snowflake Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 2 Nephi 11:7 reads: 7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time. My question to the board is: If there is "no God" except for Christ, how can the Father be a separate God from the Son?
stemelbow Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, snowflake said: 2 Nephi 11:7 reads: 7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time. My question to the board is: If there is "no God" except for Christ, how can the Father be a separate God from the Son? Define God. In some sense they are the same God, in another they are not. We simply don't favor the structured Trinitarian view of God. There's no homoousion or other foreign aids to read into the text for us. Hope that helps.
Popular Post bluebell Posted May 2, 2017 Popular Post Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) You're misunderstanding what this verse is teaching. It might help you if you look at the footnote to the word 'no'. It will lead you to 2: 13-14, which teaches- 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. 14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. In all three of these verse Nephi is attempting to lay out logically why a belief in God, Christ, and the plan of salvation makes sense. He does this by explaining why Christ was needed and why God would send Him. Nephi teaches that God sent Christ because there is a law, which was transgressed (by the Fall of adam and eve and also by each one of us personally) that had to be redeemed. The very existence of the plan of happiness (the existence of Christ and His Atonement and God's interactions with His children) proves that God exists. Because of who God is (because He exists and is just, because of His love for us, His desire for us to be with Him in the eternities) He sent us Christ to help us. Everything that God does, He does to help us return to Him, and we can't return to Him without Christ. So, the only way there would be no Christ, is if there was no God to send Him. Edited May 2, 2017 by bluebell 5
JLHPROF Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 22 minutes ago, snowflake said: 2 Nephi 11:7 reads: 7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time. My question to the board is: If there is "no God" except for Christ, how can the Father be a separate God from the Son? That's not what it says. It does not say there is no God except Christ. It says there can be no God without Christ. A very different proposition. The way you stated it is Trinitarian. The way the Book of Mormon states it is not. If you define God correctly then you understand what is written here. Christ is God. Heavenly Father is God. The Holy Ghost is God. But they are not one being, so "God" is not referring to a being here. 1
snowflake Posted May 2, 2017 Author Posted May 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, bluebell said: You're misunderstanding what this verse is teaching. It might help you if you look at the footnote to the word 'no'. It will lead you to 2: 13-14, which teaches- 13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. 14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. In all three of these verse Nephi is attempting to lay out logically why a belief in God, Christ, and the plan of salvation makes sense. He does this by explaining why Christ was needed and why God would send Him. Nephi teaches that God sent Christ because there is a law, which was transgressed (by the Fall of adam and eve and also by each one of us personally) that had to be redeemed. The very existence of the plan of happiness (the existence of Christ and His Atonement and God's interactions with His children) proves that God exists. Because of who God is (because He exists and is just, because of His love for us, His desire for us to be with Him in the eternities) He sent us Christ to help us. Everything that God does, He does to help us return to Him, and we can't return to Him without Christ. So, the only way there would be no Christ, is if there was no God to send Him. Joseph taught there is a "pluarality of Gods", the BOM and Bible claim that there is one God, and in this specific verse the BOM claims that there is a God and he is Christ. I agree with you that Nephi teaches why God sent Christ in v.13-14, But I disagree about the message of 2 Nephi 11:7, where Christ is specifically identified as God.
clarkgoble Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 17 minutes ago, snowflake said: Joseph taught there is a "pluarality of Gods", the BOM and Bible claim that there is one God, and in this specific verse the BOM claims that there is a God and he is Christ. I agree with you that Nephi teaches why God sent Christ in v.13-14, But I disagree about the message of 2 Nephi 11:7, where Christ is specifically identified as God. Have to be careful since if there's an unity of divine beings then Christ can be fully God, Christ can be fully one with the Father, and the Father and the Son can be separate beings. The question is always what is meant by one. 2
bluebell Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 28 minutes ago, snowflake said: Joseph taught there is a "pluarality of Gods", the BOM and Bible claim that there is one God, and in this specific verse the BOM claims that there is a God and he is Christ. I agree with you that Nephi teaches why God sent Christ in v.13-14, But I disagree about the message of 2 Nephi 11:7, where Christ is specifically identified as God. The BOM and Bible claim that there is one God the same way that Christ means when He commands His disciples to be one. He doesn't mean literally one but one in purpose and mind. This speech given at BYU by an Apostle of God might help you understand why we believe that Christ is God and also subordinate to God the Father and distinct from Him. 4
snowflake Posted May 2, 2017 Author Posted May 2, 2017 1 hour ago, JLHPROF said: That's not what it says. It does not say there is no God except Christ. It says there can be no God without Christ. A very different proposition. The way you stated it is Trinitarian. The way the Book of Mormon states it is not. If you define God correctly then you understand what is written here. Christ is God. Heavenly Father is God. The Holy Ghost is God. But they are not one being, so "God" is not referring to a being here. Again, as I read it the BOM supports one "being". If there were more than one God it seems like the BOM would just say so.....which it denies. 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. Alma 11:28-29 28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? 29 And he answered, No. And 2nd Nephi 31:21 21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
stemelbow Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: The BOM and Bible claim that there is one God the same way that Christ means when He commands His disciples to be one. He doesn't mean literally one but one in purpose and mind. To be fair the Bible and the BoM each have a bit of a convoluted view on God. neither seems to represent a univocal voice in defining God. They each stray a bit and offer different views. 37 minutes ago, bluebell said: This speech given at BYU by an Apostle of God might help you understand why we believe that Christ is God and also subordinate to God the Father and distinct from Him. 1
stemelbow Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 6 minutes ago, snowflake said: Again, as I read it the BOM supports one "being". If there were more than one God it seems like the BOM would just say so.....which it denies. Not to toot my own horn but the first response you got in this thread addresses this. of course the way you read it. We all carry some amount of prejudice and assumption into the text. one being, in the Trinitarian sense, need not be read into the text. 1
snowflake Posted May 2, 2017 Author Posted May 2, 2017 38 minutes ago, bluebell said: The BOM and Bible claim that there is one God the same way that Christ means when He commands His disciples to be one. He doesn't mean literally one but one in purpose and mind. This speech given at BYU by an Apostle of God might help you understand why we believe that Christ is God and also subordinate to God the Father and distinct from Him. In Isaiah, we learn: Isaiah 45: 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. And in Isaiah 43: 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior. God cannot lie, so if the plurality of Gods as Joseph taught were true, why wouldn't God just say so? Certainly God would know his father, who would have progressed further along than our God no? God denies what Joseph taught.
Johnnie Cake Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, snowflake said: 2 Nephi 11:7 reads: 7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time. My question to the board is: If there is "no God" except for Christ, how can the Father be a separate God from the Son? The Book of Mormon was written with a Trinitarian God in mind...Later as Joseph's view of God evolved to 3 distinct and separate beings the book was edited to reflect this changing viewpoint.. So finding this scripture which can only make sense within a Trinitarian viewpoint is understandable given the evolution of Joseph's God Edited May 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
JLHPROF Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 30 minutes ago, snowflake said: Again, as I read it the BOM supports one "being". If there were more than one God it seems like the BOM would just say so.....which it denies. 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. Alma 11:28-29 28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? 29 And he answered, No. And 2nd Nephi 31:21 21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. Again, yes, it says they are one God. Just like the Secretaries of Defense, Commerce, State, Treasury etc are one Cabinet. There is no scriptural reason to make the jump from 3 entities in the Godhead being 3 manifestations of 1 entity. 2
probablyHagoth7 Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: The Book of Mormon was written with a Trinitarian God in mind...Later as Joseph's view of God evolved to 3 distinct and separate beings the book was edited to reflect this changing viewpoint.. Care to provide a specific example or two of such things, with before and after citations? Much appreciated.
JLHPROF Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: The Book of Mormon was written with a tritarian God in mind...Later as Joseph's view of God evolved to 3 distinct and separate beings the book was edited to reflect this changing viewpoint.. So finding this scripture which can only make sense within a tritarian viewpoint is understandable given the evolution of Joseph's God I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that Joseph had a progressive understanding of God. That what he taught in early Kirtland was superseded by his increased understanding in the Nauvoo period. In much the same way as the teachings and understanding of Christ's apostles was changed in the opposite direction by the early Church Fathers who established the trinity progressively over a couple of centuries.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Joseph taught there is a "pluarality of Gods", the BOM and Bible claim that there is one God, and in this specific verse the BOM claims that there is a God and he is Christ. I agree with you that Nephi teaches why God sent Christ in v.13-14, But I disagree about the message of 2 Nephi 11:7, where Christ is specifically identified as God. Let us see how consistent you are in your scriptural interpretation: Quote 7 For this cause shall a aman leave his father and mother, and cleave to his bwife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath ajoined together, let not man put basunder. Matthew 10:8 Is this saying that a husband and wife are to literally merge themselves into a single corporeal being? That is, no longer two individual persons, but rather, a single entity, not in any figurative sense, but quite literally? What say you, snowflake? 2
snowflake Posted May 2, 2017 Author Posted May 2, 2017 47 minutes ago, stemelbow said: To be fair the Bible and the BoM each have a bit of a convoluted view on God. neither seems to represent a univocal voice in defining God. They each stray a bit and offer different views. I thought McConkey is considered "unofficial" and borderline heresy now days.
Johnnie Cake Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 (edited) 34 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said: Care to provide a specific example or two of such things, with before and after citations? Much appreciated. How about 3: And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.(1830) And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God. (1 Nephi 11:18) (Current altered text) And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father! (1830) And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father! (1 Nephi 11:21) (Current altered text) These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. (1830) These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. (1 Nephi 13:40) (Current altered text) Edited May 2, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
bluebell Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 11 minutes ago, snowflake said: I thought McConkey is considered "unofficial" and borderline heresy now days. Not at all. He was an apostle, well-beloved and in good standing, equal with all other apostles in authority. He wrote a book titled "mormon doctrine" that is unofficial and which contained some ideas that are not mormon doctrine and probably border on heresy today. 1
JLHPROF Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 9 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: How about 3: And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.(1830) And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God. (1 Nephi 11:18) (Current altered text) And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father! (1830) And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father! (1 Nephi 11:21) (Current altered text) These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. (1830) These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. (1 Nephi 13:40) (Current altered text) Yes, some were changed, but both versions are correct. There was a lack of understanding as to how Christ goes from being the Son of the Father to being the Father by inheriting us. But both phrases (Son of the Father AND the Father) remain in the Book of Mormon. Because both are correct. Really not sure why they bothered changing some but not all. 1
bluebell Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 14 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.(1830) And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God. (1 Nephi 11:18) (Current altered text) And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Eternal Father! (1830) And the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, even the Son of the Eternal Father! (1 Nephi 11:21) (Current altered text) These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. (1830) These last records…shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world. (1 Nephi 13:40) (Current altered text) The changes on their own don't automatically mean that JS wrote the BOM to teach trinitarianism and then changed it when his beliefs changed. From Jeff Lindsay's site, showing other reasonable interpretations- "The most commonly criticized changes involve thrice clarifying which member of the Godhead was meant in a passage (1 Nephi 11) describing the future ministry of Christ and the "condescension of God." Robert L. Millet explains what was changed in The Power Of The Word: Saving Doctrines from the Book of Mormon, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company (1994), pp. 11-12: The condescension of God the Son consists in the coming to earth of the great Jehovah, the Lord God Omnipotent, the God of the ancients. The 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon contains the following words from the angel to Nephi: "Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh" (1 Nephi 11:18; italics added). The angel later said unto Nephi regarding the vision of the Christ child, "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, the Eternal Father!" (1 Nephi 11:21; italics added; compare 1 Nephi 13:40, 1830 edition). Later in the same vision of the ministry of Christ, the angel spoke, saying, "Look! And I looked," Nephi added, "and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record" (1 Nephi 11:32; italics added). In the 1837 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith the Prophet changed these verses to read "the mother of the Son of God," "the Son of the Eternal Father," and "the Son of the everlasting God," respectively (italics added). It would appear that the Prophet made these textual alterations to assist the Latter-day Saints in fully understanding the meaning of the expressions. It may also be that Joseph Smith altered these verses to make certain that no reader - member or nonmember - would confuse the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Father and the Son with that of other Christian denominations, particularly the Roman Catholic Church. See an article by Oliver Cowdery, "Trouble in the West," in Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate, I (April 1835), p. 105. [This paragraph is a footnote to the preceding paragraph in Millet's book.] Hugh Nibley also discusses these changes (Since Cumorah, p. 6): In the first edition Mary is referred to as "the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh" (1 Nephi 11:18); the insertion in later editions of "the Son of God" is simply put in to make it clear that the second person of the godhead is meant, and thereby avoid confusion, since during the theological controversies of the early Middle Ages the expression "mother of God" took on a special connotation which it still has for many Christians. Three verses later (1 Nephi 11:21), the declaration of the angels, "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!" has been augmented in later editions to "even the Son of the Eternal Father!" to avoid confusion: in this passage the Eternal Father is possibly in apposition not to "Lamb" but to "God" -- he is the Lamb of God-the-Eternal-Father. But that might not be obvious to most readers, and so to avoid trouble, and without in the least changing the meaning of the text, the Lamb of God is made equivalent to the Son of the Eternal Father. Both ideas are quite correct, and there is no conflict between them. Many critics have tried to say that Joseph originally believed in the Trinitarian concept of God when he wrote the Book of Mormon, but later changed his mind and changed the text to indicate that God and the Son of God are distinct persons. This argument is without foundation. The original manuscript (O) and every printed version of the Book of Mormon makes it clear in multiple places that Christ and God are distinct beings (e.g., 2 Nephi 25 and 2 Nephi 31). Even in the very chapter where Joseph Smith made the changes, the Original Manuscript and the present Book of Mormon speak of the Messiah as the Son of God, for verse 24 of 1 Nephi 11 reads: "And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him." This is consistent with the alterations made by Joseph. There is no change in meaning, only a helpful clarification for modern readers. Though God the Father and Christ are distinct beings, Christ as a member of the perfectly united Godhead can bear the title of "God" as well as "Eternal Father." Book of Mormon writers lived long before the confusing post-Biblical, Neo-Platonic doctrine of the Trinity had been formulated. They could use the various titles for Christ without misunderstanding what is meant (compare Mosiah 15:4; 16:15; Alma 11:38-39). For the benefit of modern readers, however, the changes noted above in the Book of Mormon help eliminate potential confusion. 1
clarkgoble Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 35 minutes ago, snowflake said: I thought McConkey is considered "unofficial" and borderline heresy now days. I don't think the vast majority of thing McConkie wrote are controversial in the least. Indeed I think his Doctrinal New Testament Commentary still has pretty significant deep sections. There are obviously some things he portrayed as doctrine that weren't. I think the biggest problem was less McConkie than how some members inappropriately put his book Mormon Doctrine as a near replacement for scripture. 1
probablyHagoth7 Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 25 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: How about 3: Thank you.
Jane_Doe Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 2 hours ago, snowflake said: Joseph taught there is a "pluarality of Gods", the BOM and Bible claim that there is one God, and in this specific verse the BOM claims that there is a God and he is Christ. I agree with you that Nephi teaches why God sent Christ in v.13-14, But I disagree about the message of 2 Nephi 11:7, where Christ is specifically identified as God. There are multiple persons in ONE God. Both Trinitarians and LDS believe this. The difference between the two views is *how* this multiple persons are ONE God. LDS point to unification, which is Biblically support such as during the Intercessory Prayer. The Creeds introduces the idea of homoousian and relies on that. The Nephi verses do NOT teach homoousian and should not be looked at through that non-scriptural lens. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: Again, as I read it the BOM supports one "being". That is you imposing a foreign lens of this that should not be there. You of course are free to do that (or anything else you want), but that is expressly *not* LDS doctrine and you are falsely understanding/representing LDS beliefs by imposing creedal-ordinated ideas here. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: If there were more than one God it seems like the BOM would just say so.....which it denies. 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. Alma 11:28-29 28 Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? 29 And he answered, No. And 2nd Nephi 31:21 21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: In Isaiah, we learn: Isaiah 45: 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the Lord, and there is none else. And in Isaiah 43: 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior. Again, LDS belief that there is ONE God consisting of multiple persons. This has been stated many times. What we reject is the creed originated idea of homoousian. 1 hour ago, snowflake said: God cannot lie, so if the plurality of Gods as Joseph taught were true, why wouldn't God just say so? Certainly God would know his father, who would have progressed further along than our God no? God denies what Joseph taught. They are all ONE God. 1
snowflake Posted May 2, 2017 Author Posted May 2, 2017 22 minutes ago, bluebell said: Not at all. He was an apostle, well-beloved and in good standing, equal with all other apostles in authority. He wrote a book titled "mormon doctrine" that is unofficial and which contained some ideas that are not mormon doctrine and probably border on heresy today. "All of us, Christ included, are the spirit children of the Father". McConkey How can Jesus be the spirit child of the Father when the BOM identifies Jesus as God ?. In other words, this verse states there could have been no creation without Jesus, but Joseph teaches that Jesus was created, affirmed by McConkey. Again back to 2 Nephi 11:7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.
Recommended Posts