Godhead in the Book of Mormon

[Theseus]

One of the fundamental doctrines of LDS theology is that God and Jesus are two separate beings, each with a physical body of flesh and bone. This definitely makes sense to me when compared with other efforts to make God and Jesus the same person. But when I study the Book of Mormon, I don't see this doctrine purely and simply taught. To me, this doctrine is not any clearer in the Book of Mormon than it is in the bible. In some ways, it may be less clear. Here's why I feel this way:

1. Many of the changes from the original Book of Mormon have to do with scriptures involving the Godhead. The following scriptures had the phrase "the Son of" added seven years after the original was printed:

I Nephi 11:18 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of (the Son of )God, after the manner of flesh.

I Nephi 11:21 And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even (the Son of ) the Eternal Father!

I Nephi 11:32 ...And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, (the Son of ) the Everlasting God, was judged of the world...

I Nephi 13:40 ...that the Lamb of God is (the Son of ) the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world...

The consistency here leads me to believe it was not a scribe error. The addition of "the Son of" in these verses could reflect a doctrinal shift in the understanding of the Godhead.

Interestingly enough, Mosiah 16:15 still reads:

[15] Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Why was this verse not corrected as the verses in 1st Nephi were?

2. If Abinidi was trying to teach the nature of God, he did not do it very clearly.

Mosiah 15

[1] And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

[2] And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son --

[3] The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son --

[4] And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

[5] And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

If you believe that Abinidi is explaining the relatively simple concept that God and Jesus are two separate beings of flesh and bone with a singular purpose, it would seem a very convoluted and confusing way of doing it. If a reader had no previous knowledge of Mormon doctrine, I doubt he would come away with the idea that God and Jesus are two separate beings (this theory is testable, by the way. It would be interesting to see the results).

3. When Zeezrom asks Amulek a very simple question, Amulek responds with, what I feel, is a very surprising answer:

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;

No current missionary would answer this question the way Amulek did. Why would he answer in this way? This seems , instead, to correspond with an emerging pattern that God and Jesus are somehow one person.

These issues as well as others (which I'll leave out so this doesn't drag on forever) seem to paint a picture that early Mormon doctrine supposed that God and Jesus were the same being. I'm not trying to be "anti" here, but I honestly think this is a valid point that deserves at least a semi-plausible explanation. This is one of the issues that, to me, seems to indicate that the Book of Mormon was crafted by Joseph Smith and/or others rather than being an authentic ancient history.

Is there any verse in the Book of Mormon that clearly teaches this basic LDS doctrine? I can't think of any off hand, so I'm putting it to you (as I've been impressed with many of the apologetic responses from posters on this board).

I'm all ears.

Theseus

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

3. When Zeezrom asks Amulek a very simple question, Amulek responds with, what I feel, is a very surprising answer:

No current missionary would answer this question the way Amulek did. Why would he answer in this way? This seems , instead, to correspond with an emerging pattern that God and Jesus are somehow one person.

These issues as well as others (which I'll leave out so this doesn't drag on forever) seem to paint a picture that early Mormon doctrine supposed that God and Jesus were the same being. I'm not trying to be "anti" here, but I honestly think this is a valid point that deserves at least a semi-plausible explanation. This is one of the issues that, to me, seems to indicate that the Book of Mormon was crafted by Joseph Smith and/or others rather than being an authentic ancient history.

Is there any verse in the Book of Mormon that clearly teaches this basic LDS doctrine? I can't think of any off hand, so I'm putting it to you (as I've been impressed with many of the apologetic responses from posters on this board).

I'm all ears.

Theseus

I would and have. Jesus is the very Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth. But that is not the same as Jesus is God the Eternal Father.

[Sevenbak]

Jeff Lindsey has addressed the issue.

God or Son of God?

The most commonly criticized changes involve thrice clarifying which member of the Godhead was meant in a passage (1 Nephi 11) describing the future ministry of Christ and the "condescension of God." Robert L. Millet explains what was changed in The Power Of The Word: Saving Doctrines from the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company (1994), pp. 11-12:

The condescension of God the Son consists in the coming to earth of the great Jehovah, the Lord God Omnipotent, the God of the ancients. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon contains the following words from the angel to Nephi: "Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh" (1 Nephi 11:18; italics added). The angel later said unto Nephi regarding the vision of the Christ child, "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, the Eternal Father!" (1 Nephi 11:21; italics added; compare 1 Nephi 13:40, 1830 edition). Later in the same vision of the ministry of Christ, the angel spoke, saying, "Look! And I looked," Nephi added, "and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record" (1 Nephi 11:32; italics added). In the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith the Prophet changed these verses to read "the mother of the Son of God," "the Son of the Eternal Father," and "the Son of the everlasting God," respectively (italics added). It would appear that the Prophet made these textual alterations to assist the Latter-day Saints in fully understanding the meaning of the expressions.

It may also be that Joseph Smith altered these verses to make certain that no reader - member or nonmember - would confuse the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Father and the Son with that of other Christian denominations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. See an article by Oliver Cowdery, "Trouble in the West," in Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, I (April 1835), p. 105. [This paragraph is a footnote to the preceding paragraph in Millet's book.]

Hugh Nibley also discusses these changes (Since Cumorah, p. 6):

In the first edition Mary is referred to as "the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh" (1 Nephi 11:18); the insertion in later editions of "the Son of God" is simply put in to make it clear that the second person of the godhead is meant, and thereby avoid confusion, since during the theological controversies of the early Middle Ages the expression "mother of God" took on a special connotation which it still has for many Christians.

Three verses later (1 Nephi 11:21), the declaration of the angels, "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!" has been augmented in later editions to "even the Son of the Eternal Father!" to avoid confusion: in this passage the Eternal Father is possibly in apposition not to "Lamb" but to "God" -- he is the Lamb of God-the-Eternal-Father. But that might not be obvious to most readers, and so to avoid trouble, and without in the least changing the meaning of the text, the Lamb of God is made equivalent to the Son of the Eternal Father. Both ideas are quite correct, and there is no conflict between them.

Many critics have tried to say that Joseph originally believed in the Trinitarian concept of God when he wrote the Book of Mormon, but later changed his mind and changed the text to indicate that God and the Son of God are distinct persons. This argument is without foundation. The original manuscript (O) and every printed version of the Book of Mormon makes it clear in multiple places that Christ and God are distinct beings (e.g., 2 Nephi 25 and 2 Nephi 31). Even in the very chapter where Joseph Smith made the changes, the Original Manuscript and the present Book of Mormon speak of the Messiah as the Son of God, for verse 24 of 1 Nephi 11 reads: "And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him." This is consistent with the alterations made by Joseph. There is no change in meaning, only a helpful clarification for modern readers.

Though God the Father and Christ are distinct beings, Christ as a member of the perfectly united Godhead can bear the title of "God" as well as "Eternal Father." Book of Mormon writers lived long before the confusing post-Biblical, Neo-Platonic doctrine of the Trinity had been formulated. They could use the various titles for Christ without misunderstanding what is meant (compare Mosiah 15:4; 16:15; Alma 11:38-39). For the benefit of modern readers, however, the changes noted above in the Book of Mormon help eliminate potential confusion.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

[Theseus]

I would and have. Jesus is the very Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth. But that is not the same as Jesus is God the Eternal Father.

Then why were the verses in Nephi changed to read that Jesus is the Son of the Eternal Father? Surely you are not suggesting he is the son of himself?

Theseus

[Theseus]

Jeff Lindsey has addressed the issue.

God or Son of God?

The most commonly criticized changes involve thrice clarifying which member of the Godhead was meant in a passage (1 Nephi 11) describing the future ministry of Christ and the "condescension of God." Robert L. Millet explains what was changed in The Power Of The Word: Saving Doctrines from the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company (1994), pp. 11-12

...

Though God the Father and Christ are distinct beings, Christ as a member of the perfectly united Godhead can bear the title of "God" as well as "Eternal Father." Book of Mormon writers lived long before the confusing post-Biblical, Neo-Platonic doctrine of the Trinity had been formulated. They could use the various titles for Christ without misunderstanding what is meant (compare Mosiah 15:4; 16:15; Alma 11:38-39). For the benefit of modern readers, however, the changes noted above in the Book of Mormon help eliminate potential confusion.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

I've read this explanation. It doesn't quite hold water for me because it fails to address those verses in the Book of Mormon that STILL read that Jesus is the VERY Eternal Father. Why were these not corrected as well? It also fails to explain why Joseph seems to go out of his way in the JST to portray Jesus and God as the same person:

KJV: All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

JST: All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

If the purpose of the JST is to give the bible more clarity, it would certainly seem to fail here. This, intead, in my opinion, supports the hypothesis the Joseph's understanding of the Godhead changed after the early 1830's.

Theseus

[Sevenbak]

I've read this explanation. It doesn't quite hold water for me because it fails to address those verses in the Book of Mormon that STILL read that Jesus is the VERY Eternal Father. Why were these not corrected as well? It also fails to explain why Joseph seems to go out of his way in the JST to portray Jesus and God as the same person:

KJV: All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father; and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him.

JST: All things are delivered to me of my Father; and no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son, but him to whom the Son will reveal it.

If the purpose of the JST is to give the bible more clarity, it would certainly seem to fail here. This, intead, in my opinion, supports the hypothesis the Joseph's understanding of the Godhead changed after the early 1830's.

Theseus

Doesn't bother me in the slightest.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Then why were the verses in Nephi changed to read that Jesus is the Son of the Eternal Father? Surely you are not suggesting he is the son of himself?

Theseus

Particular changes in regards to Changes are made so as to avoid confusion for contemporary Church members, in my opinion, though in some cases they seem to introduce confusion as well. Bruening and Paulsen have adequately answered this particular line of criticism here:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=2&id=392

Further, an adapting understanding of certain beliefs (even if granted, which I am not doing) do not indicate a development based on imagination as some critics seem to hold. The line of thought seems to go as follows:

"If Joseph Smith didn't understand precise things about the nature of God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost from the moment he walked out of the grove, and did not reflect an identical representation of that initial understanding, it means Smith was just making things up as he went along."

This is not the only possibility, however, no matter how many critics line up behind this faulty reasoning. Joseph Smith claimed to bring forth revealed scripture from different eras and peoples, and I believe we should expect some differeing views on that ground alone. Brant Gardner has discussed the "Nephite" view of God in his excellent commentary on the Book of Mormon, Second Witness.

Compare the verses in the Book of Mormon regarding the Godhead (one more contemporary designation) with the stuff he did in the inspired translation of the Bible, most notably, in the Book of Moses. This was "translated" shortly after the Book of Mormon was published. This information and more can be found in the Paulsen essay I linked above.

Hope this helps.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then why were the verses in Nephi changed to read that Jesus is the Son of the Eternal Father? Surely you are not suggesting he is the son of himself?

Theseus

First off I am not entirley sure why they were changed and neither do you unless you have the mental powers of Fawn Brodie.

2nd, I am not sure how you got that I am suggesting that God the Father is the Son.

[Theseus]

2nd, I am not sure how you got that I am suggesting that God the Father is the Son.

I'm not. Let me rephrase:

You said: "Jesus is the very Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth"

Changed BoM verses say: "Jesus is the Son of the Eternal Father"

I was wondering how you reconciled that, but you already explained that you don't know why the verses were changed.

Theseus

[AndyOne]

If a reader unfamiliar with LDS doctrine were to read the BoM, I am pretty certain that s/he would not interpret a godhead similar to what is taught by the church today. However, for the current LDS believe in LDS godhead theology, the question becomes whether what is taught today can be reconciled with the BoM. I think many have done a decent job demonstrating that it can.

[Kevin Christensen]

FWIW, see the section titled, A Word About Book of Mormon Theology and Paradigms in this chapter:

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/papers/?pap...mp;chapterID=50

I'm both a father and a son, and no one is confused.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Sevenbak]

If a reader unfamiliar with LDS doctrine were to read the BoM, I am pretty certain that s/he would not interpret a godhead similar to what is taught by the church today.

Surely you jest.

3 Nephi 11:7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my nameâ??hear ye him.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not. Let me rephrase:

You said: "Jesus is the very Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth"

Changed BoM verses say: "Jesus is the Son of the Eternal Father"

I was wondering how you reconciled that, but you already explained that you don't know why the verses were changed.

Theseus

I dont know that I can come up with anything in the case of Mosiah 15 however in the case of Alma and Zeezoram, it really is simple. Christ is the the Father of Heaven and Earth because he created such under the direction of the Father. Just as the Bible states. It is a title. I cant argue that in that case of Mosiah as "of heaven and earth" don't appear after.

It is interesting that you are not making a case that Jesus is God the Father. Cleary they are not and only in the sense of purpose does it fit that they are one.

[AndyOne]

Surely you jest.

3 Nephi 11:7 Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my nameâ??hear ye him.

Look at what the OP is asking about the nature of Father and Son. Sure wasn't clear to whoever wrote LoF Fifth.

[Sevenbak]

Look at what the OP is asking about the nature of Father and Son. Sure wasn't clear to whoever wrote LoF Fifth.

Exhibit b: Even after Jesus has glorified his name, fulfilled all that the Father asked of him, why does he continue to pray to the Father?

3 Nephi 17:

14 And it came to pass that when they had knelt upon the ground, Jesus groaned within himself, and said: Father, I am troubled because of the wickedness of the people of the house of Israel.

15 And when he had said these words, he himself also knelt upon the earth; and behold he prayed unto the Father, and the things which he prayed cannot be written, and the multitude did bear record who heard him.

16 And after this manner do they bear record: The eye hath never seen, neither hath the ear heard, before, so great and marvelous things as we saw and heard Jesus speak unto the Father;

17 And no tongue can speak, neither can there be written by any man, neither can the hearts of men conceive so great and marvelous things as we both saw and heard Jesus speak; and no one can conceive of the joy which filled our souls at the time we heard him pray for us unto the Father.

[Sevenbak]

Look at what the OP is asking about the nature of Father and Son. Sure wasn't clear to whoever wrote LoF Fifth.

Exhibit c:

Why does Jesus continue to tell the Nephites he has to leave them because His Father commands Him to? Why the distinction still, even after Christ has fulfilled his mortal mission?

3 Nephi 16:3 But I have received a commandment of the Father that I shall go unto them, and that they shall hear my voice, and shall be numbered among my sheep, that there may be one fold and one shepherd; therefore I go to show myself unto them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Seven, I also believe the picture we see in the BoM is more complex than the OP seems to understand. The link I provided, and the one from Kevin Christensen, deal rather well with this discussion. They actually turn the tide in favor of JS having brought about an authentic ancient text.

[Cold Steel]

...Why was this verse not corrected as the verses in 1st Nephi were?

The original translation was fine. It was edited to be clear for those with limited understanding of the Godhead. Viewing Jesus as God, or Jehovah, is not difficult for Latter-day Saints. If one reads the New Testament, it almost never refers to Jesus as God. There's almost always a distinction between "God" and "Jesus." Once one knows revealed theology, one has no trouble understanding how and why this was done; however, it has led to considerable confusion to many who have argued that whatever Jesus was, he was not God.

As to why this was done, it was for the current understanding then in force. Always mindful of the Jewish community, great care was made to describe it in terms that would not be offensive to readers. When the Book of Mormon text speaks of Mary being the mother of God, we know what was being said; however, for those who might be confused, "Son of" was added to allow the reader to know which member of the Godhead was being discussed. We've also had cases where critics have purposely tried to confuse people by misstating the meaning of scriptures.

Abinidi's explanation does not seem clear to many people today, but at the time he was describing the doctrine well. Was he simply drawing a distinction between the physical characteristics of the Father and the Son? No, he was showing in which sense that Jesus is the Father. The emphasis is different, but it's nonetheless accurate and profound.

In Zeezrom's case, the oneness of God was being emphasized, and it was appropriate that Amulek did not go further. Why did Isaiah not explain the Father and the Son to the Jews? Why did he simply state that God was one, and that there were no others? Was it because he, himself, was ignorant of it? Nonsense. It was because the people weren't ready to know the intricacies of the Godhead. This, too, was the same thing in Zeezrom's case. The Father and Son are One in a very real senseâ??a collective sense, one in purpose, in unity. Mormons today can say there is just one God even though we believe that there are many gods. Why? Because all gods are One. If we become as God, we not only become like Him; we become Him. Using the same divine investiture of authority as the Son, we can speak as God, with the same authority, power and glory that He possesses. And though each god may differ in dominion, they all are One.

Thus it is that in the wide expanse of heaven and all of its worlds, galaxies and universes, there is only one God; but it's a oneness of purpose, a oneness of unity and a oneness of family. It's a difficult doctrine for many, but it's revealed truth and there is nothing in the Bible or Book of Mormon that contradicts or precludes it.

---------

[AndyOne]

I don't think the BoM is entirely clear - and I think 3rd Nephi is anomolous in its reliance upon the New Testament, but consider the following couple of verses:

3 Nephi 11:27 - And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

Ether 3:14 - Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Consider, too, the JST reworking of the NT verse cited above - which seems out of place for one who believes as LDS currently do.

Now - a person reading the BoM as modalistic, could look to Mosiah 15:1-4 as clarification for how this all works. The BoM is not universally clear. My point is that the current LDS theology regarding the physical nature and separateness of God the Father and Son is simply not clear in the BoM - and the unbiased reader unfamiliar with LDS doctrine would not, in my view, come to it.

Now - keep in mind that I also noted the ability to find current LDS teachings in the BoM. In the responses above - you are reading the text with a current LDS mindset.

[BCSpace]

There is no difference or contradiction. Jehovah (Jesus Christ) was the only God for Isrealite peoples under the law of Moses to worship. So the BoM is absolutely in line with "current" LDS doctrine.

[Sevenbak]

Seven, I also believe the picture we see in the BoM is more complex than the OP seems to understand. The link I provided, and the one from Kevin Christensen, deal rather well with this discussion. They actually turn the tide in favor of JS having brought about an authentic ancient text.

Indeed it does. Thanks for the link!

[Sevenbak]

I don't think the BoM is entirely clear - and I think 3rd Nephi is anomolous in its reliance upon the New Testament, but consider the following couple of verses:

3 Nephi 11:27 - And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

Ether 3:14 - Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Consider, too, the JST reworking of the NT verse cited above - which seems out of place for one who believes as LDS currently do.

Now - a person reading the BoM as modalistic, could look to Mosiah 15:1-4 as clarification for how this all works. The BoM is not universally clear. My point is that the current LDS theology regarding the physical nature and separateness of God the Father and Son is simply not clear in the BoM - and the unbiased reader unfamiliar with LDS doctrine would not, in my view, come to it.

Now - keep in mind that I also noted the ability to find current LDS teachings in the BoM. In the responses above - you are reading the text with a current LDS mindset.

AndyOne, this is the same language as in the NT, and I would not expect anything different.

Why do you think the Lord in his appeal to the Father (yet another example of separate beings) asks that his apostles can be one? Because they are some mystical unified being in some surreal apostleship? Of course not.

John 17:

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Fun with photoshop here. From the above scripture, ancient apostles as the trinitarian world must see them:

[mysteryman]

One of the fundamental doctrines of LDS theology is that God and Jesus are two separate beings, each with a physical body of flesh and bone. This definitely makes sense to me when compared with other efforts to make God and Jesus the same person. But when I study the Book of Mormon, I don't see this doctrine purely and simply taught. To me, this doctrine is not any clearer in the Book of Mormon than it is in the bible. In some ways, it may be less clear. Here's why I feel this way:

1. Many of the changes from the original Book of Mormon have to do with scriptures involving the Godhead. The following scriptures had the phrase "the Son of" added seven years after the original was printed:

The consistency here leads me to believe it was not a scribe error. The addition of "the Son of" in these verses could reflect a doctrinal shift in the understanding of the Godhead.

The Book of Mormon is very ambiguous when it comes to the nature of God. While the above mentioned passages were changed by Joseph Smith to make Christ the Son of the Eternal Father rather than THE Eternal Father, there are plenty of contradicting passages concerning this issue in both the 1830 version and the current version: Jesus is the Son of God-1 Ne 10:17; 11:6-7,24; 25:16, 19; 31:11-21; Jac 4:5-11; Hel 3:28; 3 Ne 9:15. Jesus is the Son of the Father-Al 5:48; 3 Ne 11:7; 12:19; 14:21; 18:27; 28:8, 10; Mor 4:3, 5:2. Jesus is God-Title Page; 2 Ne 10:3-7; 11:7; Mos 27:31; Mn 3:21; Eth 3:18. Jesus is the Eternal Father-Mos 15:4; 16:15; Al 11:38, 39; Jesus is the Father of all things-2 Ne 25:12; Mos 3:8; 7:27; 15:4; Al 11:39; Eth 4:7; Hel 14:12; 16:18; Jesus and Father are separate-Jac 4:5; 3 Ne 11:7, 32; 17:16; 19:18-31; 20:46; 26:2, 15; 27:28-30; Mor 7:27; 9:26.

Interestingly enough, Mosiah 16:15 still reads:

Why was this verse not corrected as the verses in 1st Nephi were?

2. If Abinidi was trying to teach the nature of God, he did not do it very clearly.

If you believe that Abinidi is explaining the relatively simple concept that God and Jesus are two separate beings of flesh and bone with a singular purpose, it would seem a very convoluted and confusing way of doing it. If a reader had no previous knowledge of Mormon doctrine, I doubt he would come away with the idea that God and Jesus are two separate beings (this theory is testable, by the way. It would be interesting to see the results).

3. When Zeezrom asks Amulek a very simple question, Amulek responds with, what I feel, is a very surprising answer:

No current missionary would answer this question the way Amulek did. Why would he answer in this way? This seems , instead, to correspond with an emerging pattern that God and Jesus are somehow one person.

These issues as well as others (which I'll leave out so this doesn't drag on forever) seem to paint a picture that early Mormon doctrine supposed that God and Jesus were the same being. I'm not trying to be "anti" here, but I honestly think this is a valid point that deserves at least a semi-plausible explanation. This is one of the issues that, to me, seems to indicate that the Book of Mormon was crafted by Joseph Smith and/or others rather than being an authentic ancient history.

There are other passages in the Book of Mormon that seem even more blatantly modalistic. King Benjamin said:

(Mosiah 3:5-8.)

5 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases.

6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people.

8 And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

This is clear that God himself would come down as Jesus Christ and be called the Son of God. It does not say God's eldest son would come, but God himself. Jesus, who is also the Father, created "all" things, not some things, there is no never ending string of father gods according to King Benjamin, Jesus is THE only god that created everything. Abinidi explains why Jesus would be called the "Son of God.":

(Mosiah 15:1-7.)

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the 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??

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

6 And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.

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.

He is called the Son of God because he dwells in the flesh, yet also the Father because he is conceived by the Holy Ghost which would also be him according to modalism, so he is both the Father and the Son. Nephi, son of Helaman made this clear as well when he said: "Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfil all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Sonâ??of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh. And behold, the time is at hand, and this night shall the sign be given" (3 Nephi 1:14). They are one God, doesn't say one God in purpose. This would make sense to a modalist because God came down as Jesus and is both the Father and Son, they are not three persons in one God.

Abinidi is mentioned later making it even more clear:

(Mosiah 7:26-27.)

26 And a prophet 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??

Jesus is the father of "all" things, not some things, he is not the son of anybody because then he would not be the father of all things. This is clearly modalistic.

Jesus makes it even more clear in the following passage:

(Ether 3:14.)

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Then there is Amulek:

(Alma 11:39.) And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he [son of God] 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;

So yes, these verses are clear that there is only one God and that he came down as Jesus Christ. However, the Book of Mormon is ambiguous about Godâ??s nature in many instances. 3 Nephi 11 seems to draw a clear distinction between God the Father and Jesus. Dan Vogel speculates that these verses read like New Testament passages that Modalistâ??s reconcile with their beliefs and therefore cannot be used to contradict the Book of Mormonâ??s modalist doctrine. He believes you need to look at the unique passages to determine the doctrine, not the ones taken from the New Testament. While this is a convincing argument, the Book of Mormon, to me at least, is ambiguous.

Therefore, the Book of Mormon is confusing, but it is true the more unique verses of the Book of Mormon that cannot be attributed to the New Testament seem to reflect that there is one God and that he came down as Jesus Christ who is both the Father and the Son. Remember also that the original 1832 version of the First Vision only mentions one personage appearing to Joseph. However, I believe Joseph developed a belief in the distinction between the Father and Son early on. From 1830 to 1833 Joseph Smith was engaged in revising the Bible, I speculate that Joseph attempted to fix the confusion of Godâ??s nature by changing several verses in his revision of the Bible. Joseph seemed to be drawing a distinct line between the Father and the Son. For example, John 1:1 in the King James Version says that Jesus was â??with Godâ? and â??was God.â? Joseph revised the verse to read that the Son was â??with God, and the Son was of God,â? Josephâ??s change draws a much more clear distinction between the Father and Son (JST John 1:1). Matthew 11: 27 originally said that no man can â??knowethâ? the Father â??save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.â? Joseph changed the verse to say that â??to whom the Son will reveal himself; they shall see the Father alsoâ? (JST Matthew 11:28). The change is significant in that a man can â??seeâ? both the Father and the Son.

Probably the most powerful verses that demonstrated Josephâ??s very early doctrine that the Father and Son were distinct from each other is the Book of Moses which Joseph produced between June 1830 and February 1831. Moses chapter 4 speaks about conversations between three people: the Lord God, the Son, and Satan. God speaks of His Son being â??my Beloved and Chosen from the beginningâ? who wanted to do the will of the Father (Moses 4:1-4).

Josephâ??s revelations continued to demonstrate the distinction between the Father and Son. In February of 1832 Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon claimed they saw Jesus â??on the right hand of Godâ? and continued the concept from the Book of Moses that the Son was chosen instead of Satan to redeem mankind (D&C 76:22-26). The nature of God contained in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants is another puzzle. Lecture 5 of the Lectures on Faith says that the Father is a personage of spirit contrasted with the Son who is a personage of tabernacle. The Holy Ghost is said to be the mind of the Father and Son.

During the 1840â??s Josephâ??s teachings seemed to overturn the doctrine of Lecture 5. On April 2, 1843, William Clayton says Joseph said â??the Holy Ghost is a personage.â? Willard Richards recorded Joseph that same day saying â??the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spiritâ? (these would later become Doctrine and Covenants 130, however Clayton recorded that Joseph said the Holy Ghost could not dwell within us which contradicts the current reading). Willard Richards and George Laub report Joseph Smith stating in 1843 and 1844 that the â??Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.â? The view that the Holy Ghost is a personage seems to contradict Lecture 5. Despite these teachings of Joseph, there is no evidence that Joseph was going to delete Lecture 5 while preparing the Nauvoo edition of the Doctrine and Covenants that was published in September 1844. Perhaps Joseph believed in a loose theology and did not mind seeming contradictions.

Josephâ??s crowning theological concept of God came in April of 1844 in the King Follet Discourse. In this discourse Joseph declared that â??God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted manâ?¦â? Another significant theological concept declared in the Sermon is that there is a council of Gods in heaven which furthers Josephâ??s development of a multiplicity of gods contradicting the Book of Mormon (the Book of Abraham also speaks of a council of gods).

Joseph Smithâ??s thought concerning the nature of God perhaps emerged from a desire to deal with the ambiguity about Godâ??s nature in the Bible and interestingly in his own Book of Mormon. Josephâ??s beliefs about God seem not to have been sorted out by decades of successors. Some of Josephâ??s concepts about God in the 1840â??s seemed to be virtually unknown until section 130 was added to the Doctrine and Covenants in 1876. The nature of the Holy Ghost continued to be debated. In 1845 Orson Pratt was responding to the concept that the Holy Ghost was Joseph Smith incarnate, he said:

"Let no false doctrine proceed out of your mouthâ?¦that the tabernacle of our martyred prophet and seer, or of any other person, was, or is the especial tabernacle of the Holy Ghost, in a different sense from that considered in relation to his residence in other tabernacles. These are doctrines not revealed, and are neither believed nor sanctioned by the twelve, and should be rejected by every saint." (Times and Seasons 6, Aug. 15, 1845, 996)

Pratt also said this in 1855 concerning the Godhead: â??But I will not say that the Holy Ghost is a personage, the same as the Father and Son. When I speak of the Holy Spirit, I speak of it as being a substance that is precisely the same in its attributes as those of the Father and Sonâ? (Journal of Discourses 2:337). Pratt and others seemed not to be familiar with Josephâ??s April 1843 statement or Josephâ??s statement that the Holy Ghost would pass through a similar course as the Son. The concept of God being an exalted man was accepted and taught by most of Smithâ??s successors. Brigham Young taught that Adam is God the Eternal Father of our spirits and father of both the spirit and body of Jesus Christ in 1852 (JD 1:50-52). Orson Pratt disagreed with Young on this concept demonstrating that there was no settled doctrine of God in the Church.

Further ambiguity, and even contradiction occurred in 1876 when section 130 was added to the Doctrine and Covenants. Section 130 seems to contradict the concepts contained in Lecture 5 of the Lectures on Faith which remained as part of the Doctrine and Covenants until 1921. George Q. Cannon said in 1898 that Joseph taught â??that there are two personages in the Godhead,â? he would go on to state that God had not revealed whether or not the Holy Ghost is a personage (â??Things That Should And Things That Should Not Be Taught In Our Sunday School.â? Proceedings of the First Sunday School Convention, 87). Clearly there was still confusion concerning the Holy Ghost.

Considerable advancement can be seen in the first quarter of the Twentieth Century. In 1916 the First Presidency issued A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and the Twelve. The Exposition is primarily responsible for the modern consensus that Elohim is God the Father and that Jehovah is the Son. The issue of how Jesus can be considered the Father was also explained to try to deal with contradictions in Mormon scripture. A consensus concerning the Holy Ghost, that he is a personage of spirit as stated in section 130, was also settled. The concept that Adam is God died. Furthermore, the Lectures on Faith were deleted from the Doctrine and Covenants in 1921.

So as you can see, if you made it through all my rambling, the current belief of Mormonism came by way of development in much the same way as ancient Christians developed trinitarianism to explain ambiguous and contradicting biblical passages concerning who god is.

Is there any verse in the Book of Mormon that clearly teaches this basic LDS doctrine? I can't think of any off hand, so I'm putting it to you (as I've been impressed with many of the apologetic responses from posters on this board).

I'm all ears.

This is easy to answer, no.

[Theseus]

Wow, thanks a lot Mystery Man.

That was very interesting. It looks as if you've studied this out and put quite a bit of thought into it. I appreciate your response.

Theseus

[Sevenbak]

mysteryman, this has been covered over and over on this site, in numerous threads.

Without reinventing the wheel, he's a decent response to your accusations. I hope you will read it. The numerous references to both Christ and His Father, used in obvious ways are many. Please take the time to read this topic straight from the BOM references.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/g...lett_nature.htm