Amulek and "one God"

[cksalmon]

What do these verses say in the original?

"God said to my God"

Hi Zak--

I'm not sure what "original" you're referencing here. BHS, at least, reads "The declaration [of] YHWH to my Lord."

Best.

cks

[Zakuska]

Hi Zak--

I'm not sure what "original" you're referencing here. BHS, at least, reads "The declaration [of] YHWH to my Lord."

Best.

cks

The original would be the Pslam itself...

Psalms 110:1

"YHWH nuem 'adown"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b...mp;c=110#conc/1

'adown H113

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexico...=H113&t=KJV

Definition 2 - Lord of the Whole earth.

"YHWH said to the Lord of the whole earth"

ergo... GOD said to God

[cksalmon]

The original would be the Pslam itself...

Psalms 110:1

"YHWH nuem 'adown"

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b...mp;c=110#conc/1

'adown H113

http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexico...=H113&t=KJV

Definition 2 - Lord of the Whole earth.

"YHWH said to the Lord of the whole earth"

ergo... GOD said to God

Well, again, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (the standard OT Hebrew text) renders this P-slam verse as, "The declaration [of] YHWH to my Lord"--"YHWH to my adonai."

Not, "elohim [to] my elohim," or some variation thereof. Not, "God to my God."

Rather: "YHWH to my Lord."

Just sayin'.

Best.

cks

[Zakuska]

Well, again, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (the standard OT Hebrew text) renders this P-slam verse as, "The declaration [of] YHWH to my Lord"--"YHWH to my adonai."

Not, "elohim [to] my elohim," or some variation thereof. Not, "God to my God."

Rather: "YHWH to my Lord."

Just sayin'.

Best.

cks

Adonai is a term used for God as well. See the definition.

[cksalmon]

Adonai is a term used for God as well. See the definition.

I don't think you're following me, here, Zak. This isn't algebra; it's Hebrew.

LXX has "the Lord [standard] says to my Lord," which is followed precisely by NA27 in Matthew 22.44, for example.

I don't know if that's where the confusion lies...

Best.

cks

[Zakuska]

I don't think you're following me, here, Zak. This isn't algebra; it's Hebrew.

LXX has "the Lord [standard] says to my Lord," which is followed precisely by NA27 in Matthew 22.44, for example.

I don't know if that's where the confusion lies...

Best.

cks

I followed you completely. I think you missed the definition of Adonia. Which can mean a human superior as well as a term used for God himself.

[cksalmon]

I followed you completely. I think you missed the definition of Adonia. Which can mean a human superior as well as a term used for God himself.

Actually, no, Zak, you're importing (lexically possible) concepts (derived from lexically possible meanings) and then substituting them for the actual Hebrew text of the verse itself, and then declaring that the verse really says, "God says to my God."

Once again, and finally, the verse really reads (in BHS), "YHWH to my adonai," not "God to my God." These readings are not identical; they are different.

You're interpreting the verse (which is fine) without reference to the actual Hebrew text (which is potentially misleading).

While I can lead to water, only Chuck Norris can make you drink.

At this point, however, I'm happy to let you interpret the verse as you like. See again my posts above, if you're interested.

Best.

cks

[erichard]

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?

Billy,

The term God in D&C 20:17 applies to the Father AND to the Son AND to the Holy Ghost. Notice verse 28 again:

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

My faith is that the term God in these verses ALSO applies to an eternal and infinite council of exalted beings like Jesus and Abraham from previous earths.

Richard

[Mike Reed]

Hi, Mike!

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

Pardon me. I have a bad habit of "kicking against the pricks." Pun intended.

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

I agree. I wish I had the time to contribute to a deep discussion on this topic, but I will certainly look forward to reading this thread as it develops.

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.

Agreed. I suggest, however, that the answer to this riddle is to be found in the various conflicting Trinitarian models that existed in Smith's day. Later on in Joseph Smith's life, I think he was better abel to sort things out and develop his concept of the God-head. But again... as I proposed in my first post, this syncretic development didn't happen until long after the Book of Mormon was produced--therefore the social Trinitarian henotheistic hierarchal model isn't found in it.

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:

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:

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

Very interesting proposal. I look forward to reading future posts as you guys/gals hash this problem out.

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

Good point, Monk. It reminds me of when I was writing my brochure for FAIR (Lucifer, the Brother of Jesus?). I worked hard, racking my brain, as I tried to harmonize Col 1:16 with Mormon Doctrine (about who created angels, Jesus or God?). I think I did a pretty good job with my final argument... but then one day Kevin Barney said basically what you proposed above: Maybe Paul was just wrong about who created angels.

Ugh! Had I taken that approach, the brochure would have been a hundred times easier to write. Oh well...

Anyhow... I think your suggestion is also applicable to Joseph Smith. Most educated Mormons that I have conversed with seem perfectly willing to concede the possibility that the Joseph Smith was fallible during his production (translation?) of the BoM. And these same educated Mormons have also been just as willing to concede that Joseph Smith included at least a few 19th century ideas into the volume.

[Billy]

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;

The term God in D&C 20:17 applies to the Father AND to the Son AND to the Holy Ghost. Notice verse 28 again:

My faith is that the term God in these verses ALSO applies to an eternal and infinite council of exalted beings like Jesus and Abraham from previous earths.

Richard

Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost existed from everlasting to everlasting as God as it states in D and C 20:17? Or do you believe the Lorenzo Snow couplet "As man is God once was, as God is man may be", i.e. that God was once a man and not always eternally God.

[Mike Reed]

Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost existed from everlasting to everlasting as God as it states in D and C 20:17? Or do you believe the Lorenzo Snow couplet "As man is God once was, as God is man may be", i.e. that God was once a man and not always eternally God.

The problem with D&C 20:17 is that the passage makes use of Biblical language. Olawm in Hebrew (pundits, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) means "to veil from sight" or "time out of mind" (the meaning in Greek is equally ambiguous). Therefore, the word for everlasting, eternal, etc., can be a relative statement comparable to Man's earthly perception of time--not necessarily meaning forever (having no beginning or end). In other words... it is quite possible that language in D&C 20:17 is just an assertion that the time was so long ago (and the nature of God is such) that the human mind cannot comprehend it.

But again... the answer to this riddle may have an even simpler explanation, if one is willing to accept the fact that Joseph Smith was fallible, and that his doctrines evolved over time; a phenomenon that exists in all religions, even Catholicism, Johnny!

[Mudcat]

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 ES,

Welcome to the board. IMO, I think taking a face a value reading of the text the only conclusion would be that this angel revealed to Amulek that there is one God.

I started a thread about this a bit back, in reference to this seeming like a modalisitic overtone. There are other verses in the BoM that seem to trend this way, as well.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[EverASurprise]

First, who says Amulek has to be right, just because it's written in the BoM?

Well, that is why I specifically mentioned the angel. Amulek said the angel had made it known to him, thus if Amulek was wrong, so was the angel.

[EverASurprise]

Hi EverASurprise,

What about Doctrine and Covenants 20 (April 1830):

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

Interesting. Out of all the replies, I tend to lean toward this idea the most.

[Mike Reed]

Well, that is why I specifically mentioned the angel. Amulek said the angel had made it known to him, thus if Amulek was wrong, so was the angel.

Here is a thought: Maybe the account given was delivered several years after the fact, and that his remembrance of the details (regarding his conversation with the angel) evolved. Kind of like the accounts Joseph Smith gave of his own history, perhaps.

[Billy]

The problem with D&C 20:17 is that the passage makes use of Biblical language. Olawm in Hebrew (pundits, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) means "to veil from sight" or "time out of mind" (the meaning in Greek is equally ambiguous). Therefore, the word for everlasting, eternal, etc., can be a relative statement comparable to Man's earthly perception of time--not necessarily meaning forever (having no beginning or end). In other words... it is quite possible that language in D&C 20:17 is just an assertion that the time was so long ago (and the nature of God is such) that the human mind cannot comprehend it.

Thank goodness that the D and C was given to us in English and not Greek, thus eliminating any translational issues.

When God was a man on another planet, are you saying that there was not time?

[erichard]

Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost existed from everlasting to everlasting as God as it states in D and C 20:17? Or do you believe the Lorenzo Snow couplet "As man is God once was, as God is man may be", i.e. that God was once a man and not always eternally God.

Hi Billy,

I believe both. Read (or re-read as many times as necessary) my above posts and try to really understand what I am saying.

I have known people that "play dumb" (acting like they do not understand when they really do), and I have known people that "play smart" (acting like they understand when they really don't).

I will keep trying to explain it to you if you promise me you are not just "playing dumb" with me.

Richard

[Billy]

Hi Billy,

I believe both. Read (or re-read as many times as necessary) my above posts and try to really understand what I am saying.

I have known people that "play dumb" (acting like they do not understand when they really do), and I have known people that "play smart" (acting like they understand when they really don't).

I will keep trying to explain it to you if you promise me you are not just "playing dumb" with me.

Richard

I am not trying to play dumb or smart with you. But I think the two ideas that I have brought up are mutually exclusive and can't both be right.

On the one hand D and C 20:17 states that God has been God from everlasting to everlasting and He is the same unchangeable God (note this is not talking about a council of Gods, but THE God). When you go to the Lorenzo Snow couplet it states that God the Father was once a man, so if God was once a man He could not be eternally God. Again, I see these two ideas as mutually exclusive.

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;"

Lorenzo Snow couplet "As man is God once was, as God is man may be"

[cksalmon]

The problem with D&C 20:17 is that the passage makes use of Biblical language. Olawm in Hebrew (pundits, feel free to correct me if I am wrong) means "to veil from sight" or "time out of mind" (the meaning in Greek is equally ambiguous). Therefore, the word for everlasting, eternal, etc., can be a relative statement comparable to Man's earthly perception of time--not necessarily meaning forever (having no beginning or end). In other words... it is quite possible that language in D&C 20:17 is just an assertion that the time was so long ago (and the nature of God is such) that the human mind cannot comprehend it.

But again... the answer to this riddle may have an even simpler explanation, if one is willing to accept the fact that Joseph Smith was fallible, and that his doctrines evolved over time; a phenomenon that exists in all religions, even Catholicism, Johnny!

I don't know about "veil from sight" (not in noun form, at any rate, obviously), but I don't believe there are any necessary philosophical implications in Hb. olam. Greek (adjectival aionion) is something like "eternal," or "without beginning."

Best.

cks

[Mike Reed]

I don't know about "veil from sight" (not in noun form, at any rate, obviously), but I don't believe there are any necessary philosophical implications in Hb. olam. Greek (adjectival aionion) is something like "eternal," or "without beginning."

Best.

cks

Thanks for the response, CKS. I was going by memory, but the memory remains distinct that I read this somewhere. Perhaps in Strong's, or a volume included in my Bibleworks 6.0 software. I will have to do some searching, but for the moment I have more pressing priorities to deal with. I will have to get back to you. Thanks again.

[jonzlaw]

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.

Obiwan, you have serious anger issues, and if we are to take you at your word, you are also quite plainly delusional. Get some help man!

[erichard]

... I think the two ideas that I have brought up are mutually exclusive and can't both be right.

...

Billy,

OK. I accept "your" understanding in this point. You understand that when one speaks of God, they speak of God the Father only.

But I wonder how you reconcile the major testimony of the New Testament: Jesus of Nazareth is the son of God. Why should I not think Jesus becomes like His Father, and also becomes God? Do you think I have to accept the Trinity teachings -- which are not found written in the Bible-- to honestly believe the Bible? Where in the Bible does it teach that a son cannot grow up and become like his father? I thought that is what those two words meant.

At any rate, can you accept that I sincerely do not believe the way that you do? And I am convinced the Bible teachings about God cannot be fully reconciled with your understanding.

In my faith, "THE God" is not one Personage. However, one Personage may speak and represent God, so that can seem confusing. One can misunderstand that think that the representative of God is the totality of God.

And consider this concerning Lorenzo's quote. The expression "As man is" implies our present situation. Does God exist in our present situation? Yes. So when He who is now God the Father was in our situation, did God exist? By direct logic: Yes.

So Lorenzo's quote is not saying that God is not everlasting. His quote implies a different understanding of what God is than your understanding. That is why you cannot reconcile it with D&C 20:17.

So we have come to understand that by "your" understanding of God, D&C 20:17 and the Lorenzo Snow couplet cannot both be right.

Have we not also come to understand that by "my" understanding of God they in fact can both be right? Can you not accept that even if you do not completely understand my faith?

Richard

[jonzlaw]

Do you think I have to accept the Trinity teachings -- which are not found written in the Bible-- to honestly believe the Bible?

Huh? Then where are they found?

[erichard]

Huh? Then where are they found?

in the creeds.

[Tanyan]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/twogods.htm

In His Debt/Grace Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.