Trinitarian Or Modal: Dancing On Pinheads?

[Rob Bowman]

Cobalt-70,

Yes, this is one of the few statements in 3 Nephi that appear to express modalism, and it comes right at the beginning, before Christ's descent to the Nephites. Once Jesus actually shows up in person in the narrative, the material for the most part fits more easily in a Trinitarian model. My guess is that even a modalist, when narrating Jesus speaking while on earth, will typically portray Jesus speaking of the Father as if he were someone personally distinct from himself, even though the modalist denies the personal distinction is real. Anyone producing materials that is meant to be comparable to the Gospels may be expected to present Jesus speaking in that way. But again, I am not at this point convinced that the Book of Mormon should be understood to be consistently modalist.

This is very consistent with 3 Nephi 1:14, in which "the voice of the Lord" comes out of heaven and said "I come unto my own...to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son--of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh." So whoever is speaking says that he is the Father, but his flesh is the Son.

Edited February 19, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Anakin7]

Martin Tanner and Ross David Baron have 2 seperate awesome articles dealing with the supposed Book of Mormon modalism located somewhere on the Neal A. Maxwell [Formerly F.A.R.M.S] site. A google search would probably bring them up.

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Loran Blood]

Loran,

You seem more confident in your own views, like you feel that, on these subjects at least, you do have answers in stone and even that these constitute, as you've termed it a few times, "the established doctrine of the church." As I understand it the church has an established standard for determining what constitutes doctrine: things has presented as doctrine in official First Presidency statements.

Well, I think its a bit more than that. The scriptures, for one source (which is why Paul's more lengthy discussion of the matter is important) and the verse in Matthew itself, which is instructive as this statement ("All power is given me...) occurs only after his death and resurrection, while no similar statement is found prior to this point (implying something salient about that resurrection and a state of ultimate completion respecting some aspect of Jesus' core attributes)

Secondly, the McConkie quote is found in the NT Institute student manual published by the church for the religious instruction of college age youth, and any quotes therein can be taken safely, I think, as in harmony with that which the GAs as a body would support as correct interpretations and perspectives. First Presidency statements, declarations, proclamations, First Presidency messages in the Ensign, Conference addresses, and I also think doctrinal teachings that cohere and support one another over time from numerous GAs in which there is general agreement, all point to a doctrinal interpretation as being settled, as to its fundamental orientation. I've got a collection of priesthood manuals here going back to the late seventies, as well as other stuff, so I'll try, when I have time, to dig up some other supporting statements.

I have to disagree that the persons posited in Trinitarian theology are "symbolic" or "metaphysical abstractions." While the term "person" here doesn't mean "human being," as we commonly use the term, it is used in the same sense as the term "personal" is used when people refer to a "personal God."

So then, the "persons" within the Trinity (are they merely "within" it, or are they it, itself? The doctrine of the Trinity asserts that the "persons" are homoousia with, or of the same substance ("consubstantial to the Father..."), which goes well beyond merely being socially associated with the core entity) are not symbolic of the concept "person." What then, are they, as they are not "persons" in any normative sense, as the restored gospel understands the Father and the Son to be individuated, unique persons in exactly the manner - albeit in perfected, exalted form - that we are understood as persons and personae, both as to the law of identity and our underlying individual uniqueness as beings? Homoousia isn't about sociality, but about some kind of undifferentiated, underlying metaphysical unity.

BTW, of course Trinitarians don't believe in a social God if others allowed to define for them what they mean and say it isn't social. But unless we allow others this privilege, of defining things for them rather than using their own definitions, I see no reason to not take those who refer to a personal Father, a personal Son, and a personal Holy Ghost interacting in the Trinity as referring to just what they say it is: a social interaction.

The concept of homoousia isn't about "social interaction" but is an abstract metaphysical construction intended to explain the "oneness" of God as mentioned in the scriptures in a way that harmonizes it with the requirements of neo-Platonic ideas of absolute, immaterial, transcendent "forms." That the Trinity is, at the same time, social, is already taken for granted, and has little, it would appear, to do with the actual philosophcal concepts involved in the idea of consubstantiality. Again, I must point out that there is no reason why a modal Trinity could be just as social as a consubstantial Trinity, if for no other reason then there is no logically necessary reason why a modal Jesus would not be just as social, with respect to the unitery Trinitarian singularity, than a non-modal Jesus, and secondly, one need only posit that the sociability of the members of the a modal Godhead have simply been that way from all eternity. This could be put down to being a mystery, as Athanasius so aptly puts it, "The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible". After all, if God as God has always been God as he is, and just "is" as God without origin or beginning, then there is no reason we cannot posit any attributes we like (especially drawing from a neo-Platonistic background) as having been always part of him. This is why I've argued that non-modality does not imply any lack of sociability. If, as the restored gospel teaches, the members of the Godhead are absolute mathematically distinct individuals, but are, nonetheless, "one" in mind, will, and perspective, and are in perfect social harmony with each other, then clearly the modal/non-modal argument is fundamentally moot, and a relic of the Christological controversies of the early medieval church and the Hellenistic philosophical environment that was their intellectual womb.

You raised the idea here that you are splitting hairs here, and I agree. From the OP I thought you were objecting to metaphysical hairsplitting by traditional Christians; yet here you seem to engage in the same sort of thing in opposing their views. I dislike hairsplitting in either direction and really have nothing to say on these points.

But this is a philosophical discussion, and those kinds of discussions, when serious, do involve close, detailed reasoning and analysis of the clarity and meaning of the language we are using. Modalism originally arose precisely because the doctrine of the Trinity itself appears to imply something very much like this, and it is a torture of logic and conceptual clarity to try to understand what consubstantiality actually means with respect to the existence of these "persons." of the unitary entity.

BINGO, Loran! You nailed the distinction! But while Loran acting in the distinct roles, or modes, of citizen, saint, and message-board poster is "hardly in the same conceptual universe" with Trinitarianism it is analogous to modalism, in which God acts in the roles or modes of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So, although your OP questions the distinction between persons and roles in Trinity vs. modalism discussions, your statement above affirms that distinction with a vengeance.

But doesn't this very point here point us back to my core argument that the distinction between modalism and traditional Trinitarianism is a distinction without clear meaning and differentiation? If all that matters are the social roles, or functions, then there is no reason the Godhead cannot function as the NT claims it does for no other reason than that this is just the way God is. This is his fundamental nature, being both modal and homoousia. Or, we can say that the Trinity implies sociality, and say that "this is the way God is, from all eternity," and that, if God is not homoousia, then he can still be "one" in all other respects. Nothing is really lost except the metaphysical/philosophical abstraction.

The idea of God as a "Trinity" emerges in the second century and is not originally couched in the Greek metaphysical terminology of the later creeds. So, following the principle of charity (as well as what I see as straightforward logic), the idea of a "Trinity" should not be equated with the particular creeds that tried to systematize in such terminology.

I would go further and say that the idea of the Trinity is a NT idea. It is, of course, the "Godhead." which is, indeed, composed of three members. The doctrine of the Trinity, as understood within the historic Catholic and Protestant world, however, is a creation of the Christological debates of the 3rd and 4th centuries.

You're right--that idea, in itself, can't be collapsed further. But when it is coupled with the distinct concept of three persons, each in his way mapping onto that essence, the three persons presents a conceptual distinction that could be further collapsed, say into one person.

So then, the three "persons" could be collapsed into a single "person." Isn't that, however, what the doctrine of the Trinity is actually saying, by implication, that the three "persons" are, through their consubstantiality, one being?

I'm not convinced it is a contradiction. You've rejected the idea that the Trinity could be understood through modal logic, but not in any specific, or to me persuasive, way.

You're still not dealing with the concept of homoousia, which is at the heat of the Trinitarian idea. That concept makes logical consistency or coherence impossible. Being of the same mind and will is one thing. Three persons being of the same ontological substance (and at the same time being immaterial and wholly outside the concepts of matter, form, and patterned structure) is quite another.

Mathematics is also a human construct in the sense that modal logic is. Indeed, formal logic itself is such a construct--no one developed it till the Greeks. We used such human constructs to understand reality all the time; and you've presented no argument for the invalidity of modal logic.

I don't have any problem with modal logic an an intellectual exercise in the study of logical theory, by only assertion here would be that it tells us nothing whatever about what the Trinity is supposed to actually be.

Could you elaborate on how modal logic--the logic of qualified statements--is not valid? My judgment that Trinitarian doctrine is not logically self-contradictory is largely based on the idea that it works in modal logic.

But it does not work in the normative, natural language logic of deductive and inductive analysis of arguments where coherent conceptualizations and the implications of the laws of language are at a premium. I think at a minimum, until someone can tell us what homoousia is supposed to be, and how three separate and distinct "persons" (which are not, according to Trinitarian doctrine, separate and distinct - but at the same time are, and yet, are not) can be consubstantial within a singular, unitary entity, and what the "persons" actually are with respect to this entity beyond pointing to some analogous human attributes (such as being social, or having moral awareness, or whatever), we have little basis upon which to discuss wheter modal logic or any mode of analysis can tell us much about its actual nature, and whether or not it makes sense.

The problem seems to be that if the Trinity is a singularity; a unitary ontological whole in which the persons within it are the whole and yet at the same time still distinct entities, then the idea that the "persons" are "consubstantial" with it would appear to have been an afterthought; a necessary appendage to the core concept of the unitary metaphysical essence made necessary by NT scriptural texts (which imply strongly not only distinct roles and social cohesion between the Godhead, but ontologically and logically unconfused distinction of identity and form). The concept of "consubstantial," in other words, is necessary to make NT scripture "fit" the neo-Platonic construction of the Trinitarian ontological point beyond space, time, and matter.

Since the term "organized intelligence" is yours and not one I'm familiar with from my life in the church, I read it based on the surrounding context you provided, and therefore interpreted it to mean that Jesus' spirit was formed from some sort of intelligent particles (spirit matter) at the time of his spirit birth.

You're not familiar with the concept of "intelligences," as in "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones."? And you are not familiar with the core restoration teaching that "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."? This has a long history of acceptance as fundamental doctrine, and I've been familiar with it from church published and other LDS sources all of my life. "Intelligences" are uncreated, eternal "intelligence" given form, structure, and pattern, embodied in matter as literal spirit children of our Father in Heaven. "Intelligences," therefore, are organized, coherent beings with self awareness and personalities, the fundamental ground of which is "intelligence." 'Intelligence" becomes an individuated "Intelligence" (a proper noun now) denoting a specific person and personae.

As such, Jesus would indeed have an absolute beginning--unless by "Jesus" we mean something like "the scattered particles that would someday comprise Jesus' spirit body" rather than Jesus the person/Lord.

I would not ascribe a name or a personality to the eternal, uncreated, ineffable intelligence that becomes the core of our sentience and self awareness as spirit children.

Have I got your meaning right--that self-existent intelligent particles were formed into individual we know as Jesus, or do you mean that Jesus was originally a personal, individual intelligence who was born into a spirit body? If the latter, then I concede the point: you do believe Jesus had no absolute beginning; you just don't believe he was always divine. But if the former, then, by any understanding of the term "Jesus" that I would find meaningful, you believe he had an absolute beginning-- that is, an absolute beginning as Jesus.

There is an eternal, self existent, uncreated essence or entity that is the ultimate ground of consciousness, mind, thought, and personality -or the "I," or self, that was fused and connected to a spirit body given us from our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother that, once fused and connected, becomes organized intelligence - a spirit person having attributes such as self awareness, independent thought, will, gender etc. I have no idea whether this original "stuff" are particles, whether it is individuated in some sense from eternity, or part of a larger mass, or what its salient characteristics are, as this has not yet been revealed. However, the developmental transition from intelligent essence to premortal spirit child with an organized tabernacle (physical form) fused to that self existent intelligence, to mortal probation, to resurrected being is at the very center of the plan of salvation, and the great, overarching cosmic continuity between this process as it applies to us and as it applies to Christ, our Father in Heaven, and to his Father, and his Father, and his Father, ad infinitum, is one of the most beautiful, vast, fathomlessly profoud concepts within the entire gospel. As Joseph taught it, I find it makes a kind of ultimate sense of human existence and potential (and is logically implied by the very doctrine of the literal Fatherhood of God) that thinking God to have somehow always been God in fully perfected and exalted form does not (and, frankly, reintroduces into the gospel the age old question that had always plauged sectarian Christianity, "How did God get to be God" that Joseph and the plan of salvation he revealed had, originally, laid to rest, at least as to general outline, by providing an eternal perspective of a fantastically vast, eternal continuity of process throughout all time, space, and existence encompassing all being like ourselves passing through and along a developmental path that is both eternal and shared by all beings of a similar kind).

You are right that there are passages, like Hebrews 5:9, which you quote, that speak of Jesus being perfected, which in the Greek (I checked) means "completed." This does, as you say, appear to have to do with his resurrection. Thus Jesus was not a perfect divine man until he went through resurrection.

That would be correct, and I think it could be safely said, the church's position as well.

The important points to me are 1) that Jesus was preexistently divine; so Jesus being divine and becoming a divine man are distinct, and 2)

Agreed.

"nowhere do the scriptures indicate that Jesus needed such completion for his salvation, but rather so that he could save others--becoming, as the Hebrews passage says, our High Priest and the author of our salvation."

Saving others is an aspect, yes, but, according to the general teachings of the gospel itself, there are other core features of total exaltation the Jesus must have needed to complete his own fullness of divinity, of most importance being the acquisition of his glorified, resurrected body itself, without which, the scriptures tell us, in the first instance, he could not achieve absolute completion of his divinity: "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fullness of joy" (D&C 93:33). Further, when the spirit and body are separated, "man cannot receive a fullness of joy" (D&C 93:34).

Secondly, the Lord, without his resurrected, glorified body, would have no capacity to carry on the work of the Father as having "continuation of the lives," or the bearing of spirit sons and daughters as the Father does. "For strait is the gate, and narrow the way that leadeth unto the exaltation and continuation of the lives, and few there be that find it, because ye receive me not in the world neither do ye know me (D&C 132:22). Eternal marriage, resurrection as a physical, exalted being, and mortal experience, all were necessary to this final declaration of having received "all power in earth and in Heaven."

Thanks for staying with this discussion, as its intriguing and, with respect to Rob, I think points us toward the possibilities for continuing the debate regarding the nature of the Godhead with traditional Christians

Edited February 19, 2012 by Loran Blood

[wenglund]

A legitimate question, at least. What the text says about the two wills, though, blunts the objection. "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" (Mosiah 15:7). There are different ways one could understand this statement, but it seems that the point is that the Son's "will" was completely overwhelmed, overshadowed, or overtaken by the Father's "will." I suppose this might be explained somehow on the model that the Father and the Son were two separate deities, but the more likely interpretation is that the human will of the Son was subsumed under the overwhelming divine will of the Father. Such a reading actually fits modalism quite nicely. Modalism affirms that God manifested himself in the flesh as a human being, thereby becoming the Father (= God, deity) and the Son (=man, humanity). The humanity of Christ in some sense would have a human "will," but by virtue of the prior, preeminent nature of his deity the divine "will" would end up as the controlling, dominant will. Modalists routinely interpret Jesus' statement in Gethsemane, "Not my will but your will be done" to mean that the human will of the God-man was subordinated to his divine will. Mosiah 15:7 fits that paradigm to a T.

Since we LDS believe what is said in Mosiah 15:7, then by your reasoning we are modalists. This means that we are also monotheisitic.

We also believe what is said in those passages you identify as more traditional trinitarianism. So, by your reasoning, we must also be trinitarian monotheists.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 19, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

[delete dup]

Edited February 19, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt-70,

Yes, this is one of the few statements in 3 Nephi that appear to express modalism, and it comes right at the beginning, before Christ's descent to the Nephites. Once Jesus actually shows up in person in the narrative, the material for the most part fits more easily in a Trinitarian model. My guess is that even a modalist, when narrating Jesus speaking while on earth, will typically portray Jesus speaking of the Father as if he were someone personally distinct from himself, even though the modalist denies the personal distinction is real. Anyone producing materials that is meant to be comparable to the Gospels may be expected to present Jesus speaking in that way. But again, I am not at this point convinced that the Book of Mormon should be understood to be consistently modalist.

I don't think that the different flavor of most of 3 Nephi as compared with the rest of the Book of Mormon is necessarily due to inconsistency. Soon after 3 Nephi, the narrative again returns to the more modalistic language of Ether 3, which is as modalistic as Mosiah. Also, Smith's translation of Bible passages such as JST Luke 10:23 are as modal as Mosiah.

There are two things in 3 Nephi that differ from the rest of the Book of Mormon. The first is that much of 3 Nephi is essentially the same as the KJV New Testament, which is so multivocal that it is possible for trinitarians, modalists, and Mormons all to interpret the theological passages in conformity to their own beliefs. So the mere fact that 3 Nephi contains this biblical language tells us little about Joseph Smith's early theology.

Second, 3 Nephi is the only part of the Book of Mormon in which the post-incarnation Jesus appeared. The early Smith evidently understood the post-incarnation God to be dualistic, with elements of both body and spirit. But God the Flesh was not necessarily a distinct person from God the Spirit. Rather, it seems that Smith saw Flesh and Spirit together as one dualistic God. Theology therefore collapsed into Christology. But when Jesus physically appeared with his physical body, the people were only seeing and hearing God the Flesh, while God the Spirit was absent to their view and hearing. There appears, then, to be a separation between the Father and Son, not in mind or will, but in presence.

[Cobalt-70]

To me, a "one will" trinity obliterates even the least pretense of a distinction between modalism and traditional trinitarianism (as opposed to social trinitarianism).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If a trinitarian such as Augustine says that the Trinity has "one mind," they do not mean that the persons of the trinity share a single individual consciousness. They have the same mind in that their mind might share substance. However, in each of them, the mind has an individual reality. By (perhaps bad) analogy, perhaps you could say that their minds are distinct operating systems that run on the same hardware.

[wenglund]

A legitimate question, at least. What the text says about the two wills, though, blunts the objection. "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" (Mosiah 15:7). There are different ways one could understand this statement, but it seems that the point is that the Son's "will" was completely overwhelmed, overshadowed, or overtaken by the Father's "will." I suppose this might be explained somehow on the model that the Father and the Son were two separate deities, but the more likely interpretation is that the human will of the Son was subsumed under the overwhelming divine will of the Father. Such a reading actually fits modalism quite nicely. Modalism affirms that God manifested himself in the flesh as a human being, thereby becoming the Father (= God, deity) and the Son (=man, humanity). The humanity of Christ in some sense would have a human "will," but by virtue of the prior, preeminent nature of his deity the divine "will" would end up as the controlling, dominant will. Modalists routinely interpret Jesus' statement in Gethsemane, "Not my will but your will be done" to mean that the human will of the God-man was subordinated to his divine will. Mosiah 15:7 fits that paradigm to a T.

So, to your way of thinking, any Bible passages that suggest that the will of the Son is subordinate to (subsumed or "swallowed up" by) the will of the Father, are modalism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 20, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

If a trinitarian such as Augustine says that the Trinity has "one mind," they do not mean that the persons of the trinity share a single individual consciousness. They have the same mind in that their mind might share substance. However, in each of them, the mind has an individual reality. By (perhaps bad) analogy, perhaps you could say that their minds are distinct operating systems that run on the same hardware.

In other words, the phrase "one mind" means different things to different people. Modalist will reasonably interpret it one way, traditional trinitarians will reasonably interpret it another way, social trinitarians will reasonably interpret it yet another way, and so on and so forth.

This means that the phrase "one mind," or the passages of scripture that contain that phrase, aren't intrinsically modalistic, but are open to a range of personal interpretations.

The same principle applies to passages of scripture where the Son is called the Father, and where the will of the Son is subordinate to the will of the Father.

As such, according to the implications of your own reasoning, Mosiah 15 isn't intrinsically modalistic, but open to a range of personal interpretations--which is what I have been saying all along.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You asked:

So, to your way of thinking, any Bible passages that suggest that the will of the Son is subordinate to (subsumed or "swallowed up" by) the will of the Father, are modalism?

No.

I've already addressed your objections to my view on this matter in earlier threads. This objection makes the same mistakes.

[wenglund]

No.

Please explain why.

I've already addressed your objections to my view on this matter in earlier threads. This objection makes the same mistakes.

Speaking of mistakes, you have evidently confused my exploratory question with an objection.

Be that as it may, I am not sure where exactly in which previous thread you allegedly addressed my supposed objection you think is entailed in the question I just posed to you above. Specifically, which of your various double standards and/or lame dodges are you referring to? In other words, CFR.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Specifically, which of your various double standards and/or lame dodges are you referring to? In other words, CFR.

I was not referring to any double standards or lame dodges. Since I was not referring to anything of the sort, I am afraid I cannot answer your CFR as you presented it. However, you might look at this post, which explains why your merely claiming that you agree with a statement in the Book of Mormon is not an adequate response to views of Book of Mormon theology with which you disagree. You could also look at this post, in which I explain (as I have said many times) that I don't consider the Book of Mormon to be deliberately or consistently teaching modalism. In this post, I answer counterarguments you presented from such texts as Isaiah 9:6 that make a similar mistake to the one presupposed in your question about subordinationist texts.

[wenglund]

However, you might look at this post, which explains why your merely claiming that you agree with a statement in the Book of Mormon is not an adequate response to views of Book of Mormon theology with which you disagree.

I see. The question quoted in your previous post wasn't what you had in mind when you spoke about my alleged "objections." Rather, it was your confused understanding of a statement of clarification (not to be confused with "objection") I made earlier that you didn't quote.

With that having been cleared up, and not wishing to re-plow old ground, it may prove most productive to proceed with the line of question you initially quoted and answered but didn't respond to the follow-up request. Here is the line of discussion again:

Given what you argued in post # 124, I asked you: "So, to your way of thinking, any Bible passages that suggest that the will of the Son is subordinate to (subsumed or "swallowed up" by) the will of the Father, are modalism?

You answered: "No."

I then requested: "Please explain why."

I looked through the links in your last post, and can't see where they directly or clearly answer this request, and so I eagerly await your response. (Note: 1. that my question was about modalism, and not monotheism--as is the case with your first link; 2. my question isn't about the intent of the author--as is the case with your second link; and 3. my question pertains specifically to your argument in post #124 about subordination of will, and not to your four-prong differentiation between modalism and trinitarianism--as is the case with your third link.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Let's simplify. You asked:

"So, to your way of thinking, any Bible passages that suggest that the will of the Son is subordinate to (subsumed or "swallowed up" by) the will of the Father, are modalism?

I answered "No" because people of various theologies can affirm that the will of the Son is "subordinate" to the will of the Father. However, only a modalist (if the speaker was being consistent) would explain this to mean that the human will of Christ was subordinate to the divine will of Christ. And only a modalist (if the speaker was being consistent) would claim that the Son was the flesh of Christ and the Father was the spirit of Christ.

Okay?

[mfbukowski]

So, to your way of thinking, any Bible passages that suggest that the will of the Son is subordinate to (subsumed or "swallowed up" by) the will of the Father, are modalism?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's funny.

I call that "obedience". It's what happens when one obeys someone perfectly. It is called being "one in purpose".

In the army they call it "taking orders".

[mfbukowski]

In other words, the phrase "one mind" means different things to different people. Modalist will reasonably interpret it one way, traditional trinitarians will reasonably interpret it another way, social trinitarians will reasonably interpret it yet another way, and so on and so forth.

This means that the phrase "one mind," or the passages of scripture that contain that phrase, aren't intrinsically modalistic, but are open to a range of personal interpretations.

The same principle applies to passages of scripture where the Son is called the Father, and where the will of the Son is subordinate to the will of the Father.

As such, according to the implications of your own reasoning, Mosiah 15 isn't intrinsically modalistic, but open to a range of personal interpretations--which is what I have been saying all along.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You and I are often of "one mind" as well. Gosh, I hope that doesn't mean I am a "mode" of you!

[Cobalt-70]

In other words, the phrase "one mind" means different things to different people. Modalist will reasonably interpret it one way, traditional trinitarians will reasonably interpret it another way, social trinitarians will reasonably interpret it yet another way, and so on and so forth.

This means that the phrase "one mind," or the passages of scripture that contain that phrase, aren't intrinsically modalistic, but are open to a range of personal interpretations.

The same principle applies to passages of scripture where the Son is called the Father, and where the will of the Son is subordinate to the will of the Father.

As such, according to the implications of your own reasoning, Mosiah 15 isn't intrinsically modalistic, but open to a range of personal interpretations--which is what I have been saying all along.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's not really an argument to say that your interpretation of the text is as good as anyone else's. That's just relativism, and it doesn't really advance the argument.

[wenglund]

You and I are often of "one mind" as well. Gosh, I hope that doesn't mean I am a "mode" of you!

It might mean that in Rob's and Cobalt-70's book, but not mine. LOL

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 23, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It's not really an argument to say that your interpretation of the text is as good as anyone else's. That's just relativism, and it doesn't really advance the argument.

I don't think you get my point. In this case, there is no mutually agreeable criteria for determining whose interpretation is as good as or better or worse than anyone else's. As such, there really is no argument to advance or that can be advanced, just differences of opinions and perspective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 23, 2012 by wenglund

[mfbukowski]

Deleted. My "same minded" friend said it before I did again.

This modalism is getting kind of tough.

There IS no objectively correct interpretation.

Edited February 23, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I was privileged to be in a meeting tonight with a group of ordinance workers, being trained by a temple president in the temple and divine investiture of authority came up. He quoted probably 15 scriptures on the subject from memory- it was phenomenal to behold, but the bottom line was that the scriptures he quoted were all instances in which an angel stood in the place of the Lord- and it is totally unclear if it is the Lord speaking or the angel.

Then at the end he quoted a General Authority's response (don't remember who) when the GA he was questioned on modalism. The passages in the Book of Mormon being discussed here came up.

The GA said to the brother who was questioning him:

"Are you a father?"

"Yes"

"Are you also a son?"

"Well, yes..."

Then the GA said : "So much for modalism".

I think that says it all. In human relationships the same person can be a brother, father, son, uncle, and grandfather, and several other things, still being the same person.

It does not require some mysterious change of "modes" at all- all it requires is a change of role in a given situation. Problem solved.

If one understands our doctrine of Divine Investiture all this alleged "confusion" Rob brings up regarding the phrasing of the Book of Mormon just vanishes.

Of course, he is conveniently not talking to me anymore. That's his choice.

Edited February 24, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

I don't think you get my point. In this case, there is no mutually agreeable criteria for determining whose interpretation is as good as or better or worse than anyone else's. As such, there really is no argument to advance or that can be advanced, just differences of opinions and perspective.

That's a relativistic cop out. There are indeed criteria for determining whose interpretation is better. Because we are talking about historical texts, the criteria are taken from principles of textual analysis. This approach has far more academic authority than any ad hoc approach that twists the text whichever way the apologetic wind blows.

[Cobalt-70]

I was privileged to be in a meeting tonight with a group of ordinance workers, being trained by a temple president in the temple and divine investiture of authority came up. He quoted probably 15 scriptures on the subject from memory- it was phenomenal to behold, but the bottom line was that the scriptures he quoted were all instances in which an angel stood in the place of the Lord- and it is totally unclear if it is the Lord speaking or the angel.

Then at the end he quoted a General Authority's response (don't remember who) when the GA he was questioned on modalism. The passages in the Book of Mormon being discussed here came up.

The GA said to the brother who was questioning him:

"Are you a father?"

"Yes"

"Are you also a son?"

"Well, yes..."

Then the GA said : "So much for modalism".

I think that says it all. In human relationships the same person can be a brother, father, son, uncle, and grandfather, and several other things, still being the same person.

It does not require some mysterious change of "modes" at all- all it requires is a change of role in a given situation. Problem solved.

If one understands our doctrine of Divine Investiture all this alleged "confusion" Rob brings up regarding the phrasing of the Book of Mormon just vanishes.

Of course, he is conveniently not talking to me anymore. That's his choice.

The Book of Mormon does not merely say that God was both "a father" and "a son," but that he was both "the Father" and "the Son."

[wenglund]

That's a relativistic cop out. There are indeed criteria for determining whose interpretation is better. Because we are talking about historical texts, the criteria are taken from principles of textual analysis. This approach has far more academic authority than any ad hoc approach that twists the text whichever way the apologetic wind blows.

Welcome to the Cobalt-70 echo chamber where you get to pretend you have a clue about textual analysis and imagine that you speak with academic authority.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One more drive by insult will get you thread banned.

[mfbukowski]

The Book of Mormon does not merely say that God was both "a father" and "a son," but that he was both "the Father" and "the Son."

Thanks for the grammar lesson.

Yes, in my family I am THE father of my son and THE son of my father. Not sure how it works in your family. That is called the "definite article"- and I didn't even have to look it up. I speak English quite well now, thanks.