Baptismal Formula

[altersteve]

I think what you are describing is a modern, anachronistic gloss on what Smith actually believed circa 1829. In modern terminology, this would be described as a "retcon." The literal text does not bear this out, and nobody who read these passages would have any reason to understand these passages metaphorically, rather than literally. Moreover, the passage in Mosiah 15:3, saying that Jesus is "the Father, because he was conceived by the power of God" does not make sense from a metaphorical perspective.

Yes, it does make sense, as I have demonstrated. I have no reason to understand these passages literally. Christ is our literal Father in a metaphorical way (we are adopted as His children through faith in Him), which makes perfect sense and is completely consistent with modern LDS teaching.

I do agree with you, however, that Mormons are often ignorant of mainstream Christian doctrine. Many have accused Protestant Christians, for example, that we can be saved without any effort on our part, and that the Father and the Son are literally one person. These are false accusations. And it's simply because many Latter-day Saints do not take the time to study it for themselves, which I find very unfortunate.

[Cobalt-70]

This is my opinion, but when it says they baptize in the name of the Lord Jesus, that is what we do in the church. In the name of Jesus is the authority by which we baptize. We state, "Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ..." Hence we baptize in the name of Jesus, that is in his name or by his authority. Then we do as the Lord directs to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Like I said, that's the "belt and suspenders" interpretation. But it's not the interpretation provided by 3 Nephi 11, which says that we baptize in the name of Jesus because Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are a single deity.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Yes, it does make sense, as I have demonstrated. I have no reason to understand these passages literally. Christ is our literal Father in a metaphorical way (we are adopted as His children through faith in Him), which makes perfect sense and is completely consistent with modern LDS teaching.

That is makes sense to modern Mormons and is consistent with modern LDS teaching is not a reason why people living prior to Smith's tritheistic theology would interpret this scripture metaphorically, rather than literally. There is plenty of reason for us today to retcon this part of the Book of Mormon as a metaphorical statement; however, Mormons circa 1829, including Smith, had no such reason. If a text is reinterpreted to make it consistent with later external developments, that is a retcon. I believe in the "death of the author," so I'm not saying that the retcon is necessarily more, or less, authoritative than the meaning intended by Joseph Smith.

[altersteve]

That is makes sense to modern Mormons and is consistent with modern LDS teaching is not a reason why people living prior to Smith's tritheistic theology would interpret this scripture metaphorically, rather than literally. There is plenty of reason for us today to retcon this part of the Book of Mormon as a metaphorical statement; however, Mormons circa 1829, including Smith, had no such reason. If a text is reinterpreted to make it consistent with later external developments, that is a retcon. I believe in the "death of the author," so I'm not saying that the retcon is necessarily more, or less, authoritative than the meaning intended by Joseph Smith.

Well, to me, the meaning intended by God is the most authoritative of all, and I believe that the original authors of the Book of Mormon knew what they were talking about, regardless of how Joseph Smith and others originally understood it.

[ged1650]

The use of water as a metaphor is confusing to me. John 3:3-5 states we are born of the water and the Spirit. If the water is metaphorical then we are born of the Spirit and the Spirit. This isn't consistent with the context of scripture.

I accept the "belt and suspender" interpretation. Whether Jos. Smith was a modalist is unclear at best. The Church teaches we baptize in Jesus' name by His power (the priesthood). This is what modern revelation is for, to clarify questions.

Ged

[Calm]

The water is symbolic of more than the spirit.

[ged1650]

In what way?