Does The Book Of Mormon Clarify The Nature Of The Godhead

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Modalism and the Trinity are found in the Book of Mormon

 

The Trinity in 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44 and Mormon 7:7

 

Modalism in Ether 3:14

 

Mosiah 16:15

 

Mosiah 15:3-4

 

  could explain the confusion in Mormonism

[JLHPROF]

Modalism and the Trinity are found in the Book of Mormon

 

The Trinity in 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44 and Mormon 7:7

 

Modalism in Ether 3:14

 

Mosiah 16:15

 

Mosiah 15:3-4

 

  could explain the confusion in Mormonism

 

Not Modalism.  You just apparently have no understanding of what Christ means when he says he is the Father.  It has nothing to do with Heavenly Father (God the Father).  It has to do with the atonement, inheritance, and adoption.

Edited February 1, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Bobbieaware]

Modalism and the Trinity are found in the Book of Mormon

The Trinity in 2 Nephi 31:21, Alma 11:44 and Mormon 7:7

Modalism in Ether 3:14

Mosiah 16:15

Mosiah 15:3-4

could explain the confusion in Mormonism

I'm now going to give you an opportunity to demonstrate if you are fair-minded: Do you believe the following excerpt from the Book of John could easily be misinterpreted (like I believe you're misinterpreting the Book of Mormon) to make the New Testament fit into a Modalist construct?

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 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)

Edited February 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Jesus is telling Phillip that he is a member of the GODHEAD a separate person than God the Father but since they share the very nature of the GODHEAD if you seen one you have seen the other.

 

Mark 12:28-29

[Bobbieaware]

Jesus is telling Phillip that he is a member of the GODHEAD a separate person than God the Father but since they share the very nature of the GODHEAD if you seen one you have seen the other.

Mark 12:28-29

And that is precisely how I, as a Latter-day Saint, would answer your claims of Modalism in the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith taught that God the Father and Christ, though two separate personages, share the same divine nature (uncreated divine intelligence), the same divine nature the people of God are made partakers of through the atonement so that Christ can dwell in His saints, as the Father dwells in Christ, so that Father and the Son and all the sons and daughters of God might dwell in each other and all be one -- all these being separate and distinct individuals filled to eternal fullness with the same uncreated divine nature. In John, the Lord uses the exact same language to describe the oneness of the saints with the Father and the Son as He does to describe the oneness of the Father and the Son. That's why in the Book of Revelation those who overcome the world through faith are promised, by the Saviour Himself, that they will rule and reign in eternity, seated by divine right of inheritance on the very throne of Christ.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

In Mormonism however you didn't mention that Bobbieware and everyone else shares that ( uncreated divine nature ) while the Bible and Book of Mormon teach it's exclusive with only Three separate and distinct persons . No human other than Jesus is Self-existent , THE GREAT I AM, Fatherless and Motherless. Your ranting's are foreign to the Book of Mormon, that's why no quotes from the BOM

Edited February 1, 2015 by HOLY CATHOLIC

[Bobbieaware]

In Mormonism however you didn't mention that Bobbieware and everyone else shares that ( uncreated divine nature ) while the Bible and Book of Mormon teach it's exclusive with only Three separate and distinct persons . No human other than Jesus is Self-existent , THE GREAT I AM, Fatherless and Motherless. Your ranting's are foreign to the Book of Mormon, that's why no quotes from the BOM

If someone partakes of the divine nature, then they possess the divine nature. The divine nature doesn't change just because it dwells within one of the sons of God. That's why the sons of God who overcome as Christ overcame are promised the right to sit upon the very throne of Christ's eternal power and authority. The Bible says the sons of God will be joint heirs with Christ in ALL He possesses; and that means ALL He possesses, including His divinity.

There is no limitation mentioned when it comes to the divine inheritance received through Christ, and there is no way Christ would guarantee His followers the right to rule and reign on the throne of His divine power unless He meant exactly what He said -- God does not lie nor deceive. Jesus spoke the truth when He said, "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in a Heaven is perfect." He wouldn't have given the commandment unless He knew that through the Gospel that lofty goal was actually achievable.

The Latter-day Saints take the Lord quite literally when He says, "with God all things are possible." As we are told, in no uncertain terms in the Book of Hebrews, one day ALL things will be placed under the feet of the sons of God, and there will be NOTHING that is not put under his feet as he rules on the divine throne of Christ, even as Christ overcame and is sat down with His Father on His throne. The Lord promises His true followers that they will overcome all things that stand between them and the full divine inheritance of ALL Christ possesses.

If you want to put limitations on the Lord's promises, that is your prerogative; but the Latter-day Saints place no such limitations on the Lord's supernal promises, and that's why I'm a Latter-day Saint and not a Catholic.You will never succeed in convincing me otherwise because I know what I say is true because the power of revelation is much greater than anything that might come by way of mere private interpretation.

P.S. Every Book of Mormon verse you quote, which you claim to be Modalist in nature, can just as easily be explained by three separate personages with ons divine spiritual nature -- that spiritual nature being each member of the Godhead filled with the eternal fullness of the uncreated Spirit of Truth. In earlier posts, I informed you that in the Book of Mormon Lehi's first vision, and in the vision of Alma, reveal God the Father to be a holy Man seated on a throne, and in the same vision the Son of God is revealed as a separate personage also in the form of a Man, but you seem to conveniently forget this fact because it doesn't square with your Modalist narrative.

Do I not speak the truth that the reason why you hang around this board is because you're "whistling past the graveyard" because in your heart you fear we are right?

Edited February 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Thinking]

Mosiah 15

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

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

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

 

Yep. That clears it up.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

If someone partakes of the divine nature, then they possess the divine nature. The divine nature doesn't change just because it dwells within one of the sons of God. That's why the sons of God who overcome as Christ overcame are promised the right to sit upon the very throne of Christ's eternal power and authority. The Bible says the sons of God will be joint heirs with Christ in ALL He possesses; and that means ALL He possesses, including His divinity.

There is no limitation mentioned when it comes to the divine inheritance received through Christ, and there is no way Christ would guarantee His followers the right to rule and reign on the throne of His divine power unless He meant exactly what He said -- God does not lie nor deceive. Jesus spoke the truth when He said, "be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in a Heaven is perfect." He wouldn't have given the commandment unless He knew that through the Gospel that lofty goal was actually achievable.

The Latter-day Saints take the Lord quite literally when He says, "with God all things are possible." As we are told, in no uncertain terms in the Book of Hebrews, one day ALL things will be placed under the feet of the sons of God, and there will be NOTHING that is not put under his feet as he rules on the divine throne of Christ, even as Christ overcame and is sat down with His Father on His throne. The Lord promises His true followers that they will overcome all things that stand between them and the full divine inheritance of ALL Christ possesses.

If you want to put limitations on the Lord's promises, that is your prerogative; but the Latter-day Saints place no such limitations on the Lord's supernal promises, and that's why I'm a Latter-day Saint and not a Catholic.You will never succeed in convincing me otherwise because I know what I say is true because the power of revelation is much greater than anything that might come by way of mere private interpretation.

P.S. Every Book of Mormon verse you quote, which you claim to be Modalist in nature, can just as easily be explained by three separate personages with ons divine spiritual nature -- that spiritual nature being each member of the Godhead filled with the eternal fullness of the uncreated Spirit of Truth. In earlier posts, I informed you that in the Book of Mormon Lehi's first vision, and in the vision of Alma, reveal God the Father to be a holy Man seated on a throne, and in the same vision the Son of God is revealed as a separate personage also in the form of a Man, but you seem to conveniently forget this fact because it doesn't square with your Modalist narrative.

Do I not speak the truth that the reason why you hang around this board is because you're "whistling past the graveyard" because in your heart you fear we are right?

 

[Bobbieaware]

In Mormonism however you didn't mention that Bobbieware and everyone else shares that ( uncreated divine nature ) while the Bible and Book of Mormon teach it's exclusive with only Three separate and distinct persons . No human other than Jesus is Self-existent , THE GREAT I AM, Fatherless and Motherless. Your ranting's are foreign to the Book of Mormon, that's why no quotes from the BOM

Since by your own word you know more about the deeper meaning of the Book of MormonI than do the Latter-day Saints, if you are willing I think it may be very instructive if I quote selected single verses from the Book of Mormon that concern the relationship of the Father and the Son and you can then explain how each of these verses demonstrate a Modalist presentation of the Godhead. There are are great many of these specially selected verses I'd be pleased if you would interpret for us so as you make a convincing case that the Book of Mormon teaches a Modalist Godhead. Here is the first verse:

35 And now I go unto the Father, because it is expedient that I should go unto the Father for your sakes. (3 Nephi 18)

Edited February 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

3 Nephi 18 shows the Trinitarian view of the GODHEAD as separate and distinct persons. While Mosiah 16:15,; 15:3-4 and Ether 3:14 shows them as the same person and modalism view

[JLHPROF]

3 Nephi 18 shows the Trinitarian view of the GODHEAD as separate and distinct persons. While Mosiah 16:15,; 15:3-4 and Ether 3:14 shows them as the same person and modalism view

 

Nope.

[Tacenda]

Nope.

This was another testimony shaker to me when I found out the changes made to some scriptures in the BoM about the nature of God. Critics would say that Joseph got lazy and didn't finish correcting the rest. But I know Fair Mormon had a rebuttal, just unable to link at the moment.

[canard78]

In all possible worlds 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

If the world is not real, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 is still true, that will never change, magic cannot change that fact.

The Trinity contradicts logic and Math.

Your thought processes and reasoning are overly-simplistic.

I'm not an advocate for the trinity but I can certainly see how a belief in the trinity can be considered reasonable.

Your boorish repetition of 1+1+1=3 does little to further the conversation.

[Bobbieaware]

3 Nephi 18 shows the Trinitarian view of the GODHEAD as separate and distinct persons. While Mosiah 16:15,; 15:3-4 and Ether 3:14 shows them as the same person and modalism view

So we can put our little exercise to rest because you'll, without any doubt, have to admit the Book of Mormon is filled (and when I say filled, I mean filled) with non-Modalist presentations of the Godhead. The only reason why you think there are Modalist passages in the Book of Mormon is because your mind is unable to grasp the fact that these so-called "Modalist passages" are simply drawing attention to the fact that Christ and His Father share the same divine nature, just as you explained when you described how just because Christ said "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father" doesn't mean Christ actually IS the personage of the Father.

But I'm fully confident you will continue in your unfair appraisal because you've demonstrated you will not cut for the Book of Mormon the same slack you are willing to cut for the Bible. Biblical Modalists use the Bible to "prove" the Modalist belief is true; you unfairly attack the Book of Mormon as Modalist by ignoring all the many, many passages that clearly demonstrate otherwise, just like the Biblical Modalists do?

The so-called "Modalist passages" are referring to the fact that a father can't be a father without also being a son, and by virtue of His being the Father of all Creation, and the Father of all the works and manifestations of salvation, He is the Father of heaven and earth and the Father of our salvation, as well as being God the Eternal Father's Only Begotten Son. This is what we as Latter-day Saints believe, but there's no doubt you'll continue on with your work of pridefully presuming to tell us what we believe.. But that's actually a good thing because by your efforts you've provided me with the opportunity to demonstrate your unfairness and error. If one can just get past the "bad vibe," you critics really do provide an invaluable service.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

So we can put our little exercise to rest because you'll, without any doubt, have to admit the Book of Mormon is filled (and when I say filled, I mean filled) with non-Modalist presentations of the Godhead. The only reason why you think there are Modalist passages in the Book of Mormon is because your mind is unable to grasp the fact that these so-called "Modalist passages" are simply drawing attention to the fact that Christ and His Father share the same divine nature, just as you explained when you described how just because Christ said "if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father" doesn't mean Christ actually IS the personage of the Father.

But I'm fully confident you will continue in your unfair appraisal because you've demonstrated you will not cut for the Book of Mormon the same slack you are willing to cut for the Bible. Biblical Modalists use the Bible to "prove" the Modalist belief is true; you unfairly attack the Book of Mormon as Modalist by ignoring all the many, many passages that clearly demonstrate otherwise, just like the Biblical Modalists do?

The so-called "Modalist passages" are referring to the fact that a father can't be a father without also being a son, and by virtue of His being the Father of all Creation, and the Father of all the works and manifestations of salvation, He is the Father of heaven and earth and the Father of our salvation, as well as being God the Eternal Father's Only Begotten Son. This is what we as Latter-day Saints believe, but there's no doubt you'll continue on with your work of pridefully presuming to tell us what we believe.. But that's actually a good thing because by your efforts you've provided me with the opportunity to demonstrate your unfairness and error. If one can just get past the "bad vibe," you critics really do provide an invaluable service.

Yep this nails it.

Trolls are trolls and a waste of time.  And this one is one of the .....least informed..... on every subject..... that I have seen.

[mfbukowski]

I my self am a father AND a SON!!

 

All at the same time being ONE HUMAN!

 

I am also a HUSBAND!   It's a MIRACLE!  Three persons in ONE!  How is it possible?????

 

And besides that my wife and I and FOUR children are ALL  Bukowskis!!  SIX HUMANS who are ONE FAMILY!

 

And we are all one in essence, in substance, and BEING!   We are all HUMAN BEINGS with a shared nature!!!

 

it must be modalism.......   or I am a shape shifter, and maybe all of us are,  not quite sure.....

 

Clearly a HEAVY theological problem  which should be debated through the ages.....  and that wars should be fought about, and cause schisms and endless discussion.

 

Serious stuff!

 

Edited February 1, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

You know, if our Lord or his Father had wanted to make all this stuff confusing to us they could have thrown in some real zingers to try to confuse us.

Some people seem to just want it to be confusing, as if what they told us should be hard to understand.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Your thought processes and reasoning are overly-simplistic..

 

 

No, most philosophers agree that Mathematics is true in all worlds. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. 

Think about it, not even magic can destroy that truth, even if the world is 6,000 years old. 

Edited February 2, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[mfbukowski]

No, most philosophers agree that Mathematics is true in all worlds. 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. 

Think about it, not even magic can destroy that truth, even if the world is 6,000 years old. 

Uh, if I cared, I would definitely call for a CFR on that one. All that is really is a statement of identity, that A=A, a tautology which is true "by definition, and a statement which contains no useful information.

 

It would be very very hard to even come up with ANY evidence for your statement, which would require a poll of "most philosophers" on that exact question, all with varying theories of "truth", the nature of math, and their views of "all possible worlds" and what that even means.

 

Math in itself tells us nothing about the world- what is important is the interpretation of data showing mathematical correlations to the way we observe phenomena.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

Edited February 2, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Just for the sake of non-argument on this point:

 

Embodied mind theories

Embodied mind theories hold that mathematical thought is a natural outgrowth of the human cognitive apparatus which finds itself in our physical universe. For example, the abstract concept of number springs from the experience of counting discrete objects. It is held that mathematics is not universal and does not exist in any real sense, other than in human brains. Humans construct, but do not discover, mathematics.

With this view, the physical universe can thus be seen as the ultimate foundation of mathematics: it guided the evolution of the brain and later determined which questions this brain would find worthy of investigation. However, the human mind has no special claim on reality or approaches to it built out of math. If such constructs as Euler's identity are true then they are true as a map of the human mind and cognition.

Embodied mind theorists thus explain the effectiveness of mathematics—mathematics was constructed by the brain in order to be effective in this universe.

The most accessible, famous, and infamous treatment of this perspective is Where Mathematics Comes From, by George Lakoff and Rafael E. Núñez. In addition, mathematician Keith Devlin has investigated similar concepts with his book The Math Instinct, as has neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene with his book The Number Sense. For more on the philosophical ideas that inspired this perspective, see cognitive science of mathematics.

New empiricism

A more recent empiricism returns to the principle of the English empiricists of the 18th and 19th centuries, in particular John Stuart Mill, who asserted that all knowledge comes to us from observation through the senses. This applies not only to matters of fact, but also to "relations of ideas", as Hume called them: the structures of logic which interpret, organize and abstract observations.

To this principle it adds a materialist connection: all the processes of logic which interpret, organize and abstract observations, are physical phenomena which take place in real time and physical space: namely, in the brains of human beings. Abstract objects, such as mathematical objects, are ideas, which in turn exist as electrical and chemical states of the billions of neurons in the human brain.

This second concept is reminiscent of the social constructivist approach, which holds that mathematics is produced by humans rather than being "discovered" from abstract, a priori truths. However, it differs sharply from the constructivist implication that humans arbitrarily construct mathematical principles that have no inherent truth but which instead are created on a conveniency basis. On the contrary, new empiricism shows how mathematics, although constructed by humans, follows rules and principles that will be agreed on by all who participate in the process, with the result that everyone practicing mathematics comes up with the same answer—except in those areas where there is philosophical disagreement on the meaning of fundamental concepts. This is because the new empiricism perceives this agreement as being a physical phenomenon, one which is observed by other humans in the same way that other physical phenomena, like the motions of inanimate bodies, or the chemical interaction of various elements, are observed.

Combining the materialist principle with Millisian epistemology evades the principal difficulty with classical empiricism—that all knowledge comes from the senses. That difficulty lies in the observation that mathematical truths based on logical deduction appear to be more certainly true than knowledge of the physical world itself. (The physical world in this case is taken to mean the portion of it lying outside the human brain.)

Kant argued that the structures of logic which organize, interpret and abstract observations were built into the human mind and were true and valid a priori. Mill, on the contrary, said that we believe them to be true because we have enough individual instances of their truth to generalize: in his words, "From instances we have observed, we feel warranted in concluding that what we found true in those instances holds in all similar ones, past, present and future, however numerous they may be".^[11] Although the psychological or epistemological specifics given by Mill through which we build our logical apparatus may not be completely warranted, his explanation still nonetheless manages to demonstrate that there is no way around Kant's a priori logic. To recant Mill's original idea in an empiricist twist: "Indeed, the very principles of logical deduction are true because we observe that using them leads to true conclusions", which is itself an a priori presupposition.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics

 

So if these theories are "true" (whatever that means in this context) then one might argue that the idea that 1+1+1=3 is a function, essentially, of the way humans perceive things and the way our brains construct the world as we know it.

 

In other words, the rules of mathematics are "man made", and not "true" in any other sense then that is the way our minds work.

 

So if one wants to believe that "mathematics is true in all worlds", that becomes highly problematic.  And it certainly is not the case that "most philosophers think that" at all.

 

So this whole line of reasoning really misses the point.  We are talking theology here, not the philosophy of mathematics.

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

Math in itself tells us nothing about the world

 

 Yes, 1 object + 1 object + 1 object = 3 objects. 

If the world is dream, if the world is a matrix, if the world is an illusion, 1 + 1 +1 = 3 is still true, that won't change. 

 

Many philosophers say that Math is the only thing that we can be absolutely certain about. 

 

"If in other sciences we should arrive at certainty without doubt and truth without error, it behooves us to place the foundations of knowledge in mathematics" Roger Bacon Opus Majus, Book 1, Chapter 4 

 

"Mathematical certainty is possible only in mathematics, for there alone can we establish absolute identities between terms. Only in mathematics are terms sufficiently simple" - Durkheim's Philosophy Lectures

Edited February 2, 2015 by MormonFreeThinker

[Levi951]

An all too often overlooked portion of the Book of Mormon that helps to illuminate the nature of the Godhead is Lehi's first vision, as described in 1 Nephi 1. There we see God the Father presented as a Man seated on a throne and surrounded by multitudes who worship thie seated Man as God. We also see the Saviour presented as a separate and distinct personage from the Father who presents Lehi with a heavenly book of prophecy that he is commanded to read.

So in this first vision of Lehi we learn that God the Father is a Man with a body that enables him to be seated on a throne; this seated holy Man is recognized as God and worshipped as such by the inhabitants of heaven; the Preexistent Saviour's appearance is in the form of a man; it's possible for a man (in this case Lehi) to see God the Fathet and live, so long as the man seeing God is "in the Spirit."

This first chapter of the Book of a Mormon sets a doctrinal keynote for the rest of the book, providing a 'lens' that clarifies the rest of what the reader will encounter in its pages with regard to the nature of God.

Noting that no one can see the Father and live, so long as the man seeing God is "in the Spirit". What is the official orthodox view on what happened in the grove in Joseph Smith's vision. Someone once explained to me that Joseph Smith was transfigured and that because he was transfigured he was able to endure the Presence. The person also told me that the Father and Son literally appeared in the grove.  She also said that the grove was transfigured so that Heavenly Father could be in it. What does the Church say happened?

[JLHPROF]

Noting that no one can see the Father and live, so long as the man seeing God is "in the Spirit". What is the official orthodox view on what happened in the grove in Joseph Smith's vision. Someone once explained to me that Joseph Smith was transfigured and that because he was transfigured he was able to endure the Presence. The person also told me that the Father and Son literally appeared in the grove.  She also said that the grove was transfigured so that Heavenly Father could be in it. What does the Church say happened?

 

Sounds about right to me, although I'm not sure about the grove also being transfigured.  I suppose it might be - Mt. Sinai and the Burning Bush etc.

But yes, the doctrine is clear that you cannot see the Father and live unless in the spirit.  Therefore Joseph must have been in the spirit in some manner, transfiguration like Mary when she was caught up.

 

The only other real option is that they weren't actually present in the grove, and the vision was exactly that, just a vision.

[Levi951]

I am pretty sure the person was mistaken although growing up in the Church I had always imagined God actually came into the grove. But now I'm pretty sure he was caught up in the Spirit. In several of the first vision accounts it states that "..my mind was taken away from the objects with which I was surrounded"  Wentworth letter.