2 Nephi 11:7

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, snowflake said:

"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.

LDS believe that Jesus physically created everything, under the direction (and with the help) of God the Father.  Both God the Father and Jesus Christ were involved in the creation.  

Jesus can be a spirit child of God the Father and also a God because LDS believe that all of God's spirit children have the potential to become like God.  Jesus is far superior to all other of God's children because He was able to become God without needing a Savior.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour 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..  So finding this scripture which can only make sense within a Trinitarian viewpoint is understandable given the evolution of Joseph's God

The Trinity involves three distinct persons. The question of their being gets complicated and I doubt Joseph had a clue about the nuances of such matters. But from a practical perspective since the Trinity and Mormon doctrine in any of the eras main differ over the question of substantial unity, I think as a practice matter it's all the same. The only question is modalism which some bring up relative to the Book of Mormon. But that's easy to falsify the same way one does in the Bible as I noted earlier. 

The main doctrinal developments Joseph makes are whether the Father is essentially embodied and whether spirits are matter. We can debate whether Joseph saw the Father as a personage whereas in Trinitarian properly only Jesus appears to be (although there is some variation there.) Even the issue of deification is in the Book of Mormon with Moroni 7:48 - although it's clearly not as developed as in Nauvoo. The rejection of creation ex nihilo, while not formally part of the Trinity clearly is a big divide with traditional views. That's not in the Book of Mormon but then it's not in the Bible either and is a pretty nuanced philosophical topic. Certainly Book of Mormon passages like Moroni 7:48 can be read as opposed to creation ex nihilo.

[Johnnie Cake]

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.

Clearly Lindsey and Nibley have their apologetic work arounds and they assume that the changes were made to avoid confusion.  And they are right, from our place in history looking back particularly with our current ability to look back and see what Joseph wrote it would have been confusing had these verses not been altered.  But when you also take other evidence of Joseph's evolving view on the godhead into account...it becomes even more clear that his view on the godhead evolved...see Lectures on faith...and then it becomes even more compelling that the changes were motivated to support Joseph's evolving view of the godhead and not to avoid confusion.  But that's how I see it and you are more then welcome to disagree.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, snowflake said:

"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. 

Because "God" is a priesthood office.
Christ attained it by obedience to law.  His Father obtained it by obedience to law.
And we will attain it by obedience to law.

God is an office, like Christ, Elder, Seventy, High Priest, Apostle, etc.  Jesus was called to be Christ in the premortal council.  He became a God by being obedient to the requirements of Godhood.
(It could also be defined as a race of beings).

I thought even Trinitarians believed Christ to be the mortal/physical manifestion of the Father?  Was there not a time before he manifested (was created)?

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, snowflake said:

"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.

He’s basically saying Christ is God, He created us, and He will come in His own time. Everything taught about the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the Book of Mormon, before and after that one particular verse still holds.

[clarkgoble]

17 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Clearly Lindsey and Nibley have their apologetic work arounds and they assume that the changes were made to avoid confusion.  And they are right, from our place in history looking back particularly with our current ability to look back and see what Joseph wrote it would have been confusing had these verses not been altered.  But when you also take other evidence of Joseph's evolving view on the godhead into account...it becomes even more clear that his view on the godhead evolved...see Lectures on faith...and then it becomes even more compelling that the changes were motivated to support Joseph's evolving view of the godhead and not to avoid confusion.  But that's how I see it and you are more then welcome to disagree.

If ones view is that he shifted from modalism to trinitarianism then those changes would matter. If ones view is that he had a variant of trinitarianism from the beginning (which is what I think 3 Nephi demands) then those changes make no difference. 

Again one has to be pretty explicit about what changed when making these critiques. The idea of a shared substantial unity never was really made clearly by Joseph that I can see. It's strongest proponent was the Pratt brothers. But the concern of the doctrine of the trinity was metaphysics and substance. That just never appears to be Joseph's concern. Indeed he never seems to even find it an interesting topic. His focus is on the anthropology.

Now that is a difference from many interpretations of the trinity (as opposed to the doctrine) which tend to see the father as a platonic abstraction and not a person like a human person in any real sense. Jesus is a human person only due to his birth and the dual natures. Thus Jesus as the premortal Word is still a person only in an allegorical sense. This is especially pronounced in figures like Augustine. 

For Joseph they're all persons not as hypostasis of the scholastics but as regular persons. Thus the big shift for Joseph is from the Father as "other" to the Father as more like Christ to the point of even becoming embodied. That's a big deal but technically is separate from the trinity. I also doesn't have much to do with the question of the metaphysics of oneness as substantial unity. The one place you might point to substantial unity as a concern is how the Spirit is discussed in the Lectures. There the Spirit often isn't spoken as a personage of spirit but as the shared substance of the divinity. This persists into the Utah period with Orson's ontology of the aether as the Spirit and shared spirit of divine beings. Effectively it's a return to the more stoic view of the trinity as found in say Tertullian. However Joseph's later treatment of the Spirit as a personage seems to be present in some sense in the Book of Mormon in places like 1 Nephi 11 even if in other places it seems more abstract. (The same tension is in Orson Pratt's writings)

Again perhaps a break with many theologies of the trinity even if not the doctrine of the trinity proper. But also present from the beginning in the Book of Mormon.

I'm fine talking about the evolution of the godhead. But I think we really have to be very clear in what ways they are evolving and how they relate to the trinity.

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jane_Doe]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Christ attained it by obedience to law.  His Father obtained it by obedience to law.
And we will attain it by obedience to law.

Note: "the law" includes relying on God's almighty power and grace.  For us sinners, it also means accepting Christ as our Savior and His gift of redemption/repentance/atonement.  

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I thought even Trinitarians believed Christ to be the mortal/physical manifestion of the Father?  Was there not a time before he manifested (was created)?

A thorough and careful looking into the Trinity says that the Father IS a different person than Son.  The Spirit is also a different person.  And yes, God can and does have a body (as shown by the Son) and is/was existant before that He came to physically be incarnated.

That is a careful and thorough study of the Trinity.  However, I find that many (if not most) of self professed Trinitarians are actually modalists (which Trinitarians regard as a heresy).  Under the modalist view point, yes Christ/Father/Spirit are all one person and Christ was the Father incarnated.  

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Bobbieaware]

7 hours 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.

 

 

The one God of the LDS Church is a Godhead composed of three separate and distinct -- but perfectly unified -- divine personages, each of who, having free-will and distinct but essential roles to fulfill. There can be no functioning God the Father without there also being a redeeming Son; there can be no functioning God the Son without there also being a presiding Father; there can be no properly functioning God the Father and God the Son without there being the disembodied Testator and revelator known as the Holy Ghost. Each member of the Godhead is utterly reliant and dependent upon the other two members of the Godhead in order for there to be a functioning God. 

Keeping the above in mind, what the prophet Nephi is saying is that there can be no God the Father unless he has a divine Son who serves as the Word of his power and through whom he creates all things. So if there be no Jesus Christ there can be no God the Father. And if there be no Christ there can be no Godhead, for the Father and the Holy Ghost can do nothing without there being a complete, unified, and totally interdependent Godhead of three indispensable personages who fulfill three eternally important and essential roles.

But because there is a unified three personage Godhead that rules over all creation, Christ can rightly be said to be the eternal God, just as the Father is rightly said to be the eternal God. The bottom line is that without the personage of the Son occupying and serving his his rightful place within the Godhead there can be no God.

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[clarkgoble]

26 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because "God" is a priesthood office.
Christ attained it by obedience to law.  His Father obtained it by obedience to law.
And we will attain it by obedience to law.

God is an office, like Christ, Elder, Seventy, High Priest, Apostle, etc.  Jesus was called to be Christ in the premortal council.  He became a God by being obedient to the requirements of Godhood.
(It could also be defined as a race of beings).

Hmm. I'm a bit uncomfortable saying God is just a priesthood office. I get at what you're getting at but I don't think God is akin to Bishop or Elder.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Hmm. I'm a bit uncomfortable saying God is just a priesthood office. I get at what you're getting at but I don't think God is akin to Bishop or Elder.

Why?
Is it the many attributes possessed by God that cause the discomfort?

When a priesthood office is bestowed do we not give all the blessings, keys, and abilities etc necessary to the fulfilling of that office as part of the ordination?
And of course, Joseph did teach that we have to learn to be a God and it will take a lot of time into the eternities before we get there.

[clarkgoble]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?
Is it the many attributes possessed by God that cause the discomfort?

When a priesthood office is bestowed do we not give all the blessings, keys, and abilities etc necessary to the fulfilling of that office as part of the ordination?
And of course, Joseph did teach that we have to learn to be a God and it will take a lot of time into the eternities before we get there.

The issue is that Godness is more than just being an office it's having a certain character and power. That power goes well beyond a few keys and gifts of the spirit. We don't want to say that God's power is just a temporary gift of the spirit the way I might speak in tongues or the like. Rather God is more than that. To reduce the nature of God to an office is to lose what is essential about God IMO.

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Hmm. I'm a bit uncomfortable saying God is just a priesthood office. I get at what you're getting at but I don't think God is akin to Bishop or Elder.

 

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?
Is it the many attributes possessed by God that cause the discomfort?

When a priesthood office is bestowed do we not give all the blessings, keys, and abilities etc necessary to the fulfilling of that office as part of the ordination?
And of course, Joseph did teach that we have to learn to be a God and it will take a lot of time into the eternities before we get there.

In so much as we think of being a Bishop as a "job", I agree with clarkgoble.  If we think of it as being a transformative experience completely changing the person and giving rebirth (something akin to becoming a parent), I agree with JLHPROF.  

Edited May 2, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[snowflake]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Why?
Is it the many attributes possessed by God that cause the discomfort?

When a priesthood office is bestowed do we not give all the blessings, keys, and abilities etc necessary to the fulfilling of that office as part of the ordination?
And of course, Joseph did teach that we have to learn to be a God and it will take a lot of time into the eternities before we get there.

And this "priesthood office" has a Father who has a Father and so on into the eternities?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, snowflake said:

And this "priesthood office" has a Father who has a Father and so on into the eternities?

Yes.
Or else according to some traditional Christian beliefs God existed for all imaginable eternity, but did nothing until he created the universe 6000ish years ago.
He just existed all alone and did nothing.  Then one day decided to make everything.  It just makes things seem meaningless - the first and only creation of time and space by a being for some reason we don't know.
Do traditional Christian's believe God will ever create another earth in the future unending eternities?  Will this ever happen again?

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

This is how Christ becomes King of Kings and Lord of Lords (another priesthood office).  He inherits the right of rule from his Father, and we as joint heirs inherit all that he has.
So he is literally the King of Kings, not just in a poetic sense, but in the priesthood.

[Jane_Doe]

18 minutes ago, snowflake said:

And this "priesthood office" has a Father who has a Father and so on into the eternities?

The answer to that question has not be officially revealed, though it is indeed speculated on.   In either case they would all be ONE God.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Let us see how consistent you are in your scriptural interpretation:

 

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?

 

Bumping for snowflake, who seems not to have noticed my post -- or is steadfastly determined to ignore it.

 

[Johnnie Cake]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bumping for snowflake, who seems not to have noticed my post -- or is steadfastly determined to ignore it.

 

I'm going with ignored...

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

The answer to that question has not be officially revealed, though it is indeed speculated on.   In either case they would all be ONE God.

The Eloheim.  The Council of the God's.  The plural of El.
And yet Eloheim is addressed as an individual.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

And this "priesthood office" has a Father who has a Father and so on into the eternities?

Um, no. There is a lesson here in the Adam-God teaching of BY. Adam holds the key of the Ancient of Days. I believe this has a temporal and a heavenly aspect. So the answer here lies in the Torah and D&C. 

What say you snowflake about the Father when Jesus is called the Eternal Father per Isa 9:6? Will the Father still be the Father? Will Jesus also be the Father? Is that starting to sound like the BoM? Will Jesus still be the Son or does He graduate somehow when He inherits the holy mountains of the Father per Isa 65? To me that is a change which belies the doctrine of the Trinity.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes.
Or else according to some traditional Christian beliefs God existed for all imaginable eternity, but did nothing until he created the universe 6000ish years ago.
He just existed all alone and did nothing.  Then one day decided to make everything.  It just makes things seem meaningless - the first and only creation of time and space by a being for some reason we don't know.
Do traditional Christian's believe God will ever create another earth in the future unending eternities?  Will this ever happen again?

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

This is how Christ becomes King of Kings and Lord of Lords (another priesthood office).  He inherits the right of rule from his Father, and we as joint heirs inherit all that he has.
So he is literally the King of Kings, not just in a poetic sense, but in the priesthood.

The Bible and "scientism" agree that the universe had a beginning. Before Einstein, astronomers and physicists thought that the universe was eternal. Now that is not the case. Time is a physical property linked to length, width, and height and it is subject to gravity too (according to the theory of relativity). The God of the Bible exists outside this dimension, he created the universe.

He did not exist all alone he was in perfect relationship with his son and the holy spirit. 

[snowflake]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Clearly Lindsey and Nibley have their apologetic work arounds and they assume that the changes were made to avoid confusion.  And they are right, from our place in history looking back particularly with our current ability to look back and see what Joseph wrote it would have been confusing had these verses not been altered.  But when you also take other evidence of Joseph's evolving view on the godhead into account...it becomes even more clear that his view on the godhead evolved...see Lectures on faith...and then it becomes even more compelling that the changes were motivated to support Joseph's evolving view of the godhead and not to avoid confusion.  But that's how I see it and you are more then welcome to disagree.

I would agree with you Johnnie Cake. Joseph's view of God and Joseph's church clearly evolve over the years, like his first vision accounts. The BOM in my opinion confirms one God, which Joseph later expands on and ultimately leads to the plurality of gods and the council of gods and humans are gods in utero etc.

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Let us see how consistent you are in your scriptural interpretation:

 

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?

God ordains the marriage relationship, one enters into the relationship to become one with their spouse spiritually. Physically of course you don't merge into a single corporeal being. I often consider my spouse and I as a team, but two individual persons as well.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The Eloheim.  The Council of the God's.  The plural of El.
And yet Eloheim is addressed as an individual.

Technically, Elim is the plural of El. It really only appears in the OT as a name of a place. Jews tend to hide it as a name for palms.

Elohim is the plural of Eloah. Eloah appears mostly in the Torah in reference to being the El of the rock of Israel or the stone of their salvation. i believe its meaning has been largely lost, but is somewhat evident from scripture.

Somewhat akin to the word family, elohim can be used in a singular fashion or in reference to a plural. I believe it refers to the house/family/council of immovable force/s/stone. When the Bible says I am YHWH/Lord your God/Elohim, I think it means something like I am the breath/life/Word of your house/family.

[JLHPROF]

11 minutes ago, snowflake said:

The Bible and "scientism" agree that the universe had a beginning. Before Einstein, astronomers and physicists thought that the universe was eternal. Now that is not the case. Time is a physical property linked to length, width, and height and it is subject to gravity too (according to the theory of relativity). The God of the Bible exists outside this dimension, he created the universe.

He did not exist all alone he was in perfect relationship with his son and the holy spirit. 

Except "son" becomes a poetic term instead of literal description.
And again, apparently they did nothing.  Not much of a God that never moves and never acts.  Kind of a non-entity really.

 

[JLHPROF]

5 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Quote

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?

God ordains the marriage relationship, one enters into the relationship to become one with their spouse spiritually. Physically of course you don't merge into a single corporeal being. I often consider my spouse and I as a team, but two individual persons as well.

Nice dodge.  Doesn't answer the question fully.  If a husband and wife can become one without being one being with two parts why can't God?  The same scriptural language is used to describe both.