Amulek and "one God"

[jonzlaw]

in the creeds.

Sir/Madam: All understandings of the Trinity, to include your understanding, my understanding, and as stated in those nasty "creeds," come from the Bible.

[kolipoki09]

Sir/Madam: All understandings of the Trinity, to include your understanding, my understanding, and as stated in those nasty "creeds," come from the Bible.

I can understand why a person outside the LDS church can believe in the nature of God as defined by the councils of the fourth and fifth century Christians. Evangelicals and other critics often attack the LDS church because we refuse to accept this as the final authority as to who and what God is and often cite Joseph Smith-History 1:19 to state that Mormons think that Christianity is a corrupt cult because of it.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

In the time we live today, identity theft is a huge problem. I personally view the Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian Creeds as a fourth century case of identity theft against God. Compiling a document basically true, but laced with falsehood was the crime. May I share a few examples.

Incomprehensible- John teaches it is Eternal life to KNOW God....to say God is unknowable or incomprehensible is to deny man all hope of eternal life.

Without Body- Such a teaching denies the doctrine of the resurrected Lord. Why is it that the three main pillars of Christian doctrine (the incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection) all require that the Lord HAVE a body. Now this body is not corruptible as mans, but is a glorified perfected form which even enabled the Savior to eat with his disciples after his resurrection.

Without Parts- The Bible is full of references to the "parts" of God, such as his face, hands, backsides, feet, fingers, eyes, ears, hair, etc. Without God posessing parts, how is it that Moses was enabled to speak to God face to face as a man speaketh to his friend?

Without Passions- The Bible teaches God is Love, yet the Nicene Creed teaches that God is without passions and therefore cannot "love." Nor can God be angry, or be sad.

The Creeds do their utmost to take the "humanity" out of the God of the Bible. Believing that I can become a joint-heir with Christ and inherit of the fulness of the Father is one of the most beautiful doctrines of all holy writ.

[johnny]

kolipoki09

Incomprehensible- John teaches it is Eternal life to KNOW God....to say God is unknowable or incomprehensible is to deny man all hope of eternal life.

Since you are familiar with the nature of God ... maybe on another thread you could explain John's teaching that "the Word was God ... the Word was made flesh " (John 1:1,14).

In this new thread maybe you could address the following items:

• Incomprehensible - what is "the Word" (Logos) in John 1:1,14?
  
• -
  
• Without Body - does "the Word" have a body?
  
• -
  
• Without Parts - does "the Word" have parts?
  
• -
  
• Without Passions - does "the Word" have passion?
  

[cksalmon]

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.

Hi Mike--

I was going from memory as well. Yours is better, I think.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament has:

עוֹלָם: forever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world, etc.

...

Probably derived from `ālam, "to hide," thus pointing to what is hidden in the distant future or in the distant past.

...

The LXX generally translates עוֹלָם by aiōn which has essentially the same range of meaning. That neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that sometimes it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying "forever," but "forever and ever."

Best.

cks

[robuchan]

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.

Where in the BOM do you find Joseph's "ideas"? Specifically the doctrines on God that differ from trinity.

[Sargon]

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.

Since you've read those works, I'm surprised you don't cut Amulek the same slack that Mark Smith cuts for Isaiah. Amulek and Isaiah allegedly are from the same parent culture. Smith says:

To understand the monotheistic statements in â??Second Isaiah,â? one must recognize them as part of the workâ??s rhetoric. Indeed, biblical claims of monotheism are generally rhetorical. Israelites continued to worship deities other than Yahweh both before and possibly after the exile. We may assume on the basis of available evidence that the ruling priestly groups of the post-exilic theocracy maintained a Yahwistic monolatry expreseed in its rhetoric of monotheism, but such a historical conclusion does not justify claims for an entirely â??monotheistic culture.â? Because of the relative rarity of monotheistic claims and the ongoing presence of polytheism in ancient Israel, no one can confirm a clear evolution from monarchic monolatry (the worship of only one god, e.g., Exodus 22:19) to a new stage of religion called monotheism (belief in and worship of only deity). (pg. 154)

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2008/11/...cal-monotheism/

[Billy]

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.

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

You said "THE God" is not one Personage", are you referring here to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or are you saying that "THE God" is a collections of many Gods that include Gods prior to God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? The reason that I ask is because in D and C 20:17 it refers to "the same unchangeable God" from "everlasting to everlasting", even if you include the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, would you say that any of the three in the LDS Godhead are unchangeable from everlasting to everlasting?

(BTW a side note, you said that I refer to God as only the Father, which is not correct, I believe in the traditional definition of the Trinity. My note above that made reference to The God as the father was my attempt--or failed attempt--to speak from your perspective or point of view which teach three separate distinct Gods which make up a single Godhead)

[Mike Reed]

Since you've read those works, I'm surprised you don't cut Amulek the same slack that Mark Smith cuts for Isaiah. Amulek and Isaiah allegedly are from the same parent culture.

We have different understanding of the BoM, Sargon. You believe the BoM to be an ancient record. I don't. As I see it, an argument proposing that Amulek believed as you suggest, has a biger fish to fry when it comes to harmonizing scholarship related to Deutero/Trito-Isaiah, the timeline for Deuteronomic reform process, and also when it comes to rationalizing the BoM lifting Isaiah from the KJV. I know some LDS Apologists/scholars have worked hard on these larger "fish"... but so far, their research seems a bit too strained and retrojective for my tastes... which again goes back to me having different understandings of the BoM.

I mean no offence, but it is hard for me to believe that Joseph Smith translated an ancient record, written in a foreign language that nobody has been able to identify, by looking through a magical stone that he found in a well before he ever met an angel named Moroni. Again, I mean no offence, but that is one fantastic claim. Think about it... if you didn't believe in Joseph Smith, and you were searching for the restoration of God's true church... and a young guy came up to you and said that he was able to translate sacred scripture from an extinct people who once resided in Atlantis, and that he translated it by listening through a hair-dryer... you'd probably think the guy was nuts. Now... I personally wouldn't say Joseph was nuts, because I understand that he was from a different time period, and that he had a much different worldview than most people have today. All sorts of superstitions were believed back then. Many things that we know (or at least, have good reason to believe) are not true today. For me... seer stones is one of them.

I wish I had more time to give a more substantial contribution to this thread, but I don't.

[Kevin Christensen]

Contextualizing is a much better approach than reading passages of ancient scripture in isolation, and interpreting them against what usually turns out to be anachronistic assumptions.

In responding to Zeezrom, Amulek goes on to provide much more useful context. For example, in verses 39-40, he equates the Son of God with the Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the one who"shall come into the world to redeem his people", to take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name.

In verse 44, Amulek refers to the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God.

In the next chapter, Alma joins in, referring in verse 31 to "becoming as Gods, knowing good from evil." In verse 33, Alma refers to God calling upon men in the name of hias Son, and having mercy through "mine Only Begotten Son." And chapter 13 includes, among other things, mentions of the Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit.

3 Nephi 19:23, 29 provide useful insights on what is means to be "one." As does John 16:22, where Jesus prays that the apostles may be "one even as we are one."

Earlier, 1 Nephi 11:6 has an angel commending Nephi for his belief in "the Son of the Most High God." Since Most High in Hebrew is El Elyon, and the Dead Sea Scrolls Deut. 32:8-9 identifies Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon, we have more helpful context.

Since I am both a son to my father, a father to my children, I have no problem conceiving how the same individual can be both a father and a son. Since I have an earthly father, and a Heavenly Father, I have no trouble seeing how one person can have more than one father.

Brant Gardner has an excellent FAIR essay discussing how El Elyon was seen as the Father in the Heaven, and how Yahweh was seen as the father of earthly beings through covenant. This notion appears in several places, including Mosiah 5:7, "because of the covenant ye have mande she shall be called the Children of Christ, his sons and daughters: for behold this day hath he spiritually begotten you."

Contextualizing properly costs some extra effort, usually turns out to simplify issues in the long run. It's like Nibley said, "Things that appear unlikely, impossible from one point of view often make perfectly good sense from another." (CWHN 1:65.)

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Mike Reed]

Hi Mike--

I was going from memory as well. Yours is better, I think.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament has:

Best.

cks

Thanks for looking that up for me, CKS. I can check that one off my to-do list.

[Mike Reed]

Contextualizing is a much better approach than reading passages of ancient scripture in isolation, and interpreting them against what usually turns out to be anachronistic assumptions.

In responding to Zeezrom, Amulek goes on to provide much more useful context. For example, in verses 39-40, he equates the Son of God with the Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the one who"shall come into the world to redeem his people", to take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name.

In verse 44, Amulek refers to the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God.

In the next chapter, Alma joins in, referring in verse 31 to "becoming as Gods, knowing good from evil." In verse 33, Alma refers to God calling upon men in the name of hias Son, and having mercy through "mine Only Begotten Son." And chapter 13 includes, among other things, mentions of the Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit.

3 Nephi 19:23, 29 provide useful insights on what is means to be "one." As does John 16:22, where Jesus prays that the apostles may be "one even as we are one."

Earlier, 1 Nephi 11:6 has an angel commending Nephi for his belief in "the Son of the Most High God." Since Most High in Hebrew is El Elyon, and the Dead Sea Scrolls Deut. 32:8-9 identifies Yahweh as the Son of El Elyon, we have more helpful context.

Since I am both a son to my father, a father to my children, I have no problem conceiving how the same individual can be both a father and a son. Since I have an earthly father, and a Heavenly Father, I have no trouble seeing how one person can have more than one father.

Brant Gardner has an excellent FAIR essay discussing how El Elyon was seen as the Father in the Heaven, and how Yahweh was seen as the father of earthly beings through covenant. This notion appears in several places, including Mosiah 5:7, "because of the covenant ye have mande she shall be called the Children of Christ, his sons and daughters: for behold this day hath he spiritually begotten you."

Contextualizing properly costs some extra effort, usually turns out to simplify issues in the long run. It's like Nibley said, "Things that appear unlikely, impossible from one point of view often make perfectly good sense from another." (CWHN 1:65.)

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Great post, Kevin.

[Billy]

In responding to Zeezrom, Amulek goes on to provide much more useful context. For example, in verses 39-40, he equates the Son of God with the Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth, the beginning and the end, the first and the last, the one who"shall come into the world to redeem his people", to take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Would you object to calling Jesus the Eternal Father when speaking in church or to other LDS members?

[Sargon]

We have different understanding of the BoM, Sargon. You believe the BoM to be an ancient record. I don't. As I see it, an argument proposing that Amulek believed as you suggest, has a biger fish to fry when it comes to harmonizing scholarship related to Deutero/Trito-Isaiah, the timeline for Deuteronomic reform process, and also when it comes to rationalizing the BoM lifting Isaiah from the KJV. I know some LDS Apologists/scholars have worked hard on these larger "fish"... but so far, their research seems a bit too strained and retrojective for my tastes... which again goes back to me having different understandings of the BoM.

I mean no offence, but it is hard for me to believe that Joseph Smith translated an ancient record, written in a foreign language that nobody has been able to identify, by looking through a magical stone that he found in a well before he ever met an angel named Moroni. Again, I mean no offence, but that is one fantastic claim. Think about it... if you didn't believe in Joseph Smith, and you were searching for the restoration of God's true church... and a young guy came up to you and said that he was able to translate sacred scripture from an extinct people who once resided in Atlantis, and that he translated it by listening through a hair-dryer... you'd probably think the guy was nuts. Now... I personally wouldn't say Joseph was nuts, because I understand that he was from a different time period, and that he had a much different worldview than most people have today. All sorts of superstitions were believed back then. Many things that we know (or at least, have good reason to believe) are not true today. For me... seer stones is one of them.

I wish I had more time to give a more substantial contribution to this thread, but I don't.

"I mean no offence"....but this is what we call a "shotgun" response. You didn't really respond to my post. Expressing personal frustrations that you have with unrelated aspects of the Book of Mormon does nothing to address the here and now.

[Kevin Christensen]

Billy asked:

Would you object to calling Jesus the Eternal Father when speaking in church or to other LDS members?

Isn't that what I just did here? So, not if I can contexualize properly.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Mike Reed]

"I mean no offence"....but this is what we call a "shotgun" response.

The other issues I brought up (Deutero/Trito-Isaiah, the timeline for Deuteronomic reform process, and also when it comes to rationalizing the BoM lifting Isaiah from the KJV) are, as I understand it, related to the debate about whether or not the BoM could have been teaching a henotheistic (or monolatry) model, as was held by early Israelites.

You didn't really respond to my post.

Actually, I did respond to it. My response just wasn't one that you can appreciate. That is ok. I am fine with that.

Expressing personal frustrations that you have with unrelated aspects of the Book of Mormon does nothing to address the here and now.

The point I was making is that, as a non-believer, I am not in a position to "cut Amulek the same slack"... since I don't believe there ever was such a person. The credit I give is to Joseph and/or someone else who produced the book in the 19th century. I think it is a good thing to acknowledge hidden premises/biases.

[Sargon]

The other issues I brought up (Deutero/Trito-Isaiah, the timeline for Deuteronomic reform process, and also when it comes to rationalizing the BoM lifting Isaiah from the KJV) are, as I understand it, related to the debate about whether or not the BoM could have been teaching a henotheistic (or monolatry) model, as was held by early Israelites.

Alright. I personally disagree, but whatever.

The point I was making is that, as a non-believer, I am not in a position to "cut Amulek the same slack"... since I don't believe there ever was such a person. The credit I give is to Joseph and/or someone else who produced the book in the 19th century. I think it is a good thing to acknowledge hidden premises/biases.

Fine.

All the best.

[jonzlaw]

I can understand why a person outside the LDS church can believe in the nature of God as defined by the councils of the fourth and fifth century Christians. Evangelicals and other critics often attack the LDS church because we refuse to accept this as the final authority as to who and what God is and often cite Joseph Smith-History 1:19 to state that Mormons think that Christianity is a corrupt cult because of it.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19

In the time we live today, identity theft is a huge problem. I personally view the Nicene, Apostles, and Athanasian Creeds as a fourth century case of identity theft against God. Compiling a document basically true, but laced with falsehood was the crime. May I share a few examples.

Incomprehensible- John teaches it is Eternal life to KNOW God....to say God is unknowable or incomprehensible is to deny man all hope of eternal life.

Without Body- Such a teaching denies the doctrine of the resurrected Lord. Why is it that the three main pillars of Christian doctrine (the incarnation, Atonement, and Resurrection) all require that the Lord HAVE a body. Now this body is not corruptible as mans, but is a glorified perfected form which even enabled the Savior to eat with his disciples after his resurrection.

Without Parts- The Bible is full of references to the "parts" of God, such as his face, hands, backsides, feet, fingers, eyes, ears, hair, etc. Without God posessing parts, how is it that Moses was enabled to speak to God face to face as a man speaketh to his friend?

Without Passions- The Bible teaches God is Love, yet the Nicene Creed teaches that God is without passions and therefore cannot "love." Nor can God be angry, or be sad.

The Creeds do their utmost to take the "humanity" out of the God of the Bible. Believing that I can become a joint-heir with Christ and inherit of the fulness of the Father is one of the most beautiful doctrines of all holy writ.

For the record, I was not attacking anyone. But, the fact remains, all of our beliefs concerning the Trinity, one way or the other, are based on what is written in the Bible. THe "creeds" included.

[Billy]

Billy states,

Would you object to calling Jesus the Eternal Father when speaking in church or to other LDS members?

Kevin replies,

Isn't that what I just did here? So, not if I can contexualize properly.

Alma 11

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Why do you think that Amulek would not simply state the obvious, that the person spoken about in this verse is the Son, a separate and distinct God, separate from the Father, rather than giving an answer that confuses the identity of the Father and the Son, namely that Jesus is "THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER"

When it says that Jesus is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, what is this specifically referring to?

[Kevin Christensen]

Alma 11

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Why do you think that Amulek would not simply state the obvious, that the person spoken about in this verse is the Son, a separate and distinct God, separate from the Father, rather than giving an answer that confuses the identity of the Father and the Son, namely that Jesus is "THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER"

When it says that Jesus is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, what is this specifically referring to?

Because of the contextualizing that I bring to my reading, what Amulek states about Jesus as Father is obvious to me. I don't find it confusing. Your mileage may vary. And that mileage is, I think, linked to the quality and kind of contextualizing any reader brings. It's the parable of the sower in action. Soil and nurture (contextualizing the word) directly influence yield.

In an earlier post, I refered to Brant Gardner's FAIR paper on this topic. I directly discussed how El Elyon is depicted as the Father of Yahweh, and have published at greater length at FARMS. Margaret Barker's The Great Angel goes into extensive detail on the early appearance of this notion, as well as it's persistence in the New Testament and the early Christian Fathers.

Susan Black did a study some years ago on 100 divine titles applied to Christ in the Book of Mormon, each one, she says, appearing in the appropriate context. Each divine title conveys something about his roles. No single title or name conveys everything. John Welch did a study showing that the titles favored by different Book of Mormon writers correspond neatly to the personal, biographical concerns of each individual, showing how they related most to him.

A key distinction between Hebrew thinking and Hellenistic thinking is the difference between contextual practical understanding, and absolute abstract understanding. From my perspective, the recurrent objections that you've raised all devolve from same habit of thinking that takes divine titles that originally have a relative context in Hebrew culture, and absolutizing them in the manner of the Hellenizers.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Sargon]

Alma 11

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

Why do you think that Amulek would not simply state the obvious, that the person spoken about in this verse is the Son, a separate and distinct God, separate from the Father, rather than giving an answer that confuses the identity of the Father and the Son, namely that Jesus is "THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER"

When it says that Jesus is the beginning and the end, the first and the last, what is this specifically referring to?

Billy,

I think Kevin has given a great answer, better than I can.

But I'd like to address your question in sort of a tu quoque fashion. Recently I wrote about an occasion in which Jesus did not take a perfect opportunity to teach about the metaphysical nature of the Trinity. I think that even if Kevin hadn't come along and pointed out why there is no real problem, you could cut us some slack since the same type of thing is seen in the bible on your end. When given a great opportunity to teach about the Trinity, Jesus simply doesn't. Instead, he teaches something that seems almost misleading. You can read about it in the link below.

Thanks.

http://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2009/01/...ed-opportunity/

[MexiChinkJoe]

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.

It seems amazingly obivous doesn't it?