Non Salt Lake City Mormons

[inquiringmind]

I know there are non Salt Lake City Mormons who still believe in the Adam/God thing, and I was wondering if there are any at the other end of the extreme.

Are there any who believe the "Oneness" teaching (i.e. that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person)?

I was wondering, because it seems to me that the BOM could be read that way.

[mfbukowski]

I can't speak for every individual member of the church and their beliefs, but it is my opinion that probably virtually no one believes that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one person.

Most members are aware, I think, of the Adam God belief, though I think very few would say they believe that. Of course that teaching is subject to interpretation about precisely what Brigham Young meant by that teaching.

There are some interpretations which would make the idea fairly mainstream, though it would be hard to square that with all the BY quotes on the subject.

For example, I can be both a plumber and a father, but I am one person. If "Adam" is taken as a title, and "God" is taken as a title, there is room for much confusion. It can be said for example that the Son is our Father, quite consistently with the rest of the doctrine of the Godhead.

Mosiah 5:

7And 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.

So Christ can be said to be the "Father" of our salvation while still not being THE "Father"

Living in Salt Lake City has little relevance for anything.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I can't speak for every individual member of the church and their beliefs, but it is my opinion that probably virtually no one believes that the Father Son and Holy Spirit are one person.

Most members are aware, I think, of the Adam God belief, though I think very few would say they believe that. Of course that teaching is subject to interpretation about precisely what Brigham Young meant by that teaching.

There are some interpretations which would make the idea fairly mainstream, though it would be hard to square that with all the BY quotes on the subject.

For example, I can be both a plumber and a father, but I am one person. If "Adam" is taken as a title, and "God" is taken as a title, there is room for much confusion. It can be said for example that the Son is our Father, quite consistently with the rest of the doctrine of the Godhead.

Mosiah 5:

So Christ can be said to be the "Father" of our salvation while still not being THE "Father"

Living in Salt Lake City has little relevance for anything.

He is not referring to Mormon who live outside of Salt Lake City. He is referring to believers in the Restoration who are not members of the church that is HQ'd in Salt Lake City.

Yes, there are "Oneness" Restoration Believers. They are usually independent or a lone voice in the midst of their Branch/ Church/ etc...

[mfbukowski]

OOps I misunderstood

[BCSpace]

I was wondering, because it seems to me that the BOM could be read that way.

It's impossible to read the BoM that way because it goes hand in hand with other extant scripture. The Bible tells us what "one" and "in" mean and it's not in any trinitarian or oneness sense.

[Pahoran]

He is not referring to Mormon who live outside of Salt Lake City. He is referring to believers in the Restoration who are not members of the church that is HQ'd in Salt Lake City.

The church that is HQ'd in Salt Lake City? What's that?

Are you referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that was founded in Fayette, New York on April 6, 1830 as "The Church of Christ," which changed its name in 1838, and which is currently headquartered in Salt Lake City?

Regards,

Pahoran

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The church that is HQ'd in Salt Lake City? What's that?

Are you referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that was founded in Fayette, New York on April 6, 1830 as "The Church of Christ," which changed its name in 1838, and which is currently headquartered in Salt Lake City?

Regards,

Pahoran

Why are you so bitter and sarcastic all the time? Seriously... take a valium or something

BTW, all the churches of the Restoration claim April 6th, 1830 as their original organization date. And with that...

Happy Restoration Day !!!

[Pahoran]

Why are you so bitter and sarcastic all the time? Seriously... take a valium or something

I'm not "bitter and sarcastic all the time." I'm afraid your mind-reading is defective. I just remember when a certain Reorganized person started a lawsuit to try to trick a secular court into declaring the Reorganized Church to be the "successor" to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he named a certain defendant organisation as "The Church in Utah of which John Taylor is President and commonly known as the Mormon Church."

There was, of course, no such organisation. Except the one whose well-known true and correct name was (and still is) "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

BTW, all the churches of the Restoration claim April 6th, 1830 as their original organization date. And with that...

And yet only one church was actually founded in that meeting. Which is something all the "separated brethren" will need to come to grips with sooner or later.

Happy Restoration Day !!!

And to you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

It's impossible to read the BoM that way because it goes hand in hand with other extant scripture. The Bible tells us what "one" and "in" mean and it's not in any trinitarian or oneness sense.

Mosiah 15

1And 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. 2And 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—

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

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

[Kevin Christensen]

Mosiah 15

1And 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. 2And 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—

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

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

I wrote this back in 2009. It now reappears, relevance drawing it like a moth to a candle, with two typos fixed, and one link added.

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 his 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 made she shall be called the Children of Christ, his sons and daughters: for behold this day hath he spiritually begotten you.”

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html

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

Pittsburgh, PA

p.s.

Come to think of it, Mark Wright's 2008 FAIR talk also provides essential context.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008-Mark-Wright.pdf

[mfbukowski]

I wrote this back in 2009. It now reappears, relevance drawing it like a moth to a candle, with two typos fixed, and one link added.

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 his 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 made she shall be called the Children of Christ, his sons and daughters: for behold this day hath he spiritually begotten you.”

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html

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

Pittsburgh, PA

p.s.

Come to think of it, Mark Wright's 2008 FAIR talk also provides essential context.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2008-Mark-Wright.pdf

I find we are almost always on the same side of every issue, but you always say it so much more clearly than I do!

[Scott Lloyd]

I know there are non Salt Lake City Mormons who still believe in the Adam/God thing, and I was wondering if there are any at the other end of the extreme.

Are there any who believe the "Oneness" teaching (i.e. that The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person)?

I was wondering, because it seems to me that the BOM could be read that way.

I believe in the one-ness or unity of the Godhead just as it is meant in the Book of Mormon and Bible: that they are one in purpose, glory and divinity.

A similar concept is expressed elsewhere in the Bible, where it says a husband and wife shall cleave one to another and they twain shall be one flesh (a figurative way of saying they are to be one in purpose).

[Scott Lloyd]

I know there are non Salt Lake City Mormons who still believe ....

I am a non-Salt Lake City Mormon in the sense that I live in Sandy, a suburb about 20 miles south. But I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.