Claim That Original Bofm Taught Trinity

[rpn]

This article argues that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith originally taught the trinity. http://blog.mrm.org/2011/06/what-happened-to-the-trinity-in-mormonism/

Is there any apologetic analysis of the post or the issue?

Edited March 5, 2013 by rpn

[Scott Barton]

http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bickmore-book-of-mormon-trinitarianism-or-modalism.pdf

[Kevin Christensen]

Well, you have to consider what a person means by Trinity. A social Trinity is still a Trinity, even it is not a creedal Trinity.

I also like this.The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392

And this by yours truely, looking at the Book of Mormon with some help from Margaret Barker's First Temple Theology:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=16&num=2&id=547

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think it's also important to remember that the actual term "Trinity" appears exactly nowhere in our scriptures. In which case, we might find the concept somewhere in there if we retroject our specialized terminology in ... or we might not. I think it's telling that while the Father, the Son, and the Spirit of Wisdom are said to be "One God", it is a "Oneness" quite amenable to an overarching context of an open-ended Divine Council, a plurality of beings who are metaphorically "One" in the way that Christ wishes His followers to be. I see a lot of this type of "Oneness" in the Book of Mormon, but very little of the Trinitarianism others do (arguing that separate individual corporeal Gods were a later development of Joseph's thought during the so-called "Nauvoo Theology" days). I think the unveiling of the Lord in Ether is hugely important in this respect. Kevin's work is excellent, and I'd also point to Brant Gardner's paper on Monotheism.

[BCSpace]

This article argues that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith originally taught the trinity.

The overall premise is wrong because it separates the BoM from the rest of LDS scripture and doctrine. From early on, it was known that the BoM is the stick of Joseph and therefore, any attempts to explain doctrine from the BoM must also include the Bible and everything else. In other words, JS didn't view the BoM as distinctly as is necessary to come to a trinitarian pov.

Consider also the teaching in Mosiah 15 on how Christ is both the Father and the Son. It boils down to saying they are one God and the only other place we see how they are one is in John 17 which lexically is that they are united ("one") and stand next to each other in support of ("in"). So the Bible itself in no way teaches how the Father and Son are one or the same God in the same way as the trinitarians teach. The Bible is uniquely LDS on that point as it is on most others. Notice also that the D&C 93 explanation of the same idea in Mosiah 15 is only four years removed from the publication of the BoM.

[cdowis]

I am a father, and I am also a son. My son is also a father as well as a son.

Now why is that so confusing, unless some philosopher (theologian) makes it complicated. The BOM merely acknowledges that Christ has multiple titles, without throwing in some "one substance" nonsense.

[Storm Rider]

It never fails to amaze me how some people absolutely refuse to read simple, clear English and then demand that the Book of Mormon taught modalism. They repeat the same problem that individuals have with all scripture, "I will take this piece of verse and only this piece and it is all the 'gospel' that is needed and ignore all else". I have no problems with the average human that makes this mistake, but when they set themselves up as an expert, I think there must be a special place in hell for them. They consciously twist the word of God into a thing of their own making in order to lead others astray.

[mathonihah]

I am a father, and I am also a son. My son is also a father as well as a son.

Now why is that so confusing, unless some philosopher (theologian) makes it complicated. The BOM merely acknowledges that Christ has multiple titles, without throwing in some "one substance" nonsense.

It says “I am the Father and the Son," not a Father and a Son”. There is only one the Father and one the Son”.

[cdowis]

Sigh. Yet another brilliant theologian using rhetorical tricks of the trade.

I am the father of my family (my family has only one father), and I am the only son of my father. (an only son).

The BOM tells us that Christ is THE father of his offspring, namely those who keep their covenants, but not of those who follow Satan. The Bible tells us that He is THE only-begotten Son of the Father. Thus, the BOM is correct that Christ is both THE Father and THE Son. He is not homoousia, a one-substance creature springing from the fervid imagination of theologians.

God is the Father of all mankind, even those who deny Him.

Demonstrating the point that theologians and scholars are not prophets, and their doctrine is a mixture of philosophy and scripture. I understand why you are unable to understand the teachings of the BOM.

Edited March 6, 2013 by cdowis

[mathonihah]

Sigh. Yet another brilliant theologian using rhetorical tricks of the trade.

I am the father of my family (my family has only one father), and I am the only son of my father. (an only son).

The BOM tells us that Christ is THE father of his offspring, namely those who keep their covenants, but not of those who follow Satan. The Bible tells us that He is THE only-begotten Son of the Father. Thus, the BOM is correct that Christ is both THE Father and THE Son. He is not homoousia, a one-substance creature springing from the fervid imagination of theologians.

God is the Father of all mankind, even those who deny Him.

Demonstrating the point that theologians and scholars are not prophets, and their doctrine is a mixture of philosophy and scripture. I understand why you are unable to understand the teachings of the BOM.

Okay, so when Jesus says, "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son." (Ether 3:14) What is he actually saying? How would you rephrase that to make it mean what you think it means? You see, the way it says it doesn't seem to me to be calculated to say what you seem to think it is saying. It seems to me that it will have to be rephrased to be saying what you think it is saying. If I wanted to say what you think it is saying, I wouldn't be saying it that way. I would figure out some other way of saying it to convey that meaning. I am trying to find out exactly what you think it is saying.

[cdowis]

Okay, so when Jesus says, "Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son." (Ether 3:14) What is he actually saying? How would you rephrase that to make it mean what you think it means? You see, the way it says it doesn't seem to me to be calculated to say what you seem to think it is saying. It seems to me that it will have to be rephrased to be saying what you think it is saying. If I wanted to say what you think it is saying, I wouldn't be saying it that way. I would figure out some other way of saying it to convey that meaning. I am trying to find out exactly what you think it is saying.

Here is how I explained it elsewhere

1. Christ clearly separates Himself from the Father -- "Not my will, but Thy will be done".

2. He is one with the Father, John 17:19-23.

3. He has, to take a modern phrase, power of attorney -- Heb 1:1-2.

++++++++++++

Christ can stand in the stead of the Father, as if the Father himself were "signing the contract", so to speak, or holding the power of attorney. "If ye have seen me, you have seen the Father." But at other times he made a clear distinction between himself and the Father -- whether these teachings come from me or the Father, not my will but thine be done, after the resurrection he made it clear that he had not yet been with the Father. He came on assignment from the Father, under his instructions, and represented him as only the perfect Son could do so......

Christ could and did speak with the authority of the Father. The Father and Son are one.

But as I mentioned before, He is also the father of those who keep the covenants. They are his children. So the "father" is one of Christ's many titles.

Edited March 6, 2013 by cdowis

[mathonihah]

Here is how I explained it elsewhere

Christ could and did speak with the authority of the Father. The Father and Son are one.

But as I mentioned before, He is also the father of those who keep the covenants. They are his children. So the "father" is one of Christ's many titles.

Okay, so let's try this one then: "he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father," (Ether 4:12) It is kind of weird way of saying what you are saying it is saying. According to the dictionaries, "for" has two different meanings: it can be used as a preposition or as a conjunction. In the above verse it is used as a conjunction, with the meanings of, "since," "seeing that," "for the reason that," "on this ground," "because" (See here and here for examples). So another way of saying that would be, "he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. On the grounds that, behold, I am the Father," So what do you read into that exactly?

Edited March 7, 2013 by mathonihah

[saemo]

Well, you have to consider what a person means by Trinity. A social Trinity is still a Trinity, even it is not a creedal Trinity.

Well, it is a trinity, but it is not the Holy Trinity. But, since "Trinity" is used as a shortcut to all that is believed about God, clearly laid out long-hand in the Creed, then no, it isn't a Trinity at all.

[Ahab]

Okay, so let's try this one then: "he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father," (Ether 4:12) It is kind of weird way of saying what you are saying it is saying. According to the dictionaries, "for" has two different meanings: it can be used as a preposition or as a conjunction. In the above verse it is used as a conjunction, with the meanings of, "since," "seeing that," "for the reason that," "on this ground," "because" (See here and here for examples). So another way of saying that would be, "he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. On the grounds that, behold, I am the Father," So what do you read into that exactly?

This is another perfect example of why someone needs God to help them understand the truth on an issue. The problem here is not in the words that are used, because the words are true. The problem is in not knowing or not being sure about how to correctly understand the meaning of the words. Words alone are not enough because there is often more than one way to understand what someone means when they say something.

Consider the context of the scriptures around this part you quoted and you should see it's all about coming to God for help. How our Father and our Lord and the Holy Spirit all work together. How each one is another, including how our Lord is our Father. Wouldn't you like to be them? You can be, in a sense, with their help.

[Ahab]

Well, it is a trinity, but it is not the Holy Trinity. But, since "Trinity" is used as a shortcut to all that is believed about God, clearly laid out long-hand in the Creed, then no, it isn't a Trinity at all.

You guys don't have exclusive rights to the word Trinity and we know how the 3 are one regardless of whether or not you do.

If you want to be politically correct, just say our understanding of the Trinity isn't the same as your understanding of the Trinity.

I know those 3 persons who are God are the one and only God, and I can correctly refer to their unity as the Trinity.

[mathonihah]

This is another perfect example of why someone needs God to help them understand the truth on an issue. The problem here is not in the words that are used, because the words are true. The problem is in not knowing or not being sure about how to correctly understand the meaning of the words. Words alone are not enough because there is often more than one way to understand what someone means when they say something.

Consider the context of the scriptures around this part you quoted and you should see it's all about coming to God for help. How our Father and our Lord and the Holy Spirit all work together. How each one is another, including how our Lord is our Father. Wouldn't you like to be them? You can be, in a sense, with their help.

I am just trying to have some kind of intelligent conversation with cdowis.

[cdowis]

Okay, so let's try this one then: "he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father," (Ether 4:12) It is kind of weird way of saying what you are saying it is saying. According to the dictionaries, "for" has two different meanings: it can be used as a preposition or as a conjunction. In the above verse it is used as a conjunction, with the meanings of, "since," "seeing that," "for the reason that," "on this ground," "because" (See here and here for examples). So another way of saying that would be, "he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. On the grounds that, behold, I am the Father," So what do you read into that exactly?

I have already explained it, so let me try to put it into very simple terms.

The king sends his fully authorized messenger to give a proclamation and to conduct business in a particular distant town. He has been given full "power of attorney" to speak and to make transactions for the king.

The messenger goes to the town in the kingdom and the town authorities declare -- "We reject you, we throw you out of the town. We do not recognize your authority."

"Look, people, if you reject me, you are rejecting the One who sent me. I have complete authority granted by the king. I stand in the stead of the king here in this town. Let me get this thru your thick skull -->> I am the king here in this town. You reject me, you are also rejecting the king. Do you get it?"

Now, this is it, I've done my best, so now you have the final word.

Edited March 7, 2013 by cdowis