why not?

You do understand that in my faith the ONE "God" is not one personage? That the ONE God is ultimately an INFINTE union of Personages?

I have faith that creation has no beginning, even though the concept is hard to understand.

And so without beginning, "the [one] same unchangeable God" that Amulek and Joseph testified of has existed.

The words of Amulek and D&C 20:17 are in perfect harmony with my faith.

If you want to find a more difficult scripture to question my Mormonism on, try D&C 121:32

Richard

[Billy]

yes. And you've posted at length about the one God aspect. But not Amulek or understanding him in context.

What was the main thrust of the OP? Lets go back and look at the original post to get some more insight.

This is a very monotheistic statement, more than just "one god that we deal with" sort of thing. I think it would be different if it was just Amulek speaking but he said an angel made these things known to him.

So... one god or many? Was the angel incorrect?

[The_Monk]

I need to apologize. I have conflated Billy with Johnny. I saw Billy's first post as if it were Johnny's second, and responded out of frustration at what I see as simply reposting the same thing all the time.

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I stand by my original comment about the danger of reading Amulek's statement without taking any account of similar statements in the ancient context, which no one has mentioned

[Billy]

Hi Billy,

Absolutely. Why not?

You do understand that in my faith the ONE "God" is not one personage? That the ONE God is ultimately an INFINTE union of Personages?

D and C 20:17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

So you are saying the this verse in D and C is not speaking about God the Father?

[LeSellers]

This is a very monotheistic statement, more than just "one god that we deal with" sort of thing. I think it would be different if it was just Amulek speaking but he said an angel made these things known to him.

So... one god or many? Was the angel incorrect?

Paul tells us that he adapted his message to his audience. The angel, through Amulek, is doing the same thing here.

Ammonihah was a wicked city. The people there had some kind of religion; we have little information about its type. However, there is ample evidence that there was idolatry among the apostate Lehites, and idolatry typically includes a pantheon of many gods. Therefor, taking into account the messages above in re: the structure of the Godhead (which I will not explore), we have a monotheistic, orthodox Jew (Amulek) preaching to idolatrous, polytheist apostates. His message of one God, in opposition to the false belief in many gods, is a simplification of the truth about the nature of God. We see this came thing frequently in the Bible (mostly the Old Testament) where the one God theme is always presented in the context of idolatrous polytheism.

So, the angel was not wrong. Amulek was preaching the truth, and he was making it simple so his listeners could grasp his meaning in their rebellion against their God.

Lehi

[consiglieri]

"Simple minded"? "Stick it"? You are quite intolerant towards opinions that are contrary to yours. I wonder why that is, Obiwan. Are you feeling insecure?

Hi, Mike!

Please ignore Obiwan. (Heaven knows I try to.)

I think this is a subject not delved into deeply enough.

The Book of Mormon indicates a tension between believing in Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God, and who is elsewhere identified as God himself, even God the Father; and believing in only one God.

In other words, it seems clear within the framework of the Book of Mormon that a premium is placed upon professing a monotheistic faith. And yet, on the other hand, the "true" prophets also spoke of an additional God, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

Now, you don't have to be very advanced in math to know that one plus one equals two; and that two Gods do not constitute a strictly monotheistic religion.

The interesting thing to me is that the Book of Mormon itself seems to be aware of this dichotomy, and while simultaneously professing only one God, also attempts to explain how believing in two separate Gods (the Father and the Son) does not really constitute polytheism.

(In other words, it sounds a lot like numerous threads on this very board!)

But in so doing, the Book of Mormon does not resort to the Trinitarian formula, instead taking another tack.

Here is what I mean:

Abinadi goes to great lengths to justify a belief in two Gods as really being only one God in Mosiah 15:

Mosiah 15: 2-3, 5, 7

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 Sonâ??

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Sonâ??

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

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.

â?¢ â?¢ â?¢

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.

Now, this is one of the most convoluted passages in the entire Book of Mormon. But however we might interpret the particulars of what Abinadi meant, it seems clear he is engaging in a somewhat tortuous reasoning process in order to preach Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and yet not be held to account for preaching something different than monotheism.

Why would Abinadi try so hard to prevent his audience from thinking he believed in more than one God? The answer to that may be that he himself found the idea of polytheism repugnant, and so what we have here is an argument Abinadi had developed in order to resolve the issue for himself.

Quite likely, however, at least one major reason for this equivocation on Abinadi's part was due to the fact that he was aware that professing a belief in more than one God could be a capital offense. Indeed, it does appear that the reason given for his execution had something to do with this.

Referring to Abinadi, we read:

Mosiah 7:26--And a prophet (Abinadi) of the Lord have they slain; yea, a chosen man of God, who told them of their wickedness and abominations, and prophesied of many things which are to come, yea, even the coming of Christ.

27 And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earthâ??

28 And now, because he said this, they did put him to death; and many more things did they do which brought down the wrath of God upon them. Therefore, who wondereth that they are in bondage, and that they are smitten with sore afflictions?

I believe what we can see here reflected in the Book of Mormon is the age-old conundrum of how Christians who hold Christ to be God, and yet have a Father who is also God, can still consider themselves to be monotheistic.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[johnny]

consiglieri

Now, you don't have to be very advanced in math to know that one plus one equals two; and that two Gods do not constitute a strictly monotheistic religion.

Your math is not consistent with scripture, scripture reveals two persons, neither the OT nor the NT reveal two Gods like Mormonism. Scripture reveals:

Father is God (divine nature) + the Son is God (divine nature) + the HG is God (divine nature) = three persons who are God (divine nature)

But in so doing, the Book of Mormon does not resort to the Trinitarian formula, instead taking another tack.

The Trinitarian formula is "one God" just like inspired word of God, it is not "three Gods".

I believe what we can see here reflected in the Book of Mormon is the age-old conundrum of how Christians who hold Christ to be God, and yet have a Father who is also God, can still consider themselves to be monotheistic.

Christians hold that Christ is the Son of God, who has a Father whom he calls my God, who is the mediator between God and man. Christians consider themselves to be like the apostle Paul who said "there is none other God but one ... to us there is but one God, the Father, ... and one Lord Jesus Christ" (1Cor 8:4-6).

[cksalmon]

I think this is a subject not delved into deeply enough.

Hi Consig--

Ostler has some interesting material on this subject (as I'm sure you) and appears to have thought it through rather rigorously. A couple good starting points would be his discussion starting on p. 10 ("'God'" as a Relationship of Unity among a Plurality of Persons") in Exploring Mormon Thought (vol. 1): The Attributes of God, as well as his 1998 Sunstone presentation (#121), "Mormon Scripture on the Nature of Divinity."

My gut-level reaction is that his take seems no less imprecise and potentially confusing than traditional trinitarianism. (I'd also posit that he's beyond the pale of "normative" LDS belief, at this point, if not outside LDS orthodoxy, broadly conceived.) I'm not quite prepared to argue for those points, yet; but I do plan to start a thread on the subject in the near future in order to gain a MADB perspective on his materials.

Best.

cks

[Zakuska]

consiglieri

Your math is not consistent with scripture, scripture reveals two persons, neither the OT nor the NT reveal two Gods like Mormonism. Scripture reveals:

Father is God (divine nature) + the Son is God (divine nature) + the HG is God (divine nature) = three persons who are God (divine nature)

The Trinitarian formula is "one God" just like inspired word of God, it is not "three Gods".

Christians hold that Christ is the Son of God, who has a Father whom he calls my God, who is the mediator between God and man. Christians consider themselves to be like the apostle Paul who said "there is none other God but one ... to us there is but one God, the Father, ... and one Lord Jesus Christ" (1Cor 8:4-6).

Johhny's got a problem with the Bible contradiciting what he says...

Matt. 22: 44

44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

Mark 12: 36

36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Luke 20: 42

42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Acts 2: 34

34 For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

What do these verses say in the original?

"God said to my God"

When God has a God that makes 2 gods.