Jesus is God of the OT?

[Anticas]

Of course I have, as has everybody.

However, say I told a story where I glimpsed a gorilla in the wildness, which changed over time to a face to face encounter with bigfoot, would you perhaps question the story? Same with JS. It wasn't just a simple matter of leaving parts out for selective audiences. It grew more incredible each time he told it. It seems to be in JS MO to lie, under the excuse of God commanding him to lie, which apologists justify to the Nth degree.

I just can't fathom an audience who would believe he saw an angel, but would find it beyond belief that he saw God and Jesus.

I haven't read anything about an apologetic response to this issue in which God is said to have purportedly told Joseph to lie. Can you show me where you are coming from on that?

If joseph's supposed changing story was an issue it would have been made an issue at the time. The anti-mormon crowd was no less a rabid pack of dogs then as they are now, and had his statements then seemed to self contradict or had his story seemed to change to them it would have been touted from every rooftop. Their silence all but proves this is a non-issue. Also, things like that would have caused a mass exodus in the church as people confronted him about changing his story and him not being able to answer. (people did occasionaly leave for other reasons they thought brought into question his calling, but if he had been waffling on his story this would have undoubtedly been included as a reason to bolt. Those people who left would have passed it on to the persicuters as they did their other crap and it would have been made an issue of, hands down)

Besides, looking objectively at Josephs behavior from all of the sources close to him can not lead any honest hearted man to believe him a liar generally. It was not a part of his character. People who would lie about something like this would lie about a lot of other stuff. He would have been found out by those close to him long before he gained a meaningful following.

Most importantly: There is no way you can make a strong arguement that he had a good enough reason to lie about his original vision at the time he recieved it. He was a 14 year old kid. Well known adult spiritual leaders in his area called him into question imeediately and he was set upon in various forms by those who did not like what he had to say. There would be NO motive for him to continue in a lie. He gained absolutely nothing for years (in fact he never really gained anything ever, unless you want to count contributions to the church or an eventual following as something to gain)

He had every reason to say it was made up and no reason at all to keep lying were that the case. But it was not the case. He had seen a vision. He knew it and he knew God knew it, and he knew he could not deny it, neither dared he do it lest he offend God. You can try and come up with an alternative all day. But that is the Only plausible answer.

[Deborah]

I love seeing this. Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus was praying to Himself, nor do we believe that the Father and the Holy Spirit also incarnated, as if they were all one Person. Sorry to go off topic, but I had to say this.

Then obviously there are different views on that. When you try to pin them down they say yes they are separate incarnations but all the same person. You could say that about a person with multiple personality disorer.

[Deborah]

The next sentence makes it clear that Jesus is both the Father and the Son. It is clearly not talking about two different sorts of Father's, the Father of Jesus and yet Jesus is also the Father in a sense.

That is the point Jesus is both the Father and the Son and Abinadi explains in what sense. But there is clearly a Father who is the Father of Jesus, and the Father to whom he prayed as well as the Father to whom he submitted himself. A father is the father of his son who is also a father to his son and so on. Even an earthly father is a father and a son.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That is the point Jesus is both the Father and the Son and Abinadi explains in what sense. But there is clearly a Father who is the Father of Jesus, and the Father to whom he prayed as well as the Father to whom he submitted himself. A father is the father of his son who is also a father to his son and so on. Even an earthly father is a father and a son.

You hit the nail on the head. These verse of scripture give some powerful insight in to our doctrine. At first glance these verse of scitprue seem confusing.

In order for these verse to truley be considered "modalism" Christ (Or God or the Father) would need to be refered to as the Spirit some were in there. He never is.

[wenglund]

Mosiah 15, another excellent modalist passage from the Book of Mormon. "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." So God himself will come down, not the Son of God, but God himself.

"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??" So because of the flesh God is called the Son of God. Not becasue he is literally the Son of God as modern Mormondom would say, but because God is dwelling in the flesh.

"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??" God himself thus becomes the Father because it was the power of God that conceived him, and God is also the Son because he is dwelling in the flesh.

You couldn't have picked a better passage that demonstrates modalist ideas in the Book of Mormon that are contrary to current Mormon thought. Thanks!

You couldn't have demonstrated any better how an overly simplistic reading may misconstrue this passage as modalistic, and entirely mis the point of the passage.

But, perhaps I am being too charitable in suggesting even that--and this since this passage isn't talking at all about different "modes", but different aspects of Christ's dualistic nature while on earth (his spirit and physical bodies). Abinidi goes on to describe how Christ conquered death by subjecting the will of his flesh to the will of his spirit, and in so doing he hints to all mankind (at least those with ears to hear) how they may conquer death as well, and this by subjecting the will of their flesh to the will of the spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ChristKnight]

Then obviously there are different views on that. When you try to pin them down they say yes they are separate incarnations but all the same person. You could say that about a person with multiple personality disorer.

Hi Deborah,

Well that's a very irregular view of the Trinity, especially with the "same Person" view (as well as "incarnations"), since it is explained as three Persons. If it's understood as a person with dissociative identity disorder (my degree is in psychology so i had to be nerdy about that), then that would be modalism. However yes, some people explain it as such, but that doesn't mean that it is the correct understanding of the traditional Trinity, especially when we look to the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Council of Nicaea, etc.

[Brenda]

It grew more incredible each time he told it.

I just went back and read the different accounts of the 1st vision. I didn't find your statement to be true at all.

[David T]

In Abinadi's Father & Son discourse, I find it clear that he's not talking about different members of the Godhead. He's talking abut one individual - the God of Israel. YHWH.

He defines the term 'Father' as referring to His Spirit, and the Son about 'His flesh', and teaches how the flesh was subject to the will of His spirit. That the Spirit and Flesh combined are One God.

He defines these terms himself in his discourse.

From my notes:

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.

15:2 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—

15:3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

15:4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

15:5 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.

Doctrinal Note: The One God of Israel's incarnation is here being discussed using the following imagery to discuss the Lord's incarnate dual nature:

1. The Lord's Spirit → The Father

2. The Flesh → The Son

Details of the Lord's dual nature:

1. The Spirit is the Father of Heaven and Earth, who 'was conceived by the power of God'
2. The Son corresponds to his subjection in the flesh.
3. He will subject his fleshly cravings to that of his Spirit.
4. The Eternal Father of Heaven and Earth will One God, made up of Flesh and Spirit.
5. This one God will suffer both in the flesh, and according to the spirit. In all aspects of His nature.

15:7 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.

Doctrinal Note: The subjection of the Lord's flesh to His spirit (and not the other way around) provided what was necessary to break the bands of death, and to allow the embodied God of Israel to stand as the Mediator between The Most High God, and mankind.

[mrcuff]

Many posters have thrown around the year 1916 as the 'turning point' of LDS doctrine concerning this. I know that the endowment ceremony predates 1916. Without going into details, there is no confusing the two in the ceremony.

[lukas_s]

Many posters have thrown around the year 1916 as the 'turning point' of LDS doctrine concerning this. I know that the endowment ceremony predates 1916. Without going into details, there is no confusing the two in the ceremony.

Nobody called it a 'turning point.' I said it was the point in which the Jehovah as premortal Christ, and Elohim as Heavenly Father became standardized. There are many references to such in this thread.

And likewise, without delving into the Endowment too much, I can see some fluidity of understanding, especially concerning the early ceremony, wherein it would be acceptable in the Church to call God the Father Jehovah. Again, there are many references that attest this, some from Joseph Smith himself.

It seems like everybody always wants to portray Joseph Smith as immediately knowing that God and Jesus are two separate personages, or that the name-title of God the Father is Elohim, and Jesus' is Jehovah. For a Church that proclaims continued revelation we sure seem to limit Joseph in that regard. The Church in 1830, and the understanding of the nature of God, was different than the Church in 1844, which is different than the Church today. Things change. Knowledge grows. This is why we have a prophet, and a quorum underneath him who help him divine the will and mind of God.

There is too much revisionist history going on here. When Joseph Smith referred to the Father as Jehovah he was really talking about God the Father; he wasn't using a name-title like some like to claim. Go back and read the references in question. They're absolutely clear, and there is no need to revise them to fit our current understanding.

This exact issue is what caused the development of the idea of "divine investiture" amongst the First Presidency in 1916.

"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father" (Times and Seasons 3 (15 Nov. 1841): 578.)

Jehovah and Elohim- MormonWiki

[mysteryman]

Many posters have thrown around the year 1916 as the 'turning point' of LDS doctrine concerning this. I know that the endowment ceremony predates 1916. Without going into details, there is no confusing the two in the ceremony.

Without divulging too many details that some may find offensive, just ask yourself the question about how specific the Temple ceremony is that Jesus is Jehovah and Son of Elohim. I do not believe it is specific at all. Furthermore, if you read "The Mysteries of Godliness" by David John Buerger, he cites several 19th century expose's of the ceremony that showed a distinction between Jesus and Jehovah. Don't assume the current ceremony was exactly the same. If the ceremony was as specific as you think, then why did Young teach that Adam was our God and Father of Jesus?

[mysteryman]

You couldn't have demonstrated any better how an overly simplistic reading may misconstrue this passage as modalistic, and entirely mis the point of the passage.

But, perhaps I am being too charitable in suggesting even that--and this since this passage isn't talking at all about different "modes", but different aspects of Christ's dualistic nature while on earth (his spirit and physical bodies). Abinidi goes on to describe how Christ conquered death by subjecting the will of his flesh to the will of his spirit, and in so doing he hints to all mankind (at least those with ears to hear) how they may conquer death as well, and this by subjecting the will of their flesh to the will of the spirit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well it is pretty simple. We know from Alma 11:28-39 that there is only one God without any modern Mormon qulifications of "only one God to us," "Only one God in purpose," yada, yada. We also know from Alma 11 that Jesus is the Eternal Father without any qualification. Both the passages in Ether and the one from Abinidi are abundantly clear. God himself, which there is only one, will come down as the Son. Because he was conceivd by the power of God, he is the Father in one mode, but yet because he dwells in the flesh he is also the Son. Jesus is therefore both the Father and the Son. Yes, its pretty simple. It only becomes complicated when Mormons try to force current Mormon theology into it in order for it to be compatible.

[wenglund]

Well it is pretty simple. We know from Alma 11:28-39 that there is only one God without any modern Mormon qulifications of "only one God to us," "Only one God in purpose," yada, yada. We also know from Alma 11 that Jesus is the Eternal Father without any qualification. Both the passages in Ether and the one from Abinidi are abundantly clear. God himself, which there is only one, will come down as the Son. Because he was conceivd by the power of God, he is the Father in one mode, but yet because he dwells in the flesh he is also the Son. Jesus is therefore both the Father and the Son. Yes, its pretty simple. It only becomes complicated when Mormons try to force current Mormon theology into it in order for it to be compatible.

Even the most simple-minded person can see that the word "mode" is nowhere to be found in any of the passages you referenced. Nor is it at all implied.

But, it does take at least a modest level of comprehension, and some grasp of the notion of context, to realize that Abinidi, in Mosiah 15, isn't teaching about theology (e.g. he isn't speaking to the number of Gods, or even the modes of God), but rather he alludes to Christology in his cogent description of the plan of salvation.

It also requires some complexity of thought to realize that words have multiple connotations and applications, and they can mean different things and apply to different things depending upon the context, including words like: one, God, Father, Son, body, etc. (Kevin Christensen intimated this earlier in the thread)

But, where things may become real problematic for the superficially minded and those with nominal attention spans, particularly those whose "thinking" is locked into the concrete and literalistic mode of 21st century western thought, and who thus lack the capacity to cross the interpretive barriers of cultures and languages and time, may find it too much of a challenges to wrap their minds around even the most obvious symbolism of eastern thinkers, let alone multi-layers of meaning in the passages like the one in question.

Again, Mosiah 15 has nothing to do with modes of God, and everything to do with the dual nature (spirit and physical body) of the mortal Jesus, which dual nature makes him both Father and Son and God--in ways likely to allude you, myserman.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mrcuff]

Without divulging too many details that some may find offensive, just ask yourself the question about how specific the Temple ceremony is that Jesus is Jehovah and Son of Elohim. I do not believe it is specific at all. Furthermore, if you read "The Mysteries of Godliness" by David John Buerger, he cites several 19th century expose's of the ceremony that showed a distinction between Jesus and Jehovah. Don't assume the current ceremony was exactly the same. If the ceremony was as specific as you think, then why did Young teach that Adam was our God and Father of Jesus?

I don't disagree with anything you say (except that last part about Adam being God). My whole 'hangup' was the 1916 thing. I have been a member all my life (58 years) and have never heard of the Exposition on the Godhead. It was very interesting reading.

[mysteryman]

Even the most simple-minded person can see that the word "mode" is nowhere to be found in any of the passages you referenced. Nor is it at all implied.

Ok, the word "mode" is also not in the Bible in relation to God the Father and Jesus either, yet modalists still believe in it, so this is a moot point.

But, it does take at least a modest level of comprehension, and some grasp of the notion of context, to realize that Abinidi, in Mosiah 15, isn't teaching about theology (e.g. he isn't speaking to the number of Gods, or even the modes of God), but rather he alludes to Christology in his cogent description of the plan of salvation.

He most certainly is teaching who God is and how Jesus is both the Father and the Son. In Mosiah 7:27 Abinidi says, "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 earth." So from this verse we learn that Jesus is THE God, not a God, not sort of God since he is actually God's firstborn spirit, not just our God since other universes have their gods, not part of a council of gods, no, Jesus is THE God. We also learn that Jesus is the Father of ALL THINGS, not just things that pertain to us, not the Father in only that which he created after his own spirit birth to his own Father, not our spirit brother since we share the same spirit father, no, Jesus is the Father of ALL THINGS. Next we learn that THE God that is the Father of ALL THINGS, which has been identified as Christ, will come down among men and take on flesh. Abinidi repeats that God himself, which has been identified as THE God and Father of ALL THINGS, will come down himself to redeem his people in Mosiah 15:1. Verse 2 qualifies it,

"And because he [who is THE God, Father of ALL THINGS]

dwelleth in the flesh shall be called the Son of God [he is called, in this mode of his existance, God's Son because God is dwelling in the flesh, not because he is literally God's Son since he is THE God and Father of ALL THINGS],

and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father [the fleshly mode of his existence subjects itself to the will of the Father, which is his other mode since he has already been identified as THE God and Father],

being the Father and the Son [Jesus, who has been identified as THE God and Father of ALL THINGS, is both the Father and Son]."

Verse 3 explains further, "The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God [so he is the Father because Jesus was conceived by the power of God, of which God has been identified as Christ. So in this mode he is the Father, bascially of himself];

and the Son, because of the flesh [so Christ is the Son because God himself is dwelling in the flesh, not because he is God's, who is Christ himself, literal Son];

thus becoming the Father and Son [so when God conceives his own birth and becomes the Son, he becomes both Father and Son taking on two different modes of existence]."

Verse 4, "And they [that is the Father and the Son which has both been identified as Christ in different and simultaneous modes]

are one God [of course there one God since Christ is THE God and Father of ALL THINGS and both the Father and Son in his own existence on earth],

yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth [so Jesus, who is THE God and both the Father and the Son, is the Eternal Father of heaven and earth repeating what has already been said that Christ is THE God and Father of ALL THINGS]."

Verse 5, "And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God [the "spirit" here is clearly speaking of the Father's spirit since it says "or the Son to the Father," the Son and Father are one God which has been identified as Christ since he is both the Father and Son]..."

Verse 7, "Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son [which has been identified as Christ]

being swallowed up in the will of the Father [which has been identified as Christ, cross reference this to Jesus in the Garden, Jesus subjects to the will of the Father, which according to Abinidi is Christ as well, but in a different mode taken on simultaneously.]"

Pretty simple don't ya think? Pretty basic modalist ideas. Just read what Abinidi says without reading it through the lense of modern Mormon belief, its pretty clear what is being taught.

It also requires some complexity of thought to realize that words have multiple connotations and applications, and they can mean different things and apply to different things depending upon the context, including words like: one, God, Father, Son, body, etc. (Kevin Christensen intimated this earlier in the thread)

Well, I did read in context, but I understand that you need clear english words to have multiple connotations and applications when the agenda is to make Abinidi's discourse compatible with modern Mormon thought about God. I however, have no need nor care to force compatibility.

But, where things may become real problematic for the superficially minded and those with nominal attention spans, particularly those whose "thinking" is locked into the concrete and literalistic mode of 21st century western thought, and who thus lack the capacity to cross the interpretive barriers of cultures and languages and time, may find it too much of a challenges to wrap their minds around even the most obvious symbolism of eastern thinkers, let alone multi-layers of meaning in the passages like the one in question.

Again, Mosiah 15 has nothing to do with modes of God, and everything to do with the dual nature (spirit and physical body) of the mortal Jesus, which dual nature makes him both Father and Son and God--in ways likely to allude you, myserman.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The only thing that alludes me is that I have no need to "cross the interpretive barriers" because I do not care about forcing compatibility. I am free to read the plain language without using mental gymnastics to force it to "mean" something other than what it "says."

[noel00]

AN interesting review of Barker's Great Angel in Catholic Biblical Quarterly Oct93, Vol. 55, Issue 4 by a William Adler

The author's thesis totters upon her conviction that all of these sources are somehow heirs to a single and ancient theology. Apart from predicating some second divinity, none of the works that she examines actually have all that much in common. Israel's "second God" is, thus, strictly a modern construct, cobbled together--at times seemingly at random--from what B. takes to be partial embodiments of a much more elaborate system. By the end of the study her second-God theology is hardly recognizable from any one of the sources that she has examined. When the theology gets confused and even contradictory, she resorts to theories of the prerational, non-Western mind (see, for example, her interpretation of Psalm 2 on pp. 38-40). Evidence not supportive of her theory is dismissed as either a misunderstanding or a deliberate suppression. Thus, when Irenaeus reverses the second God theology, she argues that this is because by his time the contours of the system had begun to blur (p. 195); but somehow Eusebius later remembered it correctly. Rarely does she attempt to explain how this suppressed tradition lived on in so many places, from the early Kabbalists of Provence to first-century Alexandria. Her attempts to account for its longevity and wide dissemination sound farfetched.