Godhead in the Book of Mormon

[LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't accuse anything, I was simply playing your game of "this has been addressed, read this" tactic. I was simply demonstrating how silly it is to think if someone has addressed an issue that it is somehow settled which is the impression you often give me. My problem is that you rarely actually respond to anything, for example, when we went back and forth over the Gordon B. Hinckley issue (I am using this only as an example, I do not wish to open this can of worms) you simply said "read this" on the Fair website and never addressed what I was saying. I then proved the fair response was inaccurate and you said nothing. I am just trying to get you to actually engage in a discussion.

I'm sorry that I can;t always engage in full discussion with you, mysteryman. I don't know who you are and I am not particularly interested in carrying on very in-depth conversations with anonymous Internet posters. (Especially regarding some of the -in my view- tired and rather useless arguments raised.)

You obviously didn't read my long post, I understand, it was long and I many times skip long posts as well. But I did address the later passages after the resurrection of Christ. I have said many times that the nature of God as contained in the Book of Mormon is ambiguous. I do not entirely agree with Vogel who simply thinks that Modalism is what is in the Book of Mormon. But he does make a good case that when you isolate the passages that are clearly not lifted from the New Testament, it is a modalist like view that is presented.

Sure. Cherry-picking can make a "good case" for many things. That is the problem, though.

Vogel says that the New Testament type versus cannot be used to argue against the modalist view of the BOM since modalists held that view despite such verses. This is a good point, but I am not entirely certain that is the case, I therefore believe the BOM is ambiguous, but what I am certain of is the Book of Mormon does not clearly teach Joseph Smith's later beliefs about the Godhead.

I think we can agree on some ambiguity. But going further, I have suggested interesting sources which discuss those ambiguities in ways that potentially resolve them. You seem to be under the impression that I am here mainly to debate people (namely, you) rather than to point people in the direction I have already traveled. I'm not sure where you got that impression.

And yes I do assume the Book of Mormon presents Joseph Smith's ideas, the book came from his mouth so I have no reason to think otherwise.

Other than his claim that it was an ancient record he translated, of course.

Actually, you don't need the Book of Mormon to demonstrate that the current view of the Godhead came by way of development. But since it is Mormonism's and Joseph Smith's earliest document, why not use it.

We should use it. But we should make the best effort to use it. We should also use it in light of other records Smith brought about during the same period (like the Book of Moses). Neither you nor I should approach it with our minds made up completely. I have tried to analyze it the best I can. I have pointed to the sources I feel analyze it most completely. They do so better than Dan Vogel in my view. I then advise others to go and look into it themselves. I am not interested in responding to every point you make if the underlying premises are not the same from the outset. Again, you seem to think we ought to have a contest. Maybe next time we should just have a dance-off.

Well then it should be easy for you to show me the error of my ways. Do it please.

I will rephrase my statement. "Easily" was the wrong word because it implies that I can just put it in your lap. This isn't the case. This is why I advise people read full treatments. You appear to want little soundbite responses. This isn't a soundbite issue. Or if you are looking for a full explanation I will again refer you to the sources I have already provided. If you have questions about them let me know.

I believe that Gardner, Christensen, and Paulsen are short-sighted and faulty when compared to that of Vogel, Michael Marquardt, and Van Hale. See how silly it is to argue from the stand point of "read this"? Truthfully, whether I agree or not I do like most of what Paulsen writes. But address what I say specifically and show me where I am wrong, you said it was easy above.

I've addressed the topic as in-depth as is necessary for anyone who wants to know more about my position. It's a matter of not being interested in debating you. Call it laziness, call it cowardice, or call it disinterest (I opt for the latter over the other two, though there are more reasons.) Call it whatever you want. If you think Gardner, Christensen, and Paulsen are short-sighted, provide one specific example and I'll be more than happy to discuss it. Sorry, I simply don't have the time or interest to approach every claim you are making.

[Sevenbak]

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

Because in this context he is...

Mosiah 5: 7

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Excellent catch, Pa Pa!

[mysteryman]

There is no contradiction, there is an omission, given in a much shorter telling. Big difference.

Wrong. Let me tell you again. In the 1832 account, Joseph decides that all churches are false by reading the scriptures. Ok, he has decided all churches are false, he is not confused about it, he has decided all are false by reading the Bible. But he is concerned about his sins, so he prays and is told he is forgiven, of course in this version he does not ask which church is true since he has already determined that all are false. In 1838 he is confused about which church is true due to revivals, and therefore decides he needs to pray and ask God which one is true and asks God which church is true since that is the reason he was praying. The reason he is praying changes and how he determines all churches are false changes. Its a contradiction that is clear to anyone that is not a Mormon. I am more than willing to meet you, go out on the street and find people who are not that familiar with Joseph Smith, have them read the accounts, and ask if they contradict. What is so irritating, is that if our purpose here was to actually talk about the first vision, we should be discussing WHY he changed his story, that it was changed is not even debatable. But we can never get to discussing the larger question because so many are bound and determined to use mental gymnastics to force the stories to somehow be compatible.

Again, it's clear based on early 1832 accounts recorded in the D&C that Joseph was teaching separate personages. The accusation that he switched back and forth and then back again in his theology is hard to swallow.

Demonstrating that Mormon thology underwent development is easy without the First Vision. I did it in my post above. Again, read my last post, I am not sure why you are not grasping the reason I responded to what you were saying about the First Vision. You cannot use the First Vision to claim Joseph knew the separatness of Jesus and the Father before the Book of Mormon was written because the first we hear of the vision as after the BOM is published and the fact that the ealiest version only mentions one personage. You have yet to address this.

The difference you point out in Paul's discrepancies proves my point even more. If Paul were telling these version years apart in different books of scripture, he's be given more leeway. But the fact they are both in Acts illustrated the issue even more. If you can gloss over that, and not various tellings of the FV, then I don't know where that leave us.

How is does this prove your point? I say again, Paul did not write the Book of Acts, again, Paul did not write the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts was written decades after the events. Paul is not an issue, he did not write these conflicting accounts, again, Paul did not write these conflicting accounts. So how does Luke giving two conflicting accounts of Paul's vision compare to Smith giving conflicting accounts of his own vision? I again ask, where are you getting that Paul addressed different audiences for different reasons concerning his vision when the conflicting vision is not even from Paul?

[mysteryman]

I'm sorry that I can;t always engage in full discussion with you, mysteryman. I don't know who you are and I am not particularly interested in carrying on very in-depth conversations with anonymous Internet posters. (Especially regarding some of the -in my view- tired and rather useless arguments raised.)

Don't need to be in depth, but rather than just saying I'm wrong, tell me where and show me.

Sure. Cherry-picking can make a "good case" for many things. That is the problem, though.

Again, hollow words, what have I cherry-picked?

I think we can agree on some ambiguity. But going further, I have suggested interesting sources which discuss those ambiguities in ways that potentially resolve them.

With enough imagination, anything can be reconciled. Look what the ancient Christins did, they came up with the trinity to resolve the ambiguities.

You seem to be under the impression that I am here mainly to debate people (namely, you) rather than to point people in the direction I have already traveled. I'm not sure where you got that impression.

Again, if you are going to say someone is wrong, then demonstrate it.

Other than his claim that it was an ancient record he translated, of course.

Sorry I don't take seriously the claims of people that think they can put a rock, yes a rock, into their hat and find buried treasures or translate ancient books. I don't take people seriously that think they see things in crystal balls or use Terot Cards today, I therefore see no reason to take the claims of these type of people seriously who lived 200 years ago.

We should use it. But we should make the best effort to use it. We should also use it in light of other records Smith brought about during the same period (like the Book of Moses).

As I did in my long post above, did you even read it?

Neither you nor I should approach it with our minds made up completely.

Agreed. Remember I have no dog in this fight. To me God is imaginary no matter how he is defined. It doesn't mean a thing to me personally whether or not Joseph changed his theology. Many Mormons on the other hand feel a need to make sure Smith was consistant in everything and go to silly measures to do so.

I have tried to analyze it the best I can. I have pointed to the sources I feel analyze it most completely.

Me too, and I provided what I thought in my long post which you claim I am wrong about but have yet to show me where.

They do so better than Dan Vogel in my view. I then advise others to go and look into it themselves.

Well they don't in my view, so what? So rather than arguing who makes the best argument, tell me where I am wrong.

I am not interested in responding to every point you make if the underlying premises are not the same from the outset. Again, you seem to think we ought to have a contest. Maybe next time we should just have a dance-off.

How about responding to one point, maybe even two as opposed to your usual zero.

I will rephrase my statement. "Easily" was the wrong word because it implies that I can just put it in your lap. This isn't the case. This is why I advise people read full treatments. You appear to want little soundbite responses. This isn't a soundbite issue. Or if you are looking for a full explanation I will again refer you to the sources I have already provided. If you have questions about them let me know.

Actually responding is not as difficult as you think, just try it once and see what happens.

I've addressed the topic as in-depth as is necessary for anyone who wants to know more about my position. It's a matter of not being interested in debating you. Call it laziness, call it cowardice, or call it disinterest (I opt for the latter over the other two, though there are more reasons.) Call it whatever you want. If you think Gardner, Christensen, and Paulsen are short-sighted, provide one specific example and I'll be more than happy to discuss it.

Ok, where is Vogel wrong? See how meaningless? Just respond to me, where am I wrong. If your are unwilling to demonstrate it, then say nothing. But yes I believe that Paulsen is a bit short sighted in his article. He provides several points of anti-modalist verses in both the Book of Mormon and the D&C. He tries to say that these verses draw a line between the Father and Son that are anti-modalist, most are things such as Christ ascending to the Father, sitting on the right hand of the Father, praying to the Father etc, etc. Most all such passages can be found in the New Testament of which modalists seem to reconcile with their view, so these similar passages can't be used to demonstrate that Joseph was anti-modalist. These verses should also be considered neutral. This is Vogel's most effective argument, that when you isolate the more unique verses in the Book of Mormon that cannot also be found in the New Testament, they are modalist. Even Paulsen admits these verses sound modalist, more modalist than anything in the New Testament which would be where the concept would have originated. He does this same thing when arguing against Binitarianism and Lecture 5. Furthermore Paulsen says concerning the Adam-God theory that "other than Brigham Young's discourses; a few sermons by Brigham Young's close associate and brother-in-law, Heber C. Kimball; and a few items published by Frederick G. Williams in the English Mission, far from the center of the Saints, the church was silent on the subject." This is not true, I have read the minutes of Karl Maeser's theology class at BYU where he was asked several times by students how God walked with Adam since Adam is God. To which he said that when God came to earth as Adam the role of God was left with the Son, Jehovah, so it was Jesus who walked with Adam in the Garden. Therefore, the Adam-God theory was more widely believed than Paulsen realizes and was taught at the Church owned Brigham Young Academy.

His most effective points are D&C 76 and the Book of Moses, which I address above, again, did you even read what I wrote?

Sorry, I simply don't have the time or interest to approach every claim you are making.

Like I said, how about one or two rather than the usual zero.

[Hannah Rebekah]

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.

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.

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 think you need to interpet the Book of Mormon by the same standards Traditional Christians do the Bible. Lucifer, the Brother of Jesus? Summarized from The Moody Handbook of Theology, pp. 166-70:

1. inerrancy is limited to the original manuscripts,

2. inerrancy allows for variety in style,

3. inerrancy allows for variety in details in explaining the same event,

4. inerrancy does not demand verbatim reporting of events,

5. inerrancy allows for departure from standard forms of grammar,

6. inerrancy allows for problem passages, and

7. inerrancy demands the account does not teach error or contradiction.

The anti-Mormon detractors who criticize the changes made in the Book of Mormon are seeking to impose a different standard on the Mormon scripture than they claim for the Bible. If the criteria listed above are applied to the Book of Mormon, then their criticism is completely lacking in merit and is valueless.

[Theseus]

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

Because in this context he is...

Mosiah 5: 7

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

I applaud your effort here, but very Eternal Father doesn't sound like it is referring to Christ. I can hardly think of a clearer way of referring to God the Father than "the very Eternal Father". It seems like a stretch to me to say that this term is being applied to Christ because of his saving power. Thanks for your suggestion, though.

Theseus

[LifeOnaPlate]

Like I said, how about one or two rather than the usual zero.

"The usual" is a mote/beam issue, "mysteryman." Given your tone and your anonymous identity I can think of exactly zero good reasons to discuss this stuff with you right now considering the other projects I have going. Sorry. I've stated my general position and provided sources where people can find more information (The responses aren't just for you, mysteryman). If you disagree with me you are free to do so. Maybe I'll have more time in the next few weeks to engage in more detail. Feel free to shoot me a PM with your email address so we can get to know each other a bit better.

[Kevin Christensen]

FWIW, I think all of the fuss over the Godhead in the Book of Mormon derives more from the contextualizing people do than any issues inherent in the text as whole. And I personally found that all of my issues resolved quite neatly when I contextualized the text appropriately, both internally taking texts in a broader context rather in selective isolation and subjective, knee-jerk interpretation, and via the First temple setting (see Barker's The Great Angel and "The Secret Tradition") it claims as a 600 BCE heritage. As a consequence, I long ago stopped getting hung up on anachronistic 20th and 21st century reactions to stand-alone proof-texts. One of the observations I most liked about Bruening and Paulson's "Early Mormon Modalism and Other Myths" (In FARMS Review 13:2, and the book length version I was fortunate enough to read), comes out of footnote 3 (page 111 in the Review). "Most proponents of this developmental theory make the same claims and use the same proof texts." I'd read most of the the papers he lists, and had at one point been impressed by some of them. No more. Now I see them all as too narrowly focused in their survey, and too dependent on subjective and/or anachronistic contexting. And, I must also add, I see a liberal dose in every case, of what I call spiritual masochism, a mind set that is so determined to demonstrate a capacity to publically face problems, that solutions (broader and better contexts) becomes counter-productive.

So, I've lost interest in the whole game of narrow contexts and subjective theologizing. I see it as a waste of time. What is not a waste of time has been broader and better contextualizing: Brant Gardner's observations on what "Father" means in different contexts, Ben McGuire's careful reading and contextualizing of key texts, Mark Wright's Mesoamerican contextualizing.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA