Who Is The "Great Spirit"? (IRR Challenged)

[Pahoran]

Since my last post on the subject of the "Great Spirit" has not been replied to, it seems appropriate to repeat it here:

Actually, I didn't say that God wasn't the unknown god. What I said, in response to Bill Hamblin, was that the "unknown God" that Paul offered to tell the Athenians about was not a pagan Greek deity.

But the real point was not that the "unknown God" was a pagan Greek deity; the real point is that Paul was willing to teach his audience using (1) their religious understanding as his starting point, and (2) their religious vocabulary as his "vector," if you will.

And Ammon does exactly the same thing.

Let me begin here:

"And now, when the king heard these words, he said unto them: Now I know that it is the Great Spirit; and he has come down at this time to preserve your lives, that I might not slay you as I did your brethren. Now this is the Great Spirit of whom our fathers have spoken. Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants" (Alma 18:4-5).

Now, the Book of Mormon does make it clear that Lamoni's people had some false traditions, so in that context one might suppose that their belief that God was a Spirit would be one of those false traditions. However, the clause, "Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit," followed by the critical remark that they thought whatever they did was right, seems to imply that their belief in a Great Spirit was a good belief. The logic of the sentence is, "Even though they had this right, they had this other thing wrong."

Thank you for telling us(!!) what our(!!) scriptures mean. But you are wrong. The real sense of it is simply this: "Even though they believed in a supreme being, their belief did not constrain their moral choices." A parallel statement might be, "Even though Gorbachev believed in communism, that didn't stop him having a nice dacha in the Lenin hills." The significance of that observation does not rest upon the speaker believing in communism.

We can see that Lamoni's beliefs were not all wrong when later in the same passage he asks:

"Art thou that Great Spirit, who knows all things?" (v. 18).

And he is speaking to an obviously physical guy who ate and slept and sweated and could handle a sword.

As his belief that God knows all things was correct, it is possible that his belief that God was a Great Spirit was also correct, as verse 5 appears to imply.

You have subtly smuggled in your assumptions, and are now using them to actually determine your interpretation of the passage.

It is apparent to all (who read this passage without an agenda) that Lamoni is using "Great Spirit" as a nominative label, if not an outright proper noun, and not as a descriptive phrase. Lamoni did not "believe that God was a Great Spirit." He had a vague belief in a supreme being, and he denoted that being as "the" (not a) "Great Spirit." Hence the capitals.

"And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth. And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea. And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth? And he said: Yea, I believe that he created all things which are in the earth; but I do not know the heavens. And Ammon said unto him: The heavens is a place where God dwells and all his holy angels" (vv. 24-30).

Lamoni says he doesn't know what the word "God" means and Ammon explains that by God he means the Great Spirit. You ask if this isn't like Paul quoting the Athenian altar to an unknown god and saying that he had come to tell them about the God they admitted they didn't know. Well, the altar to an unknown god was for the Athenians a generic reference, not a reference to one specific God; Paul's use of this generic reference is rhetorical in that he was taking their admission of ignorance and using it to introduce the revelation of the specific God. In a literal sense, though, the description "unknown god" applies perfectly to Paul's God: the Athenians literally did not know that God, so to them he was literally an unknown god. So if you want to press the parallel, we should say that Ammon's God was literally the Great Spirit. And up to this point in the passage, we have no reason not to take it that way.

As I said: "the Great Spirit" is nominative, not descriptive. You are assuming, wrongly, that it is a common descriptive phrase; in so doing, you are indulging in eisegesis, not exegesis.

"Ammon said unto him: I am a man; and man in the beginning was created after the image of God, and I am called by his Holy Spirit to teach these things unto this people, that they may be brought to a knowledge of that which is just and true" (v. 34).

Part of the evidence to be considered in deciding if the description of God as "the Great Spirit"

There's that unsupported assumption again.

is to be taken as accepted by Ammon is to see what else Ammon affirms about God and about man's relationship with God. What we find is that God knows all things, that he created all things in the heavens and on the earth, and that he created man in the beginning after his image. All of these affirmations fit very comfortably in the traditional monotheistic world view of one God who is Spirit and who makes the physical world and everything in it, including man. That man -- not just his body -- is said to have been "created" in God's image likewise fits in this world view.

That woolly language about "world view" is much too vague. Ammon is paraphrasing Genesis.

That is, human beings are temporal creatures, with the first man brought into existence by an act of creation. In this context the "image" language does not imply that God is himself a man, although the Book of Mormon does understand the "image" language to imply that God was in some sense anthropomorphic. The very text that reveals this understanding also reveals that God was not a man -- yet:

"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" (Mos. 7:27).

According to this text, man was made to look like God in some way, and God was later to come down and take on the image of man, taking on flesh and blood. This clearly means that God had not already been a being of flesh, but was going to take on flesh when he came as a flesh and blood mortal.

I will pass over the "not already" assumption and point out that you are equivocating on the use of the word "image." You argue that when talking about man in the image of God, "image" refers only to what man looks like, but when talking about the then-future God in the image of man, "image" suddenly refers to what God is made of.

Is there an interpretation of this passage that makes sense without relying upon equivocation? I put it to you that there is.

If we assume some coherence in these passages, as I think we should, then in Alma 18 the God whom Ammon calls the Great Spirit

Wrong, sorry. Lamoni uses that name; Ammon merely picks up on it for teaching purposes.

is Christ, who was at the time not a being of flesh but rather one of spirit. And if you'll review the discussion in this thread you'll see that other Mormons have proffered that explanation for Alma 18. And they are right, but then they want to suggest that this leaves open the door for the idea that God the Father, as distinct from Christ, was a being of flesh. That idea is found nowhere in the Book of Mormon or in any statement by Joseph Smith prior to the 1840s. Furthermore, the emphatic statements in the Book of Mormon that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God -- and that Christ is the Father and the Son -- are most naturally understood to preclude the idea of the Father and the Son as two Gods with two different kinds of bodies, one of flesh and the other of spirit.

"Are most naturally understood" by whom, exactly?

The use of the passive voice is often a clever way to avoid taking responsiblity for an assertion. But let's trace this one back where it belongs, shall we?

"But this is not all; for he expounded unto them the plan of redemption, which was prepared from the foundation of the world; and he also made known unto them concerning the coming of Christ, and all the works of the Lord did he make known unto them. And it came to pass that after he had said all these things, and expounded them to the king, that the king believed all his words. And he began to cry unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, have mercy; according to thy abundant mercy which thou hast had upon the people of Nephi, have upon me, and my people" (vv. 39-41).

You asked if it is not the case that Lamoni corrects his language because now, instead of referring to God as the Great Spirit, he addresses him in prayer as "Lord." I see no "correction" here. The title Lord in no way implies any correction of or rejection of the title Great Spirit. He uses the title Lord, which he learned from Ammon, just as he learned the title God, but neither title contradicts or corrects the title Great Spirit.

Firstly: thank you for admitting (at last) that "Great Spirit" is a title, not a descriptive phrase.

But you are ignoring the very important point here: the Lamanites only use the title "Great Spirit" before the missionaries have taught them. After they have been taught, converted and baptised, that title disappears from their religious vocabulary, never to be seen or heard from again. The correct way to read the Book of Mormon is to remember that, as an abridgement, it is not going to report every word of every conversation, but to summarise the highlights. IOW, there is no need to be told that Ammon said "Don't call God the Great Spirit any more," when the record shows that, after being taught by Ammon, they don't call God the Great Spirit any more, even though they've used that terminology all their lives before that point.

My study of Alma 18 leads me to conclude that the description

GONG!!!!

It's not a "description." It's a title. That is obvious to every reader, including you, when you forget your agenda for a moment.

of God as the Great Spirit receives no correction from Ammon or anyone else anywhere in the passage or in the Book of Mormon. More broadly, this is just one piece of evidence that prior to the 1840s Joseph Smith conceived of God as spirit rather than as an exalted man of flesh.

No. It is not.

Your polemically determined agenda here is painfully obvious. Not only is Lamoni's traditional title for the Supreme Being not evidence of what Joseph Smith believed, it is not even evidence of what Ammon believed. In fact, as a mere title, it scarcely even qualifies as evidence for what Lamoni believed!

Lamoni uses that title because it's all he's got -- he doesn't even know what the word "God" means -- not because it encapsulates significant ontological information about any being.

Ammon uses the title because it's all Lamoni has, and as a good missionary, he has to start somewhere. Lamoni abandons the use of the term as soon as Ammon's teaching takes hold.

The notion that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon is boilerplate anti-Mormonism. It is a plainly circular argument to smuggle your conclusions into your argument.

And besides: of course your interpretation of the Book of Mormon supports your anti-Mormon agenda; why else would you bother with it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

Dave and I have pretty much hashed through this subject as thoroughly as it deserves if not more so. You wrote:

Thank you for telling us(!!) what our(!!) scriptures mean.

The Old and New Testaments are our Scriptures, which people of your religion presume to tell us what they mean even while questioning its completeness, accuracy, and sometimes even its integrity. Of course, you will say that they are your scriptures, too. Fine--then tell yourselves what you think the Bible means for you, but, to be consistent with your complaint here, stop knocking on the doors of Bible-believing evangelical Christians and presuming to teach them what the Bible really means.

There is no point in telling people to read the Book of Mormon if they are not permitted to read it for themselves. Just tell them what to believe and be done with it.

You wrote:

But you are wrong. The real sense of it is simply this: "Even though they believed in a supreme being, their belief did not constrain their moral choices."

That doesn't seem to work here, because on your view the Nephites themselves believed in a supreme being but did not believe that the supreme being was a Great Spirit. The speaker in the verse is the Nephite author; he could easily have said something like the above if he didn't endorse the Great Spirit concept.

You wrote:

It is apparent to all (who read this passage without an agenda)....

And, of course, I have an agenda and you have none. Right.

You continued:

...that Lamoni is using "Great Spirit" as a nominative label, if not an outright proper noun, and not as a descriptive phrase. Lamoni did not "believe that God was a Great Spirit." He had a vague belief in a supreme being, and he denoted that being as "the" (not a) "Great Spirit." Hence the capitals.

You might try reading "your" scripture again:

"Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right" (Alma 18:5).

"And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea" (Alma 18:26-27).

You wrote:

But you are ignoring the very important point here: the Lamanites only use the title "Great Spirit" before the missionaries have taught them. After they have been taught, converted and baptised, that title disappears from their religious vocabulary, never to be seen or heard from again.

Already addressed, and therefore not ignored.

You wrote:

The notion that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon is boilerplate anti-Mormonism. It is a plainly circular argument to smuggle your conclusions into your argument.

Not at all. It is not necessary to my argument to view Joseph Smith as having created the Book of Mormon entirely out of his head. All that is necessary to my argument is to suppose that if the Book of Mormon in other respects matches Joseph's teaching in the early 1830s, he probably agreed with its teachings. I didn't even say that Joseph was the author of the Book of Mormon, although I think he was.

[KevinG]

I do not recall the missionary lesson that says "let me tell you what the Bible really means". Did I miss that discussion?

We all have agendas Rob. Mine is to teach the truth about my own religion. Yours is to tear down anothers religion.

See the difference?

When you find the Mormons tell the truth about what Evangelicals really beleive web site we'll talk equivocation.

Edited February 9, 2012 by DaddyG

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

I do not recall the missionary lesson that says "let me tell you what the Bible really means". Did I miss that discussion?

The missionary lessons do quote the Bible, do they not? They do make statements about what the Bible means, do they not?

You wrote:

We all have agendas Rob. Mine is to teach the truth about my own religion. Yours is to tear down anothers religion.

See the difference?

When you find the Mormons tell the truth about what Evangelicals really beleive web site we'll talk equivocation.

I have found that website. When I am able, I will post documentation about it for you.

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

The missionary lessons do quote the Bible, do they not? They do make statements about what the Bible means, do they not?

You wrote:

I have found that website. When I am able, I will post documentation about it for you.

How utterly disingenuous. The missionaries don't teach Evangelicals how to interpret their own religion - they teach our understanding of the scriptures. If you do get around to providing a link to the site you claim is Mormonsim teaching Evangelicals what they believe I will condemn it for being as morally bankrupt as you "research ministry".

[JDave]

Fine--then tell yourselves what you think the Bible means for you, but, to be consistent with your complaint here, stop knocking on the doors of Bible-believing evangelical Christians and presuming to teach them what the Bible really means [to them].

You don't make much sense unless you include the last couple words, and that isn't what our missionaries do. We explain what the Bible means for us, and then ask others to consider our beliefs. Your treatment of the Book of Mormon is a bit odd. You believe that it is a fabrication and yet your guide claims to provide descriptions of what the book really teaches or what it means. If you view it as a fabrication, then it can't teach you anything you accept as authoritative. So you are describing what the Book of Mormon means to .... whom?

That doesn't seem to work here, because on your view the Nephites themselves believed in a supreme being but did not believe that the supreme being was a Great Spirit. The speaker in the verse is the Nephite author; he could easily have said something like the above if he didn't endorse the Great Spirit concept.

The author just barely got done telling the reader that he didn't endorse the Great Spirit, that it was a tradition of Lamoni received from Lamoni's fathers.

"Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right" (Alma 18:5).

"And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea" (Alma 18:26-27).

The only times the indefinite article is used is when a Nephite is speaking.

It is true that the title "Great Spirit" could convey some meaning or description about the Lamanite deity. It works in your favor that the most straight-forward meaning that could be gleaned from the title is that the Lamanite deity is a spirit being. How far that gets you towards being able to actually assert that the Nephite God is a spirit being... I'm not sure. But whatever distance you gain is obliterated by the following:

• The term Great Spirit is only ever used as a title and that title was specifically denied by the Nephite author.
  
• The Lamanites had no reservations with thinking Ammon was their Great Spirit.
  

[Bernard Gui]

Rob Bowman said:

If we assume some coherence in these passages, as I think we should, then in Alma 18 the God whom Ammon calls the Great Spirit is Christ, who was at the time not a being of flesh but rather one of spirit. And if you'll review the discussion in this thread you'll see that other Mormons have proffered that explanation for Alma 18. And they are right, but then they want to suggest that this leaves open the door for the idea that God the Father, as distinct from Christ, was a being of flesh. That idea is found nowhere in the Book of Mormon or in any statement by Joseph Smith prior to the 1840s.

This is not true. That idea is explicitly found in the Book of Mormon in

Jesus' promises to the 3 Nephite Disciples:

Nephi 28:10

And for this cause ye shall have a fulness of joy;

Because the 3 Nephite disciples expressed a desire to remain

on the earth in the service of God until Christ comes again,

He promised them a "fulness of joy." In LDS theology, this

means exaltation in the Kingdom of God. "Fulness of joy"

is to live in the presence of God. "In Thy presence

is fulness of joy." (Psalm 16:11)

and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father;

You will be exalted in the Kingdom of God. "To him that overcometh

will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame,

and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Revelation 3:21)

yea, your joy shall be full,

even as the Father hath given me a fulness of joy;

The joy you will receive is the same joy the Father has given the Son.

"All that the Father has is mine." (John 16:15) "And he that receiveth my

Father receiveth my father's kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath

shall be given unto him." (D&C 84:38)

and ye shall be even as I am,

How is Jesus Christ? A perfected man. "What manner of men ought ye

to be? Verily I say unto you, even as I am." (3 Nephi 27:27) An immortal

resurrected being, his body inseparably joined with his spirit.

"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see;

for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39)

and I am even as the Father;

Jesus further explains the nature of his being: He is the same as His Father;

or, the Father has the same nature as the Son. "The Father has a body of flesh

and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; and the Father and I are one;" (D&C 130:22)

"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not

known me,Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how

sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?"(John 14:9) “Who being the

brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,

and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself

purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;”(Hebrews 1:3)

“Abel, the first martyr, was there, and his brother Seth, one of the mighty

ones, who was in the express image of his father, Adam.” D&C 138:40.

and the Father and I are one.

We shall be one with the Father and the Son. "That they all may be one; as thou,

Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that theymay be one, even as we are one." (John 17:21-22)

Summary:

The 3 Nephites and all who attain exaltation are promised they

will be as the Son and the Father. The Father and Son have immortal resurrected bodies of flesh and bone;

so will they. The Father and Son are perfected men; so will they be. The Father and Son are one; so will

they be. Everything the Father has is given to the Son. Everything the Son has is given to them. They

shall be Gods.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Nevo]

This is not true. That idea is explicitly found in the Book of Mormon in

Jesus' promises to the 3 Nephite Disciples...

That God the Father is a being of flesh is not "explicitly found in the Book of Mormon"—either in 3 Nephi or anywhere else. None of the passages you cite demonstrate your claim.

On the contrary, passages such as Mosiah 15:5 strongly suggest that the Father is not a being of flesh. You don't have to be a great reader to see that "thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father..." equates God the Son with "flesh" and God the Father with "Spirit."

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

Rob, there were two more points you left unanswered: the missionary context of the whole text, and that "Great Spirit" is only used as a title, a title that is pointedly denied by the author.

I have addressed both of these arguments. (1) I have pointed out that the missionary context does not preclude the Lamanites being right about some things, which they were. The argument therefore begs the question. (2) The term "Great Spirit" functions as both a description and a title, as I documented in my response to Pahoran (which I posted before seeing your post).

You wrote:

Its historical context is what the book itself purports it to be -- 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. If you only read it with a historical context of 1830, then I can understand why we talk past each other and why you think external sources of that time period are fair game for evidence. Such a treatment of the book is not a good faith effort.

There you go again. If I don't accept the Book of Mormon as ancient, I'm supposedly not making a good-faith effort to deal with the texts honestly.

You wrote:

I see no need to read later LDS theology into the Book of Mormon. There are instances where I very much don't, such as the heaven/hell dichotomy in the Book of Mormon versus the kindgoms of glory ideas shown in D&C 76. There is no theological necessity for a complete harmonization with later LDS theology. That is just a canard to say that Mormons can't critically consider their texts.

No, I think some Mormons can and do consider their texts critically, and some can't or won't. I have not suggested that you cannot do so. I have engaged in this discussion with you and taken your arguments seriously, acknowledging when you made a good point. I have not questioned your sincerity or accused you of not making a good-faith effort. I am glad to hear you say that you don't think it theologically necessary to harmonize the Book of Mormon with later LDS theology. Does that mean that it would not be a problem for you theologically if the Book of Mormon did teach that God was a being of spirit prior to Christ coming in the flesh?

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

How utterly disingenuous.

No comment permitted.

You wrote:

The missionaries don't teach Evangelicals how to interpret their own religion - they teach our understanding of the scriptures.

Fine. And I don't teach Mormons how to interpret their own religion -- I teach whoever wishes to hear my understanding of the scriptures. What's the difference?

You wrote:

If you do get around to providing a link to the site you claim is Mormonsim teaching Evangelicals what they believe I will condemn it for being as morally bankrupt as you "research ministry".

Again, our site does not teach Mormons what they believe. That criticism is what you would call "disingenuous" if you were in my place. Of course, I would not call it that. But I look forward to providing you with the opportunity, should you wish to be consistent on this issue, of condemning a rather prominent Mormon website as morally bankrupt.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Rob Bowman

[Maidservant]

Man is a spirit in the same way God is a Spirit. So we should always answer the question "Is God a spirit?" with a yes and let them sort it out.

~ ~

The use of the Ammon story where he refers to God as the Great Spirit is to be understood as using a bridge to find commonalities between two different thinking people; to using 'sharing' of ideas rather than 'contention'. It is not a revelation on God. It only represents a snapshot of the understanding of God at a certain development of the culture of a specific people.

In terms of the ideas of spirit and body and how that does or does not describe God in general--these kinds of ideas have developed over a long time, and of which the Greeks made significant contribution, for better or worse depending on what you think of such things (for me = worse). In other words, this conception of duality is not found in, for example, the Old Testament and those people's engagement with God and their idea of God's nature and his relationship with mankind. Whether the addition of a spirit-body duality conception to the world religious conversation is a revelation of light or a blinder of darkness, is again up to the personal seeker as she may get answered by God (my personal belief is complex on this, not just 'yes or no' on whether there is a duality -- for example, why isn't there a triplicate? (there is)).

The birth of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Joseph Smith's engagement with God) came into being into a world that already assumed a spirit-body duality and a contention (or conclusion) of spirit-body (a conclusion on spirit) for God. This contention-conclusion was not revelatory, but developmental over centuries (right or wrong). Joseph Smith I'm sure had a learning process to go through on this, for he came from this milieu. Still we may have a learning process on this, within the church and within the world religious converation.

The crux for the Latter-day Saint is not whether or not our ideas may develop in understanding the nature of God (for certainly we can still add to or clarify our knowledge) . . . but the crux is in Genesis, where man is made in the image of God. Thus whatever we know or may be learning about God, is also, is the same as, what we know or are learning about ourselves (as sons and daughters of this God; our literal parentage). So while the spirit-body ideas may develop, or receive revelatory injections, the divergence between what and who our Father in heaven is will never be specie-different from what and who his children are--that is the contribution of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. (Other religious belief systems may understood "image" as something less or reflective or derivative of God; where for Latter-day Saint thought, it is understood as equivalent.)

In other words, I personally think a more important question is not, Is God a Spirit -- for which the answer is Yes (of course!); OR Yes in terms of the thought systems that were in place at the time of the New Testament and through which they had to understand their God.

But the question is better . . . what IS spirit? and where did we get this idea (originally)? and how does it matter as a piece of the overall puzzle of where we came from, why we are here, and who is God, etc? Then once we understand the concept of Spirit (either developmentally or revelatory or both), then we can properly apply that to EITHER our Father in heaven (God) or ourselves, as needed. (Clue: the concept of Spirit is inexaustible, and would never be able to be understood at least in a forum thread ).

Edited February 9, 2012 by Maidservant

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

I had stated that the Book of Mormon does not teach that God the Father was a being of flesh. You replied:

This is not true. That idea is explicitly found in the Book of Mormon in

Jesus' promises to the 3 Nephite Disciples:

Nephi 28:10....

Summary:

The 3 Nephites and all who attain exaltation are promised they will be as the Son and the Father. The Father and Son have immortal resurrected bodies of flesh and bone; so will they. The Father and Son are perfected men; so will they be. The Father and Son are one; so will they be. Everything the Father has is given to the Son. Everything the Son has is given to them. They shall be Gods.

Perhaps you are not clear on the meaning of explicitly. Explicit: "a. Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied. b. Fully and clearly defined or formulated" (American Heritage Dictionary). If it takes you over 500 words and cross-references to ten other scriptural texts to show the idea in question, then the idea is by definition not stated explicitly in your text!

Query: Will the exalted become part of the Godhead?

[JDave]

That God the Father is a being of flesh is not "explicitly found in the Book of Mormon"—either in 3 Nephi or anywhere else. None of the passages you cite demonstrate your claim.

On the contrary, passages such as Mosiah 15:5 strongly suggest that the Father is not a being of flesh. You don't have to be a great reader to see that "thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father..." equates God the Son with "flesh" and God the Father with "Spirit."

I agree that there is nothing explicit, and I would say nothing either way. I think the Mosiah passage is really the only one that I have seen that I could read as saying God is a Spirit. I think there is a good possibility that being subject to the Spirt refers to being subject to the divinity and role of God the Father where the flesh reflects the weakness Christ took upon him when he was born into mortality. But while I could argue either way with the Mosiah passage, I don't see any room to argue either way with the account of Ammon and Aaron.

[wenglund]

The Old and New Testaments are our Scriptures, which people of your religion presume to tell us what they mean even while questioning its completeness, accuracy, and sometimes even its integrity. Of course, you will say that they are your scriptures, too. Fine--then tell yourselves what you think the Bible means for you, but, to be consistent with your complaint here, stop knocking on the doors of Bible-believing evangelical Christians and presuming to teach them what the Bible really means.

There is no point in telling people to read the Book of Mormon if they are not permitted to read it for themselves. Just tell them what to believe and be done with it.

Rob has a point here. It is only fair that we grant him the right to interpret, for himself, our scriptures in as overly literalistic, superficial, and unispired way as he interprets his own scripture for himself.

And, even though he ironically often couches his private interpretations in statements like "the Bible says" or "the Book of Mormon says," as though his interpretation of the scriptures trumps all, the conventions of effective inter-faith discourse would suggest doing otherwise.

In short, do as Rob says, not as he does.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

That God the Father is a being of flesh is not "explicitly found in the Book of Mormon"—either in 3 Nephi or anywhere else. None of the passages you cite demonstrate your claim.

On the contrary, passages such as Mosiah 15:5 strongly suggest that the Father is not a being of flesh. You don't have to be a great reader to see that "thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father..." equates God the Son with "flesh" and God the Father with "Spirit."

I read it differently. To me, in terms of the soul of the incarnate Jesus (which, as I see it, is the subject of the passage), his flesh is equated with the Son, and his spirit with the Father.

As I understand the context, Mosiah 15:1-5 is not speaking to the ontological nature of Father and Son as Gods or God, but rather to the dual nature of Jesus as a man--which is comparable to our own dual nature as men. It isn't a theological treatise, but christological treatise.

To not see it this way, I believe, misses the key point intended in that passage.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

DaddyG,

You wrote:

No comment permitted.

You wrote:

Fine. And I don't teach Mormons how to interpret their own religion -- I teach whoever wishes to hear my understanding of the scriptures. What's the difference?

You wrote:

Again, our site does not teach Mormons what they believe. That criticism is what you would call "disingenuous" if you were in my place. Of course, I would not call it that. But I look forward to providing you with the opportunity, should you wish to be consistent on this issue, of condemning a rather prominent Mormon website as morally bankrupt.

I'd like to see that prominent Mormon website and determine if its role is similar to your website for myself. Are you ready to post it yet?

Mind you to be roughly equivelent to yours it must:

Teach about specific religions (donominations) and why they don't understand their own doctrines.

Be sponsored by a ministry or church (no amateur opinions here)

and employ a full time ministerial researcher

Good luck!

[KevinG]

Rob let us go to the actual missionary materials for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Please show me the chapters that teach other Christians that they are not indeed Christian or the portion of the lesson that has Mormons instructing Christians that they do not know their own scriptures...

http://www.lds.org/languages/additionalmanuals/preachgospel/PreachMyGospel___00_00_Complete__36617_eng_.pdf

Hint: Page 35 is where you will try to justify your full time ministry against Momonism by citing one page of teaching on the General Apostacy. If you start there you will save yourself time. Just be sure you take it in context and don't start claiming that Mormons teach all Christianity was lost or corrupt. Another hint: the topic of authority and divine guidance is where we differ the most.

Enjoy!

[JDave]

I have addressed both of these arguments. (1) I have pointed out that the missionary context does not preclude the Lamanites being right about some things, which they were. The argument therefore begs the question.

That doesn't address the issue. I said that the context points away from an ontological equivalence being presented. It is much more likely that the missionaries are saying, "Yes there is a deity", rather than, "Yes, your ontological concept of God is correct."

(2) The term "Great Spirit" functions as both a description and a title, as I documented in my response to Pahoran (which I posted before seeing your post).

Show me where it is used as a description. Bonus points if you can quote a Nephite.

There you go again. If I don't accept the Book of Mormon as ancient, I'm supposedly not making a good-faith effort to deal with the texts honestly.

I said nothing about accepting the Book of Mormon as ancient. If my arguments included appeals to how people would have acted at about 90 B.C. (the estimated timeframe of the missionary efforts in question), then I agree that I would be reading my presupposed timeframe into the text. But I don't.

You, however, read into the text some of Joseph Smith's supposed refining of his beliefs about the nature of God. You say that it should be read in its "historical context". Unless you are referring to 90 B.C., you are referring to your presupposed timeframe of the 1820s.

No, I think some Mormons can and do consider their texts critically, and some can't or won't. I have not suggested that you cannot do so.

If you say so. But you actually did say so here. You said:

I know that you will not accept my arguments because you feel you have a religious obligation to see the Book of Mormon theology as coherent with your present LDS theology. I, on the other hand, have no religious obligation to view them as incoherent

I am glad to hear you say that you don't think it theologically necessary to harmonize the Book of Mormon with later LDS theology. Does that mean that it would not be a problem for you theologically if the Book of Mormon did teach that God was a being of spirit prior to Christ coming in the flesh?

I don't think that's really pertinent to the discussion at hand, but indeed it would not be a theological problem for me if the Book of Mormon taught that God was Spirit. I believe in the Bible, and the Bible states as much.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran,

Dave and I have pretty much hashed through this subject as thoroughly as it deserves if not more so.

Then when can we expect to see you correct the misuse your "study guide" makes of Alma 18?

The Old and New Testaments are our Scriptures, which people of your religion presume to tell us what they mean even while questioning its completeness, accuracy, and sometimes even its integrity. Of course, you will say that they are your scriptures, too. Fine--then tell yourselves what you think the Bible means for you, but, to be consistent with your complaint here, stop knocking on the doors of Bible-believing evangelical Christians and presuming to teach them what the Bible really means.

But, as you reluctantly admit, they are our scriptures too. The only real difference between our approach to them and yours is that we don't regard them with near-superstitious veneration. However, we do believe what they teach, and we endeavour to recover their meaning and apply it to our present situation. As such, we are actual good-faith participants in the believers' conversation.

However, and again by your own admission, you are not a believer in the Book of Mormon, and hence you are not an actual good-faith participant in that believers' conversation. Instead of taking alternative interpretations seriously, you rather mulishly insist on defending your intepretation. And why do you do that? Because it serves your polemical objectives, of course.

Speaking of which: thank you for admitting that your objective is to oppose the missionary program of the Church of Jesus Christ. The fact that you oppose it is additional evidence (if more were needed) that it is right.

There is no point in telling people to read the Book of Mormon if they are not permitted to read it for themselves. Just tell them what to believe and be done with it.

But Rob, as you perfectly well know, you aren't simply reading it for yourself. You are arrogating to yourself the role of teacher and expounder, explaining to your all-too-willing EV audience what it "really" means for them, too. By some truly amazing coincidence, its "real" meaning, as determined by you, just happens to match your anti-Mormon agenda. Well, who'da thunk that?

That doesn't seem to work here, because on your view the Nephites themselves believed in a supreme being but did not believe that the supreme being was a Great Spirit. The speaker in the verse is the Nephite author; he could easily have said something like the above if he didn't endorse the Great Spirit concept.

What "concept?" The only "Great Spirit concept" we read about is a rather vague notion of a supreme being that made stuff and knows things, but which does not constrain anyone's actions.

And, of course, I have an agenda and you have none.

Right.

Of course I have an agenda; thank you for asking. I have the believer's agenda, which is to recover the true meaning of the scripture in which I believe. You have the unbeliever's agenda, which is to debunk the scripture you reject, and if possible, to turn it into a weapon against those who accept it.

You might try reading "your" scripture again:

Looky here, everybody! The anti-Mormon thinks that he (of all people) is going to school me (of all people) in the Book of Mormon!

This has got to be good.

"Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right" (Alma 18:5).

Yes, this is Mormon's editorial comment. I thank you for mentioning it, because it demonstrates what you have previously tried to downplay, namely that the "Great Spirit" title (not description) expressed an exclusively Lamanite tradition.

"And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit? And he said, Yea" (Alma 18:26-27).

Yes, but "there is" only works with "a," not "the." Modern Christians also say things like "do you believe in a supreme being" of which there can of course only be one. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should try talking to some Christians.

But please note that when Lamoni and his subjects are talking, we see the clear picture you are trying to obscure:

Alma 18:

2 And when they had all testified to the things which they had seen, and he had learned of the faithfulness of Ammon in preserving his flocks, and also of his great power in contending against those who sought to slay him, he was astonished exceedingly, and said: Surely, this is more than a man. Behold, is not this the Great Spirit who doth send such great punishments upon this people, because of their murders?

3 And they answered the king, and said: Whether he be the Great Spirit or a man, we know not; but this much we do know, that he cannot be slain by the enemies of the king; neither can they scatter the king’s flocks when he is with us, because of his expertness and great strength; therefore, we know that he is a friend to the king. And now, O king, we do not believe that a man has such great power, for we know he cannot be slain.

4 And now, when the king heard these words, he said unto them: Now I know that it is the Great Spirit; and he has come down at this time to preserve your lives, that I might not slay you as I did your brethren. Now this is the Great Spirit of whom our fathers have spoken.

Etc, etc. You see, it was Lamoni et al who believed in this Great Spirit, so it is consequently their usage that is relevant here.

This, BTW, is how believers approach a work of scripture, Rob. We look at the context in which things are said, who says them, to whom and so forth. We don't just look for the excerpt that looks most serviceable, as you did.

I read the Book of Mormon like a believer; you read it like a debunker. Thus, while there is no guarantee that my reading will be 100% correct, there is an absolute guarantee that yours will be fatally flawed.

Already addressed, and therefore not ignored.

I'm sorry Rob, but "is not" doesn't address anything. All you did was lamely complain that the record doesn't show Ammon saying something like "don't say 'Great Spirit' any more." That is the worst possible argument there is, although I agree that there is not a better one available to you in the circumstances. But it collapses in the face of the evidence.

You only talked about Lamoni's prayer, as if it were the only other utterance available. However, in Alma 24 we have a fairly long speech by Lamoni, to his Lamanite people. This takes place after they have been taught by the missionaries and been converted. Just a portion of it will do:

Alma 24:

7 Now, these are the words which he [i.e. Lamoni] said unto the people concerning the matter: I thank my God, my beloved people, that our great God has in goodness sent these our brethren, the Nephites, unto us to preach unto us, and to convince us of the traditions of our wicked fathers.

8 And behold, I thank my great God that he has given us a portion of his Spirit to soften our hearts, that we have opened a correspondence with these brethren, the Nephites.

9 And behold, I also thank my God, that by opening this correspondence we have been convinced of our sins, and of the many murders which we have committed.

10 And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.

There's more like it, but that will do to be going on with. In the space of just four verses, Lamoni has six opportunities to mention "the Great Spirit," but he does not. He insists on talking about "God" instead. His old religious vocabulary has gone and has been replaced.

Why did that happen?

Because the missionaries taught him, that's why. His new vocabulary reflects his new beliefs.

Incidentally, Lamoni has his own quite distinctive way of speaking, which is evidence of authenticity in the narrative, but that's another discussion.

Not at all. It is not necessary to my argument to view Joseph Smith as having created the Book of Mormon entirely out of his head. All that is necessary to my argument is to suppose that if the Book of Mormon in other respects matches Joseph's teaching in the early 1830s, he probably agreed with its teachings. I didn't even say that Joseph was the author of the Book of Mormon, although I think he was.

But that is not the case. It is only the case that the Book of Mormon as you choose to interpret it matches Joseph's teaching as you choose to suppose it was. And, as has been exhaustively demonstrated, the Lamanite "Great Spirit" idea is not the teaching of the Book of Mormon. It is a title only, and it represents an imperfect, incomplete and essentially apostate doctrine. Its adherents discard it almost immediately upon being taught by better-informed missionaries.

Now Rob, it seems to me that the ball is in your court. You can continue to stubbornly insist that your debunker's misinterpretation is right and our believers' interpretation is wrong; or you can do the honest thing and admit that you were mistaken.

What's it going to be?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

(2) The term "Great Spirit" functions as both a description and a title, as I documented in my response to Pahoran (which I posted before seeing your post).

Umm, Rob? Your response made no attempt to show "Great Spirit" actually describing anything. Each and every citation you provided shows it being used as a title only.

There you go again. If I don't accept the Book of Mormon as ancient, I'm supposedly not making a good-faith effort to deal with the texts honestly.

Actually it's a rather uncontroversial principle that the proper way to read any book is in the historical setting it claims for itself. By refusing to read the Book of Mormon in its claimed setting, you are deciding never to rise above intentional eisegesis of the text.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nevo]

I think the Mosiah passage is really the only one that I have seen that I could read as saying God is a Spirit. I think there is a good possibility that being subject to the Spirt refers to being subject to the divinity and role of God the Father where the flesh reflects the weakness Christ took upon him when he was born into mortality.

As I understand the context, Mosiah 15:1–5 is not speaking to the ontological nature of Father and Son as Gods or God, but rather to the dual nature of Jesus as a man.

JDave and Wade,

Thanks for your responses. I agree that Mosiah 15:1–5 is essentially a meditation on Christ's incarnation. Although he is "God himself," he is called the Son while he dwells in flesh, because his flesh is subject to the will of the Father/Spirit.

I don't know that these verses actually contemplate a God the Father who is a separate and distinct entity from God the Son, but if they do, then it would seem that he is described as (a) "spirit."

That said, it's possible that "flesh" and "spirit" in these verses simply distinguish a mortal (human) existence over against an immortal (divine) existence, in which case we probably shouldn't use them to draw any firm conclusions about God's form.

[JDave]

Rob, I don't see much possibility that the Lamanites had an ontological concept of their deity being spirit only. Pahoran summed it up pretty well:

The only "Great Spirit concept" we read about is a rather vague notion of a supreme being that made stuff and knows things, but which does not constrain anyone's actions.

See Alma 18:2-4.

They thought Ammon was more than a man, that is for sure. If they conceived of their deity as some spirit being without form, wouldn't they just assume that Ammon was sent by the Great Spirit? The Lamanite people certainly thought that could happen (Alma 19:25). The circumstances you cite don't explain anything about why thy would be more willing to accept a spirit being in physical form.

No reason why it cannot be both, within the context of the narrative.

True. But there is great reason why it can't be just surprise at anything other than a cloud. The shock at seeing a spirit being in physical form is clear and it begs the question why the Lamanites are untroubled at the thought.

I drew a parallel, not an exact equivalence.

So replace the word equivalence with parallel in my paragraph. The result is the same. You drew a parallel when it seemed in your favor, but now you are saying there is no such parallel due to different time periods. So which is it? The way that works in my favor, or the way that works in your favor?

Edited February 9, 2012 by JDave

[wenglund]

I don't know that these verses actually contemplate a God the Father who is a separate and distinct entity from God the Son, but if they do, then it would seem that he is described as (a) "spirit."

If I, in my LDS view, rightly call my own spirit, "the Father," and my flesh, "the Son," does this mean that I am describing God the Father as a "spirit"? I don't think so. And, I think this same logic extends to what was said in Mosiah about the mortal Christ.

That said, it's possible that "flesh" and "spirit" in these verses simply distinguish a mortal (human) existence over against an immortal (divine) existence, in which case we probably shouldn't use them to draw any firm conclusions about God's form.

I think, instead, it distinguishes between the divine (spirit) and physical (flesh) elements of human existence. It is using the mortal Jesus as an exempliary to give us a view into our own human souls.

And, it is teaching us how we all may become "one God...the very Eternal Father," or in other words how we can become like God, and this through, as Christ, suffering temptation (being born into mortality) and eventually subjecting our flesh to our spirit (our subjecting our souls to God) to the point that we "yieldeth not to temptation," thereby becoming one with God.

This is not entirely unlike what Paul taught to the Romans (Romans 8).

If you think about it, this passage symbolically suggests that God the Father is comprised of spirit and flesh, Like the Son, we become even as the Father through our divine spirits taking upon us flesh and subjecting that flesh to our spirits and to God.

Again, to me, this passage is more a microcosm of the plan of salvation and exaltation than it is theological explication.

But, as always, people are free to view it differently.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 9, 2012 by wenglund

[KevinG]

Wade you keep saying people are free to see it differently. I agree.

What they are not free to do is teach in an official capacity that what I see is the wrong interpretation of my own beliefs and present tham as what I really believe or what I really should believe.

I used the word disingenuous earlier but it was appearantly too insulting so I will leave it at that.

[Mark Beesley]

Umm, Rob? Your response made no attempt to show "Great Spirit" actually describing anything. Each and every citation you provided shows it being used as a title only.

Actually it's a rather uncontroversial principle that the proper way to read any book is in the historical setting it claims for itself. By refusing to read the Book of Mormon in its claimed setting, you are deciding never to rise above intentional eisegesis of the text.

Regards,

Pahoran

This point made by Pahoran is devastating to any non-LDS Christian who takes it upon themself to try and use the Book of Mormon against any LDS doctrines or policies. It bears repeating:

"Actually it's a rather uncontroversial principle that the proper way to read any book is in the historical setting it claims for itself."