Benjamin Seeker Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 I know this is a faithful forum and I’m not trying to attack personal beliefs with this thread, so please don’t interpret it that way. Instead, if you disagree, poke holes in my argument or generally try to wreck it. I have recently become convinced that the earliest revelations and translations contain the idea that the Father and Jesus are essentially different versions of the same being. Evidences include: - 1830, Moses 7. Enoch has a vision of God, who reveals himself as the Man of Holiness and promises Enoch that the Son of Man will come in the meridian of time. At another point Enoch petitions God, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ,” making God’s identity as the Father very apparent. After seeing an overview of Christ’s ministry, Enoch asks God when he will again come on the earth, and God responds that he will come in the last days. Amidst this question Enoch again refers to God’s Only Begotten, keeping God the Father’s identity clear, but equating him with the Son of man at the same time with the word again, which God confirms with his last days promise in response. - 1829, Ether 3. When God appears to the Brother of Jared, he is the pre-mortal Christ. He states, “I am the Father and the Son.” - Mosiah 7. Christ is “God, the Father of all things,” and he will come down and put on the image of man. - Mosiah 15. “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 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--The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.” - Alma 11. Amulek explains that there isn’t more than one God, but the Son of God that will come is the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. - 1831 or 32, JST Luke 10:23. “No man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.” - 1830, D&C 29. God speaks as the Father and then as the Son in different portions of the revelation with no transition. - 1832 History. Joseph prays to the “Lord,” and the “Lord” Jesus Christ appears to him. This prayer language echoes Enoch’s petition to the Father, “O Lord,” in Moses 7. Passages that seem to run afoul of a straight forward modalistic interpretation of the above include: - 1830, Moses 4. Verse 2 has the Father recounting the Only Begotten speaking to him and essentially volunteering to be the Savior. - Moses 2:26. During the creation the Father speaks unto his Only Begotten, which was with him from the beginning. - Feb. 1832, D&C 76. JS and Sidney see Christ on the right hand of God. 4
Bobbieaware Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 10 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I know this is a faithful forum and I’m not trying to attack personal beliefs with this thread, so please don’t interpret it that way. Instead, if you disagree, poke holes in my argument or generally try to wreck it. I have recently become convinced that the earliest revelations and translations contain the idea that the Father and Jesus are essentially different versions of the same being. Evidences include: - 1830, Moses 7. Enoch has a vision of God, who reveals himself as the Man of Holiness and promises Enoch that the Son of Man will come in the meridian of time. At another point Enoch petitions God, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ,” making God’s identity as the Father very apparent. After seeing an overview of Christ’s ministry, Enoch asks God when he will again come on the earth, and God responds that he will come in the last days. Amidst this question Enoch again refers to God’s Only Begotten, keeping God the Father’s identity clear, but equating him with the Son of man at the same time with the word again, which God confirms with his last days promise in response. - 1829, Ether 3. When God appears to the Brother of Jared, he is the pre-mortal Christ. He states, “I am the Father and the Son.” - Mosiah 7. Christ is “God, the Father of all things,” and he will come down and put on the image of man. - Mosiah 15. “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 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--The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.” - Alma 11. Amulek explains that there isn’t more than one God, but the Son of God that will come is the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. - 1831 or 32, JST Luke 10:23. “No man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.” - 1830, D&C 29. God speaks as the Father and then as the Son in different portions of the revelation with no transition. - 1832 History. Joseph prays to the “Lord,” and the “Lord” Jesus Christ appears to him. This prayer language echoes Enoch’s petition to the Father, “O Lord,” in Moses 7. Passages that seem to run afoul of a straight forward modalistic interpretation of the above include: - 1830, Moses 4. Verse 2 has the Father recounting the Only Begotten speaking to him and essentially volunteering to be the Savior. - Moses 2:26. During the creation the Father speaks unto his Only Begotten, which was with him from the beginning. - Feb. 1832, D&C 76. JS and Sidney see Christ on the right hand of God. In Lehi’s firtst vision, he sees the Father and the Son as two separate and distinct human personages: 8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read. (1 Nephi 1) 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 16, 2017 Author Posted December 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: In Lehi’s firtst vision, he sees the Father and the Son as two separate and distinct human personages: 8 And being thus overcome with the Spirit, he was carried away in a vision, even that he saw the heavens open, and he thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels in the attitude of singing and praising their God. 9 And it came to pass that he saw One descending out of the midst of heaven, and he beheld that his luster was above that of the sun at noon-day. 10 And he also saw twelve others following him, and their brightness did exceed that of the stars in the firmament. 11 And they came down and went forth upon the face of the earth; and the first came and stood before my father, and gave unto him a book, and bade him that he should read. (1 Nephi 1) Great. This could be another strike against modalism, but because it’s not clear whether the two are seen simultaneously or not it’s not super strong.
mfbukowski Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I know this is a faithful forum and I’m not trying to attack personal beliefs with this thread, so please don’t interpret it that way. Instead, if you disagree, poke holes in my argument or generally try to wreck it. I have recently become convinced that the earliest revelations and translations contain the idea that the Father and Jesus are essentially different versions of the same being. Evidences include: - 1830, Moses 7. Enoch has a vision of God, who reveals himself as the Man of Holiness and promises Enoch that the Son of Man will come in the meridian of time. At another point Enoch petitions God, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ,” making God’s identity as the Father very apparent. After seeing an overview of Christ’s ministry, Enoch asks God when he will again come on the earth, and God responds that he will come in the last days. Amidst this question Enoch again refers to God’s Only Begotten, keeping God the Father’s identity clear, but equating him with the Son of man at the same time with the word again, which God confirms with his last days promise in response. - 1829, Ether 3. When God appears to the Brother of Jared, he is the pre-mortal Christ. He states, “I am the Father and the Son.” - Mosiah 7. Christ is “God, the Father of all things,” and he will come down and put on the image of man. - Mosiah 15. “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 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--The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.” - Alma 11. Amulek explains that there isn’t more than one God, but the Son of God that will come is the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. - 1831 or 32, JST Luke 10:23. “No man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.” - 1830, D&C 29. God speaks as the Father and then as the Son in different portions of the revelation with no transition. - 1832 History. Joseph prays to the “Lord,” and the “Lord” Jesus Christ appears to him. This prayer language echoes Enoch’s petition to the Father, “O Lord,” in Moses 7. Passages that seem to run afoul of a straight forward modalistic interpretation of the above include: - 1830, Moses 4. Verse 2 has the Father recounting the Only Begotten speaking to him and essentially volunteering to be the Savior. - Moses 2:26. During the creation the Father speaks unto his Only Begotten, which was with him from the beginning. - Feb. 1832, D&C 76. JS and Sidney see Christ on the right hand of God. Rigdon apparently had learned much about Swedenborg from Alexander Cambell's beliefs, and in fact this is Swedenborg's view- that Jehovah and Jesus were the same person- that the being we call "The Father" came to earth in the person of Jesus. The story of the connection between Sidney Rigdon and Swedenborg is found in the BYU article linked here At least that is my recollection in my tiredness Too tired to look it all up but here is a quote and a couple of links. I personally don't care where the doctrine came from- what is important to me is whether or not it is consistent and as far as I can tell it is a consistent way of viewing the gospel. My problem with it is that it denies the "social trinity" aspect of three persons, but if one reads Joseph carefully especially in the early stuff the Holy Ghost is virtually never mentioned and I have always felt that our doctrine about the HG is rather vague. Of course we have justifications for that, but there have been a lot of discussions hereabouts regarding the ambiguity of the doctrine. I have been studying Swedenborg of late- VERY interesting stuff. https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/joseph-smith-emanuel-swedenborg-and-section-76 https://swedenborg.com/why-jesus-was-born/ Quote Swedenborg 89: 89. (3) God assumed the human in accordance with his Divine order. In the section that treats of Divine omnipotence and omniscience it has been shown that God introduced order into the universe and into each and all things of it at the time of their creation, and therefore his omnipotence in the universe and in each and all things of it, proceeds and operates in accordance with the laws of his order. (This has already been treated of consecutively, n. 49–74. ) Since, then, it was God who descended, and since (as is there shown) he is order itself, it was necessary, if he was to become man actually, that he should be conceived, carried in the womb, born, educated, acquire knowledges gradually, and thereby be introduced into intelligence and wisdom. In respect to his human he was, for this reason, an infant like other infants, a boy like other boys, and so on; with the sole difference that this development was accomplished in him more quickly, more fully, and more perfectly than in others. That this development was in accordance with order is evident from these words in Luke: And the child Jesus grew and waxed strong in spirit. And Jesus advanced in wisdom, and in the stages of life, and in favor with God and man (Luke 2:40, 52). TRUE CHRISTIAN RELIGION 144 That this was done more quickly, more fully, and more perfectly than with others is evident from what is said of him in the same gospel, that: When he was twelve years old he sat in the temple in the midst of the doctors and taught them and that all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers (Luke 2:46–47; 4:16–22, 32). This took place because Divine order requires that man should prepare himself for the reception of God; and in proportion as he prepares himself, God enters into him as into his dwelling place and home; and this preparation is effected by means of knowledges respecting God and the spiritual things pertaining to the church, and thus by means of intelligence and wisdom. For it is a law of order that in proportion as man approaches and gets near to God (which he must do wholly as if of himself) does God approach and get near to man, and conjoin himself with man in man’s interiors. It was in accordance with this order that the Lord progressed even to a oneness with his Father, as will be further shown in what follows. This is a quote from a commentator teaching Swedenborg's doctrine as found in "True Christian Religion" 89, a volume written by S. The other link is to a fascinating talk out of BYU regarding various "influences" S had on Joseph - Allegedly through Sidney Rigdon- and the historical connections that made such influences possible. Remember all to follow Alma 32 and see if this doctrine is "true" by testimony- learn for yourself with God teaching you and do not worry about what any human tells you- go with your heart. Edited December 16, 2017 by mfbukowski 3
Bobbieaware Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 44 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I know this is a faithful forum and I’m not trying to attack personal beliefs with this thread, so please don’t interpret it that way. Instead, if you disagree, poke holes in my argument or generally try to wreck it. I have recently become convinced that the earliest revelations and translations contain the idea that the Father and Jesus are essentially different versions of the same being. Evidences include: - 1830, Moses 7. Enoch has a vision of God, who reveals himself as the Man of Holiness and promises Enoch that the Son of Man will come in the meridian of time. At another point Enoch petitions God, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ,” making God’s identity as the Father very apparent. After seeing an overview of Christ’s ministry, Enoch asks God when he will again come on the earth, and God responds that he will come in the last days. Amidst this question Enoch again refers to God’s Only Begotten, keeping God the Father’s identity clear, but equating him with the Son of man at the same time with the word again, which God confirms with his last days promise in response. - 1829, Ether 3. When God appears to the Brother of Jared, he is the pre-mortal Christ. He states, “I am the Father and the Son.” - Mosiah 7. Christ is “God, the Father of all things,” and he will come down and put on the image of man. - Mosiah 15. “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 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--The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.” - Alma 11. Amulek explains that there isn’t more than one God, but the Son of God that will come is the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. - 1831 or 32, JST Luke 10:23. “No man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.” - 1830, D&C 29. God speaks as the Father and then as the Son in different portions of the revelation with no transition. - 1832 History. Joseph prays to the “Lord,” and the “Lord” Jesus Christ appears to him. This prayer language echoes Enoch’s petition to the Father, “O Lord,” in Moses 7. Passages that seem to run afoul of a straight forward modalistic interpretation of the above include: - 1830, Moses 4. Verse 2 has the Father recounting the Only Begotten speaking to him and essentially volunteering to be the Savior. - Moses 2:26. During the creation the Father speaks unto his Only Begotten, which was with him from the beginning. - Feb. 1832, D&C 76. JS and Sidney see Christ on the right hand of God. Throughout most of 3 Nephi, the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly testifies that the Father commanded him to do many things as He ministered among the Nephites, even going as far as to say that when He, the Savior, completes his many assignments the Father himself will then commence to do his own salvative work among the children of men. When a person with common sense and reason reads 3 Nephi and accepts the plain meaning of its text at face values, it’s hard to imagine the Father is speaking to himself as if he is another person. What follows is a typical example of the narrative in 3 Nephi where the Savior clearly speaks of his Father as being a another separate and distinct person... 9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you; 10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it. 11 But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return. 12 For their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you. 13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— 15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. 16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. (3 Nephi 27) Edited December 16, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 16, 2017 Author Posted December 16, 2017 24 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: Throughout most of 3 Nephi, the Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly testifies that the Father commanded him to do many things as He ministered among the Nephites, even going as far as to say that when He, the Savior, completes his many assignments the Father himself will then commence to do his own salvative work among the children of men. When a person with common sense and reason reads 3 Nephi and accepts the plain meaning of its text at face values, it’s hard to imagine the Father is speaking to himself as if he is another person. What follows is a typical example of the narrative in 3 Nephi where the Savior clearly speaks of his Father as being a another separate and distinct person... 9 Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you; 10 And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it. 11 But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return. 12 For their works do follow them, for it is because of their works that they are hewn down; therefore remember the things that I have told you. 13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil— 15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. 16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. (3 Nephi 27) However, this is exactly kind of the stuff we get in Moses 7. God the Father talks about the Son, Enoch sees the Son in vision and his ascent “to the Father,” and then both Enoch and the Father acknowledge His equivalency with the Son.
mfbukowski Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 15 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: However, this is exactly kind of the stuff we get in Moses 7. God the Father talks about the Son, Enoch sees the Son in vision and his ascent “to the Father,” and then both Enoch and the Father acknowledge His equivalency with the Son. I think this whole area is full of many opportunities for language to get in the way, because it is precisely the same kind of discussion we get into in the Trinity, how one being can be two or two can be one. Of course the trinity adds a third. And then to complicate it all we have "Divine Investiture" where even angels speak AS IF they are the Father or the Son, operating "on assignment" to deliver a message So trying to parse the terminology I think is not possible. Too ambiguous- you get the same words like "One" and So I think that it is a bit hard to discuss outside of the traditional church explanation of three persons who are one in purpose and understand that the scriptures themselves do not express it well either. After all those words all came from the pen of a human being expressing the inexpressible as they received it from God. To know God in words is to automatically limit him to squiggles on the page.
Bobbieaware Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 7 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: However, this is exactly kind of the stuff we get in Moses 7. God the Father talks about the Son, Enoch sees the Son in vision and his ascent “to the Father,” and then both Enoch and the Father acknowledge His equivalency with the Son. The 1830 3rd Nephi narrative works perfectly and 100% harmoniously with the canonized Nauvoo period doctrinal presentation of the Father and Son as being two separate and distinct personages. 1) The Son is commanded by the Father and the Son obeys. 2) The Son prays and pleads with the Father and the Father answers from the precincts of heaven with blessings. 3) The Son is ministering to the Nephites on earth while the Father is elsewhere, namely heaven. 4) The Son testifies that he has a specifiv mission of salvation to perform among the children of men, and that after he has done all he has been commanded to do the Father will perform specific salvative labors of his own. 5) The Father, who dwells in heaven, sends the Son to minister on earth. 6) The Son, who has been sent by the Father to minister to men on earth, says he will return to the Father who is then dwelling in heaven. 7) The Son commands tthe Nephites to be perfect as both he and his Father are perfect. ... and on and on. You can mystify and spiritualize away all these plain and easy to understand examples of the Father and Son scriptural narrative if you wish, but I choose to take all these things at their obviously intended face value and rejoice in the fact that the text of 3 Nephi harmonizes perfectly with the Nauvoo period teachings on there being two separate and distinct personages of Father and Son. Edited December 16, 2017 by Bobbieaware 1
Atheist Mormon Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I know this is a faithful forum and I’m not trying to attack personal beliefs with this thread, so please don’t interpret it that way. Instead, if you disagree, poke holes in my argument or generally try to wreck it. Why should anyone attempt to misinterpret your quotes from the past? You did not falsify any of them...... 2
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 16, 2017 Author Posted December 16, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: The 1830 3rd Nephi narrative works perfectly and 100% harmoniously with the canonized Nauvoo period doctrinal presentation of the Father and Son as being two separate and distinct personages. 1) The Son is commanded by the Father and the Son obeys. 2) The Son prays and pleads with the Father and the Father answers from the precincts of heaven with blessings. 3) The Son is ministering to the Nephites on earth while the Father is elsewhere, namely heaven. 4) The Son testifies that he has a specifiv mission of salvation to perform among the children of men, and that after he has done all he has been commanded to do the Father will perform specific salvative labors of his own. 5) The Father, who dwells in heaven, sends the Son to minister on earth. 6) The Son, who has been sent by the Father to minister to men on earth, says he will return to the Father who is then dwelling in heaven. 7) The Son commands tthe Nephites to be perfect as both he and his Father are perfect. ... and on and on. You can mystify and spiritualize away all these plain and easy to understand examples of the Father and Son scriptural narrative if you wish, but I choose to take all these things at their obviously intended face value and rejoice in the fact that the text of 3 Nephi harmonizes perfectly with the Nauvoo period teachings on there being two separate and distinct personages of Father and Son. Bobbie, I’m not trying to mystify, and I agree that 3rd Nephi appears straight forward. I’m approaching this as a historian, and I’m not suggesting anyone adopt the doctrine that I’m pointing out. Would you mind carefully reading Moses 7 and seeing how you would interpret what I’ve laid out there? Edited December 16, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 16, 2017 Author Posted December 16, 2017 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Rigdon apparently had learned much about Swedenborg from Alexander Cambell's beliefs, and in fact this is Swedenborg's view- that Jehovah and Jesus were the same person- that the being we call "The Father" came to earth in the person of Jesus. The story of the connection between Sidney Rigdon and Swedenborg is found in the BYU article linked here At least that is my recollection in my tiredness Too tired to look it all up but here is a quote and a couple of links. I personally don't care where the doctrine came from- what is important to me is whether or not it is consistent and as far as I can tell it is a consistent way of viewing the gospel. My problem with it is that it denies the "social trinity" aspect of three persons, but if one reads Joseph carefully especially in the early stuff the Holy Ghost is virtually never mentioned and I have always felt that our doctrine about the HG is rather vague. Of course we have justifications for that, but there have been a lot of discussions hereabouts regarding the ambiguity of the doctrine. I have been studying Swedenborg of late- VERY interesting stuff. https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/selected-articles/joseph-smith-emanuel-swedenborg-and-section-76 https://swedenborg.com/why-jesus-was-born/ This is a quote from a commentator teaching Swedenborg's doctrine as found in "True Christian Religion" 89, a volume written by S. The other link is to a fascinating talk out of BYU regarding various "influences" S had on Joseph - Allegedly through Sidney Rigdon- and the historical connections that made such influences possible. Remember all to follow Alma 32 and see if this doctrine is "true" by testimony- learn for yourself with God teaching you and do not worry about what any human tells you- go with your heart. I just started learning about Swedenborg’s expansionalist modalism yesterday. Pretty interesting stuff. The problem with using Sidney Rigdon as a connective point is he doesn’t become involved until after the BOM is finished, and clearly this doctrine can be found in the BOM.
RevTestament Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 14 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I know this is a faithful forum and I’m not trying to attack personal beliefs with this thread, so please don’t interpret it that way. Instead, if you disagree, poke holes in my argument or generally try to wreck it. I have recently become convinced that the earliest revelations and translations contain the idea that the Father and Jesus are essentially different versions of the same being. Evidences include: - 1830, Moses 7. Enoch has a vision of God, who reveals himself as the Man of Holiness and promises Enoch that the Son of Man will come in the meridian of time. At another point Enoch petitions God, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ,” making God’s identity as the Father very apparent. After seeing an overview of Christ’s ministry, Enoch asks God when he will again come on the earth, and God responds that he will come in the last days. Amidst this question Enoch again refers to God’s Only Begotten, keeping God the Father’s identity clear, but equating him with the Son of man at the same time with the word again, which God confirms with his last days promise in response. - 1829, Ether 3. When God appears to the Brother of Jared, he is the pre-mortal Christ. He states, “I am the Father and the Son.” - Mosiah 7. Christ is “God, the Father of all things,” and he will come down and put on the image of man. - Mosiah 15. “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 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--The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son--And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.” - Alma 11. Amulek explains that there isn’t more than one God, but the Son of God that will come is the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. - 1831 or 32, JST Luke 10:23. “No man knoweth that the son is the Father, and that the Father is the son.” - 1830, D&C 29. God speaks as the Father and then as the Son in different portions of the revelation with no transition. - 1832 History. Joseph prays to the “Lord,” and the “Lord” Jesus Christ appears to him. This prayer language echoes Enoch’s petition to the Father, “O Lord,” in Moses 7. Passages that seem to run afoul of a straight forward modalistic interpretation of the above include: - 1830, Moses 4. Verse 2 has the Father recounting the Only Begotten speaking to him and essentially volunteering to be the Savior. - Moses 2:26. During the creation the Father speaks unto his Only Begotten, which was with him from the beginning. - Feb. 1832, D&C 76. JS and Sidney see Christ on the right hand of God. 12 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: However, this is exactly kind of the stuff we get in Moses 7. God the Father talks about the Son, Enoch sees the Son in vision and his ascent “to the Father,” and then both Enoch and the Father acknowledge His equivalency with the Son. 2 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Bobbie, I’m not trying to mystify, and I agree that 3rd Nephi appears straight forward. I’m approaching this as a historian, and I’m not suggesting anyone adopt the doctrine that I’m pointing out. Would you mind carefully reading Moses 7 and seeing how you would interpret what I’ve laid out there? I find this almost ironic that after thousands of years, man is still trying to understand the Godhead, when we have so much revealed to us through Joseph Smith. That includes myself, so I hope I don't in the least way come off as condescending here, but there are just many ways one can understand the scriptures on point in order to harmonize them. How can the Son be the Father? I now accept what He plainly said, and what was noted by JS - He laid His life down for us, even as He had seen the Father do. So, when He was teaching the apostles, He said, those who have seen me, have seen the Father. He is saying He is doing what He had seen the Father do. So when people were looking upon Him, and watching Him, they were seeing exactly what the Father had done. If one accepts that, it has huge implications for their understanding of the Godhead. So, the Father not only sent the Son to be our Savior, but as His representative, His legal agent, empowered to represent the Father here on earth. This is something He doesn't come out and say in so many words. Why? It is there if you put all the pieces of the puzzles together. Could it be that He was teaching by example? Could it be that he is still looking for people who will follow him? So much in the scriptures scream yes. Modern Christianity teaches no - just believe in Him - maybe pray for forgiveness, and go home. Don't worry about works - that is for the self-righteous. The two interpretations end in very different results. One is in people with whom the spirit ceases to strive. The other is in people who are at least trying to live godly lives. I know these are somewhat overly broad generalities, but I think there is truth there. Anyway, applying this analysis definitely answers your questions. The Son cannot literally be Heavenly Father if the Father sends Him, and the Son prays to Him - that results in a somewhat schizophrenic God, which is the problem with modalism. 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 16, 2017 Author Posted December 16, 2017 5 minutes ago, RevTestament said: I find this almost ironic that after thousands of years, man is still trying to understand the Godhead, when we have so much revealed to us through Joseph Smith. That includes myself, so I hope I don't in the least way come off as condescending here, but there are just many ways one can understand the scriptures on point in order to harmonize them. How can the Son be the Father? I now accept what He plainly said, and what was noted by JS - He laid His life down for us, even as He had seen the Father do. So, when He was teaching the apostles, He said, those who have seen me, have seen the Father. He is saying He is doing what He had seen the Father do. So when people were looking upon Him, and watching Him, they were seeing exactly what the Father had done. If one accepts that, it has huge implications for their understanding of the Godhead. So, the Father not only sent the Son to be our Savior, but as His representative, His legal agent, empowered to represent the Father here on earth. This is something He doesn't come out and say in so many words. Why? It is there if you put all the pieces of the puzzles together. Could it be that He was teaching by example? Could it be that he is still looking for people who will follow him? So much in the scriptures scream yes. Modern Christianity teaches no - just believe in Him - maybe pray for forgiveness, and go home. Don't worry about works - that is for the self-righteous. The two interpretations end in very different results. One is in people with whom the spirit ceases to strive. The other is in people who are at least trying to live godly lives. I know these are somewhat overly broad generalities, but I think there is truth there. Anyway, applying this analysis definitely answers your questions. The Son cannot literally be Heavenly Father if the Father sends Him, and the Son prays to Him - that results in a somewhat schizophrenic God, which is the problem with modalism. Yet some kind of modalistic interpretation of Enoch’s and God’s exchange in Moses 7 appears to be the most straight forward, especially since JS doesn’t teach the theology you’re giving for another decade +. Enoch prays, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten,” and then after seeing the earthly ministry asks when He will come again to earth. God responds in the last days. This implies more than perfectly similar roles and acts, but instead gets at a root shared being of some sort. Then there are all of these strong statements in early revelations/translations that are consistent with this idea, and I don’t believe there are such strongly suggestive statements later on. Instead, discussion moves to explaining their separate yet unified nature. I think part of the issue is that you’re more likely to view and harmonize JS’ teachings and revelations as a whole, and I’m more likely to parse them into contrasting periods. I do think it’s notable that in both this early period and the Nauvoo period, the focus is on Christ, a significant unifying thread that I personally feel BY’s Adam-God doesn’t continue (not to derail the thread, pretty please).
RevTestament Posted December 16, 2017 Posted December 16, 2017 56 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Yet some kind of modalistic interpretation of Enoch’s and God’s exchange in Moses 7 appears to be the most straight forward, especially since JS doesn’t teach the theology you’re giving for another decade +. Enoch prays, “O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten,” and then after seeing the earthly ministry asks when He will come again to earth. God responds in the last days. This implies more than perfectly similar roles and acts, but instead gets at a root shared being of some sort. Then there are all of these strong statements in early revelations/translations that are consistent with this idea, and I don’t believe there are such strongly suggestive statements later on. Instead, discussion moves to explaining their separate yet unified nature. I think part of the issue is that you’re more likely to view and harmonize JS’ teachings and revelations as a whole, and I’m more likely to parse them into contrasting periods. I do think it’s notable that in both this early period and the Nauvoo period, the focus is on Christ, a significant unifying thread that I personally feel BY’s Adam-God doesn’t continue (not to derail the thread, pretty please). I agree that JS's teachings evolved over the course of His prophethood. Obviously when he had his first vision, his understanding of God was much different than what He is saying in the King Follet discourse. Should we fault that? I feel my life has led me much on the same course. My understanding of God has evolved. I feel it is now very in line with the scriptures as a whole, and in line with what Joseph taught. So you are right, I do harmonize the scriptures as a whole. I believe to understand God, one must. The scriptures are His word - I believe He has left His thumbprints if you will, all over them. To take a piece and parse it from the other as textual scholars do, I believe leads to the tendency to go astray - something man is very good at. I am not totally dismissing textual scholarcism here - I am merely pointing to a perceived major weakness, when it is taken too far and too seriously. It has the potential to help us understand the Word better, but also the potential to lead one right out of their faith. I feel the Church somewhat misinterpreted the Adam-God thing. I am not saying I totally agree with it as I understand it. I certainly do not believe that Adam was Yeshua's spiritual Father or is El Elyon, the Most High Power. But I do see valid things in what BY said, so I don't dismiss him offhand. Nevertheless, I do believe JS showed us the oracles in a very succinct and real way. That is scriptural, and he should not be dismissed. I think the teachings of BY tended to bring a change of focus about in the Church, which is why I liked your earlier thread on the subject. I think the Church ought not to forget that JS was the vessel through which God chose to restore His Church. Doctrine and Covenants 90:4-5 4 Nevertheless, through you shall the aoracles be given to another, yea, even unto the church. 5 And all they who receive the aoracles of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the brains descend, and beat upon their house. I humbly pray that the Church will be open to what Joseph Smith said, and examine their scriptures in their totality to see if they don't as a whole comport with these truths - that the Church will pray about the truths of the scriptures if it is perceived they are in conflict with the teachings of men. JS did not lead the Church astray. The truths he taught have resonated down through various leaders and into my heart as well. If I hadn't perceived the truths of the gospel in this Church, I would not have joined it. I like the way President Snow taught it as well: "As man now is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." It is not something to be ashamed of. It is not something to be put aside, hoping to be seen as more mainstream, and become more accepted. To do that I feel is to disregard the work of the Father, and dismiss it as naught. It is a teaching the world will come to accept, because if they don't, God will cut them asunder. It is a teaching Christ Himself came to teach, and did teach, and to dismiss it, will cause one to be thrown out of His covenant. No more baby Christian stuff. We are talking seventh seal growing pains. But hey, Adam and Even had growing pains. They lived. They survived it, and became better for it. 1
Bobbieaware Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 5 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Bobbie, I’m not trying to mystify, and I agree that 3rd Nephi appears straight forward. I’m approaching this as a historian, and I’m not suggesting anyone adopt the doctrine that I’m pointing out. Would you mind carefully reading Moses 7 and seeing how you would interpret what I’ve laid out there? The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve’ have explained why, from time to time, Christ speaks as though he is God the Father in ‘The Father and the Son — A Doctrinal Exposition.” Though I’m sure you’ve read it before, it might be worthwhile to read it again, especially the portion that speaks of how an angel of the Lord spoke to the Apostle John in the first person, as if he himself was the Lord Jesus Christ. It explains why Christ spoke to Enoch as if he was God the Father in Moses 7. I doubt there are many knowledgeable Christians who would assert that the angel who spoke in the first person, as if he were Jesus Christ, must be a fourth member of a Sabellianistic Godhead. (For your convenience, I’ve highlighted the apropos portion of the Doctrinal Exposition in bold. A fourth reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43; see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father. We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that angel the Lord said, “Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him” (Ex. 23:21). The ancient Apostle John was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev. 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: “And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. “Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God” (Rev. 22:8–9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Rev. 22:12–13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying, “I come quickly,” “I am Alpha and Omega,” though he meant that Jesus Christ would come and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega. None of these considerations, however, can change in the least degree the solemn fact of the literal relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ. Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. Following are affirmative scriptures bearing upon this great truth. Paul, writing to the Colossians, says of Jesus Christ: 2
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 17, 2017 Author Posted December 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve’ have explained why, from time to time, Christ speaks as though he is God the Father in ‘The Father and the Son — A Doctrinal Exposition.” Though I’m sure you’ve read it before, it might be worthwhile to read it again, especially the portion that speaks of how an angel of the Lord spoke to the Apostle John in the first person, as if he himself was the Lord Jesus Christ. It explains why Christ spoke to Enoch as if he was God the Father in Moses 7. I doubt there are many knowledgeable Christians who would assert that the angel who spoke in the first person, as if he were Jesus Christ, must be a fourth member of a Sabellianistic Godhead. (For your convenience, I’ve highlighted the apropos portion of the Doctrinal Exposition in bold. A fourth reason for applying the title “Father” to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); yet He declared, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), and further, “I am come in my Father’s name” (John 5:43; see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father’s name; and so far as power, authority, and godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father. We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that angel the Lord said, “Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him” (Ex. 23:21). The ancient Apostle John was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev. 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: “And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. “Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God” (Rev. 22:8–9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: “And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last” (Rev. 22:12–13). The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying, “I come quickly,” “I am Alpha and Omega,” though he meant that Jesus Christ would come and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega. None of these considerations, however, can change in the least degree the solemn fact of the literal relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ. Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. Following are affirmative scriptures bearing upon this great truth. Paul, writing to the Colossians, says of Jesus Christ: Thanks Bobbie. I agree that this could be a great explanation. I don’t know that JS articulates that idea anywhere though.
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 17, 2017 Author Posted December 17, 2017 1 hour ago, RevTestament said: I agree that JS's teachings evolved over the course of His prophethood. Obviously when he had his first vision, his understanding of God was much different than what He is saying in the King Follet discourse. Should we fault that? I feel my life has led me much on the same course. My understanding of God has evolved. I feel it is now very in line with the scriptures as a whole, and in line with what Joseph taught. So you are right, I do harmonize the scriptures as a whole. I believe to understand God, one must. The scriptures are His word - I believe He has left His thumbprints if you will, all over them. To take a piece and parse it from the other as textual scholars do, I believe leads to the tendency to go astray - something man is very good at. I am not totally dismissing textual scholarcism here - I am merely pointing to a perceived major weakness, when it is taken too far and too seriously. It has the potential to help us understand the Word better, but also the potential to lead one right out of their faith. I feel the Church somewhat misinterpreted the Adam-God thing. I am not saying I totally agree with it as I understand it. I certainly do not believe that Adam was Yeshua's spiritual Father or is El Elyon, the Most High Power. But I do see valid things in what BY said, so I don't dismiss him offhand. Nevertheless, I do believe JS showed us the oracles in a very succinct and real way. That is scriptural, and he should not be dismissed. I think the teachings of BY tended to bring a change of focus about in the Church, which is why I liked your earlier thread on the subject. I think the Church ought not to forget that JS was the vessel through which God chose to restore His Church. Doctrine and Covenants 90:4-5 4 Nevertheless, through you shall the aoracles be given to another, yea, even unto the church. 5 And all they who receive the aoracles of God, let them beware how they hold them lest they are accounted as a light thing, and are brought under condemnation thereby, and stumble and fall when the storms descend, and the winds blow, and the brains descend, and beat upon their house. I humbly pray that the Church will be open to what Joseph Smith said, and examine their scriptures in their totality to see if they don't as a whole comport with these truths - that the Church will pray about the truths of the scriptures if it is perceived they are in conflict with the teachings of men. JS did not lead the Church astray. The truths he taught have resonated down through various leaders and into my heart as well. If I hadn't perceived the truths of the gospel in this Church, I would not have joined it. I like the way President Snow taught it as well: "As man now is, God once was, and as God is, man may become." It is not something to be ashamed of. It is not something to be put aside, hoping to be seen as more mainstream, and become more accepted. To do that I feel is to disregard the work of the Father, and dismiss it as naught. It is a teaching the world will come to accept, because if they don't, God will cut them asunder. It is a teaching Christ Himself came to teach, and did teach, and to dismiss it, will cause one to be thrown out of His covenant. No more baby Christian stuff. We are talking seventh seal growing pains. But hey, Adam and Even had growing pains. They lived. They survived it, and became better for it. Thanks for the candid and open discussion. I don’t think we should fault JS for his evolution. I have a passion for defining I guess. As far as Adam-God goes, I believe we agreed largely on where JS was headed on that track in the Nauvoo period.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 20 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: However, this is exactly kind of the stuff we get in Moses 7. God the Father talks about the Son, Enoch sees the Son in vision and his ascent “to the Father,” and then both Enoch and the Father acknowledge His equivalency with the Son. Yes, and we have the same sort of confusion of persons and roles in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible, in its note g to 2 Timothy 1:2,18, finds that "'Lord' can be taken in either case as a reference either to the Father or to the Son," which is the same problem which we encounter in the Book of Mormon. This does not even get into the nature of the debate on the early identity of ‘El and Yahweh and where and how they came to be cross-identified, which is seen by some scholars to be a developmental process beginning in early Canaanite times.[1] There is good evidence, in any case, for the full three-member Gottheit in the Book of Mormon: Nephi beholds the Holy Spirit ("the Spirit of the Lord") "in the form of a man" who could speak "as a man" (1 Nephi 11:11).[2] That same Holy Spirit is personified as Wisdom in Proverbs 8, Wisdom of Solomon 7 - 8, and Ecclesiasticus 24 (Ben Sira).[3] Based on the anthropomorphic descriptions of God in the Bible, Yohanan Muffs insists that "the biblical God is anthropomorphic. Whoever strips God of his personal quality distorts the true meaning of Scripture."[4] Just so, the Book of Mormon speaks of God with the same sort of flesh and blood anthropomorphisms (Ether 2:4-5,14, 3:4-19). [1] L. Fisher & S. Rummel, eds., Ras Shamra Parallels, III, IV 2. [2] Cf. Kenneth Surin, Theology and the Problem of Evil (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2004). [3] P. Skehan in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 41:371n. [4] Muffs, Bible Review, 18/6 (Dec 2002):23; cf. Ronald Hendel, "Aniconism and Anthropomorphism in Ancient Israel," in K. van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 205-228; Benjamin Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel (Cambridge University Press, 2009); Esther J. Hamori, "When Gods Were Men": The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature (de Gruyter, 2008), reviewed in RBL, Feb 2012, online at http://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=8190 . 2
cdowis Posted December 17, 2017 Posted December 17, 2017 (edited) "Father and Son" I patiently explain to my non=member associates: I am a father, I am a son, I am a brother, I am an uncle, a nephew, a grandfather, a husband. I am all of these things but I am not a "one substance entity". These are simply titles for individual roles. Christ is the Son, but is also the Father. Eloheim is the spiritual father of ALL those who have received a spirit body. Christ is the Father of all those who are faithful followers of the Covenant, the righteous. He is also the Father, having been appointed by the Father to represent him in all things, with all of his power and authority (Heb 1:2), or, as we understand it, power of attorney. Edited December 18, 2017 by cdowis 2
clarkgoble Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 (edited) Again a few things. 1. With regards to the Book of Mormon I think we have to distinguish what context we're reading it from. If we're presupposing that it's completely a production of Joseph Smith that changes the very context out of which we interpret it. i.e. we're dismissing ancient Judaism as a context with it's notion of memra who is the actor or anthropomorphic manifestation of divine power. There's also the later intermediary of Metatron or the Lesser YHWH. By making the discussion about 19th century those ways of reading the Book of Mormon are completely cut off into a discussion only of Trinity or Modalism. 2. With regards to modalism one has to note that they are different modes of one being. One can't merely appeal to passages in the NT that modalists read in a non-trinitarian fashion. One has to explain why they'd be in the Book of Mormon. With regards to a quasi-modalist traditions like Swedenborg, if those are the purported influence for a Joseph written Book of Mormon, one should be able to point to particular Swedenborg like passages. We should note that Swedenborg doesn't think he's a modalist. He rejects, like a modalist, the separate persons but thinks the three are separate components of one person but not different modes of one being. (A subtle but important difference) Swedenborg's view is that the Father is the unknowable soul or essence of God. The son is the body or manifestation of God. The Holy Ghost is the outpouring to people of God. (Here's a good overview of the Swedenborg perspective) 3. Several passages are impossible to reconcile to a Swedenborg like view. The JST of Moses in particular. Moses 4:28 has the Father in the Garden speaking to His Only Begotten. Even Moses 1 which has been appealed to narratively has the Only Begotten as separate from the Father otherwise it'd make zero sense of Satan to impersonate him in verse 19. From a Swedenborg perspective all that there could be is the Son, which goes against Moses 1. With regards to the Book of Mormon, while Mosiah 15 can be read in a Swedenborg like fashion (the Father as spirit or soul and the Son as the body) 3 Nephi simply can't be read in Swedenborg like terms. Admittedly the main problem is also in Matt 3:17 where a voice from heaven is distinguished from the body of Jesus. But this is just an inherent problem for Swedenborg. (Swedenborg himself grapples with this is True Christian Religion - but this was the typical line of attack against Swedenborg's variation on modalism) So if one was embracing a Swedenborg view it would seem odd to emphasize repeated times the main problem with Swedenborg. The baptism of Jesus and the transfiguration of Jesus are the two places modalism was traditionally attacked as well. Again it seems odd to emphasize this problematic issue for modalism if one believed in modalism. Of course Swedenborg has a solution, but one that more or less removes the whole point of saying three parts in one person - you have the appearance of multiple persons. 4. The issue is how God is One not that he is One. So appealing to passages that show God is One doesn't really push the discussion forward. 5. As for passages that switch between God the Father and Son as speaker, that's ubiquitous well through the Missouri period. Again that tells us nothing about the nature of God in that all agree God is One and the Son is of one heart and one mind with the Father. 6. With respect to Moses 7 note that sons of God is the significant starting point. Second the passaged purportedly modalistic doesn't say the Father is the Son it says, "O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ," indicating that the "only begotten" whose name they pray in is Jesus Christ. So I find the exegesis there odd. I just don't see anything remotely modalist here. Edited December 18, 2017 by clarkgoble
The Nehor Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 Gotta love these threads. I am not trying to attack your personal beliefs but see this personal belief you have? I am going to attack it. Why the denial and the defensive ‘please do not be mad at me for saying this stuff’ weasel words? Have some basic dignity and take some pride in your work! Unless you copied the argument from somewhere on the internet and are presenting it as if you figured it out in which case put down your head and walk away in shame.
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 18, 2017 Author Posted December 18, 2017 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: Gotta love these threads. I am not trying to attack your personal beliefs but see this personal belief you have? I am going to attack it. Why the denial and the defensive ‘please do not be mad at me for saying this stuff’ weasel words? Have some basic dignity and take some pride in your work! Unless you copied the argument from somewhere on the internet and are presenting it as if you figured it out in which case put down your head and walk away in shame. I just don’t want people to take it personally! I like debate, not emotional outbursts. My weasel words were to try to avoid the fireworks and get to the discussion. Also, I do feel like this isn’t the perfect forum to lay out these thoughts, but it’s the best I know of, so I hoped the prologue would help. 1
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 18, 2017 Author Posted December 18, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Again a few things. 1. With regards to the Book of Mormon I think we have to distinguish what context we're reading it from. If we're presupposing that it's completely a production of Joseph Smith that changes the very context out of which we interpret it. i.e. we're dismissing ancient Judaism as a context with it's notion of memra who is the actor or anthropomorphic manifestation of divine power. There's also the later intermediary of Metatron or the Lesser YHWH. By making the discussion about 19th century those ways of reading the Book of Mormon are completely cut off into a discussion only of Trinity or Modalism. I think if you want to bring ancient Judaism into the argument in a convincing way you need to demonstrate where that kind of process is laid out in JS revelations/translations and preferably in this early period. I also don’t think we need to be tied down to modalism or trinitarianism. Like Swedenborg, JS was a visionary/innovator. His revealed doctrine doesn’t need to align neatly with a category. It could be similar and different all at the same time. Quote 2. With regards to modalism one has to note that they are different modes of one being. If I’m reading your response correctly here, I should clarify that I’m not trying to define modalism. I’m trying to define JS’ early doctrine of God. It may only align partially with modalism. Quote One can't merely appeal to passages in the NT that modalists read in a non-trinitarian fashion. One has to explain why they'd be in the Book of Mormon. Agreed. I haven’t done that well. Quote With regards to a quasi-modalist traditions like Swedenborg, if those are the purported influence for a Joseph written Book of Mormon, one should be able to point to particular Swedenborg like passages. I don’t think JS needs Swedenborg to come to similar conclusions. Instead we can just observe how two visionaries may have come to similar conclusions. Quote We should note that Swedenborg doesn't think he's a modalist. He rejects, like a modalist, the separate persons but thinks the three are separate components of one person but not different modes of one being. (A subtle but important difference) Swedenborg's view is that the Father is the unknowable soul or essence of God. The son is the body or manifestation of God. The Holy Ghost is the outpouring to people of God. (Here's a good overview of the Swedenborg perspective) 3. Several passages are impossible to reconcile to a Swedenborg like view. The JST of Moses in particular. Moses 4:28 has the Father in the Garden speaking to His Only Begotten. Even Moses 1 which has been appealed to narratively has the Only Begotten as separate from the Father otherwise it'd make zero sense of Satan to impersonate him in verse 19. I don’t think impersonating the Only Begotten negates a shared identity between the Father and the Son if they are different versions of the same person. However, Satan’s desire to be the Only Begotten does shake things up for sure (see my next post). Quote From a Swedenborg perspective all that there could be is the Son, which goes against Moses 1. With regards to the Book of Mormon, while Mosiah 15 can be read in a Swedenborg like fashion (the Father as spirit or soul and the Son as the body) 3 Nephi simply can't be read in Swedenborg like terms. Admittedly the main problem is also in Matt 3:17 where a voice from heaven is distinguished from the body of Jesus. But this is just an inherent problem for Swedenborg. (Swedenborg himself grapples with this is True Christian Religion - but this was the typical line of attack against Swedenborg's variation on modalism) So if one was embracing a Swedenborg view it would seem odd to emphasize repeated times the main problem with Swedenborg. The baptism of Jesus and the transfiguration of Jesus are the two places modalism was traditionally attacked as well. I thought of the transfiguration as well and wondered how a modalist would deal with that. Quote Again it seems odd to emphasize this problematic issue for modalism if one believed in modalism. Of course Swedenborg has a solution, but one that more or less removes the whole point of saying three parts in one person - you have the appearance of multiple persons. 4. The issue is how God is One not that he is One. So appealing to passages that show God is One doesn't really push the discussion forward. Except that you don’t get these strong statements of equation later. I think it’s significant that you get this kind of thing early and not later on. Quote 5. As for passages that switch between God the Father and Son as speaker, that's ubiquitous well through the Missouri period. Again that tells us nothing about the nature of God in that all agree God is One and the Son is of one heart and one mind with the Father. Would you mind giving examples. I’d like to date these. Quote 6. With respect to Moses 7 note that sons of God is the significant starting point. Could you elaborate? Quote Second the passaged purportedly modalistic doesn't say the Father is the Son it says, "O Lord, in the name of thine Only Begotten, even Jesus Christ," indicating that the "only begotten" whose name they pray in is Jesus Christ. So I find the exegesis there odd. I just don't see anything remotely modalist here. You’re misreading my exegesis. My point is that Enoch clearly defines the God he is talking to as the Father when he petitions him in the name of his son, Jesus Christ. I’m just establishing identity, which is unmistakeable. Enoch is talking to the Father in Moses 7. After that is established, the conflation of the Father and Son occurs with Enoch’s question of His return. Edited December 18, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker
Benjamin Seeker Posted December 18, 2017 Author Posted December 18, 2017 (edited) OK, so I think some of the most important points I’ve overlooked so far are Satan’s desire to more or less be the Only Begotten in Moses 1 and 2 and the ability of man to become one with God even as the Son and the Father are one as taught in 3rd Nephi 19:23 (thanks Clark) and in the Ammon narrative. I think one more puzzle piece may put it all together, and that’s the revelation on pure language from March 1832. Quote Question What is the name of God in pure Language Answer Awman. Q The meaning of the pure word Aman A It is the being which made all things in all its parts. Q What is the name of the Son of God. A The Son Awman. Q What is the Son Awman. A It is the greatest of all the parts of Awman which is the godhead the first born. Q What is man. A This signifies Sons Awman. the human family the children of men the greatest parts of Awman Sons the Son Awman Q What are Angels called in pure language. A Awman Angls men Q What are the meaning of these words. A Awman’s Ministering servants Sanctified who are sent forth from heaven to minister for or to Sons Awmen the greatest part of Awman Son. Sons Awmen Son Awmen Awman http://juvenileinstructor.org/from-the-archives-a-sample-of-pure-language-part-i-the-text/ The first thing I'm taking away from this is that human kind or man (Sons Awman) are a part of God (Awman), similar to how Christ (Awman Son) is. The underlying theology in the BOM may or may not be different. The BOM explains unification with God as a function of the Holy Ghost, which the text shows through narrative and doctrinal explanation in 3rd Nephi 19 and in the Ammon narrative. Of course, these two ideas from the BOM and the above revelation can work together. As far as the relationship between Awman and Son Awman goes: 1. Awman is a being. 2. Son Awman is a part of Awman. 3. Son Awman is the firstborn. 4. (If I've got this right) Son Awman is the Godhead. I'll leave the fourth point alone for now and just focus on the second. Somehow, Christ is part of Awman, the being which made all things. That's not an extremely articulate definition, but it's enough to justify Enoch turning to ask God the Father when he will return again to earth (as the son). It's also sufficient definition to justify the Father and the Son being present at the same time. Edited December 18, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker 2
clarkgoble Posted December 18, 2017 Posted December 18, 2017 24 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I think if you want to bring ancient Judaism into the argument in a convincing way you need to demonstrate where that kind of process is laid out in JS revelations/translations and preferably in this early period. Not quite sure what you're asking for here. Clearly Joseph Smith presents the Book of Mormon as ancient. Figuring out how much ancient Judaism is in it tends to be difficult for several reasons. First Nephi and Lehi off the bat have visions and doctrinal innovations breaking with religion in Jerusalem. Second, they appear to have connections to the Northern Tribes which may have had a form of Judaism compared to the South - especially after the reforms of Josiah. Finally outside of 1 Nephi - Jacob most of the text is written by Mormon 1000 years later. Given how much Judaism changed in Israel from the point of the exile onward to the end of late antiquity, we should assume Nephite Judaism does the same. So we have to read with a certain hermeneutics of suspicion. Throw in the problem of a loose translation heavily influenced by the KJV and ancient judaic parallels will always be somewhat problematic. However I do think that if we're going to look at the text, we have to pay close attention to its claimed providence and origin. We can't only look at 19th century sources such as Arminianism, Swedenborg or the like. To me what's interesting about the Book of Mormon is how closely many elements are to Jewish Binatarianism. We have to be careful pushing things too far since the most pronounced elements of binatarianism are from the Hellenistic period. However elements of the targums likely go back to the early Aramaic era prior to the strong Hellenistic period with logos speculation from middle platonism. The theory is as a context for the Book of Mormon is that the targums represent an earlier tradition going back to pre-exilic times. This is Margaret Barker's claims. So the claim by many is that, if only as a possibility that needs to be addressed, Barker's reconstruction of pre-exilic Judaism should be a context for the Book of Mormon. 39 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I also don’t think we need to be tied down to modalism or trinitarianism. Like Swedenborg, JS was a visionary/innovator. His revealed doctrine doesn’t need to align neatly with a category. It could be similar and different all at the same time.If I’m reading your response correctly here, I should clarify that I’m not trying to define modalism. I’m trying to define JS’ early doctrine of God. It may only align partially with modalism. Right, but I guess what I'm saying is that if we want to move beyond it just being ambiguous we have to have a coherent model. If it's not modalism or Swedenborgism we have to describe it in some way. Thus far we have passages that seem to contradict - unless we read them in the more traditional theological model where whether you think it correct or not it is at least a coherent theology for the Book of Mormon. i.e. Jesus is both the Father and Son due to function, due to our being adopted by Christ by the atonement, and due to divine investiture of God's essence. The titles become roles setting things up for Nauvoo theology. In this case that theology is already present in the Book of Mormon simply not emphasized. 41 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: I don’t think impersonating the Only Begotten negates a shared identity between the Father and the Son if they are different versions of the same person. However, Satan’s desire to be the Only Begotten does shake things up for sure (see my next post). I thought of the transfiguration as well and wondered how a modalism would deal with that. Christ's baptism and transfiguration are just traditional problems for this view. They are primarily why the trinity developed. Again, to be clear, the main Mormon issues with the Trinity aren't the doctrine proper but the associated doctrine of the Father not being resurrected and creation ex nihilo. As I've argued many times the creed of the Trinity I have zero problem with (beyond certain logical issues if one pushes the language literally). I think if one believed the Father and Son are different versions of the same person (which is modalism proper) that one must ask why on earth God would even bother talking like that. It really makes zero sense and a natural way of reading it is as two persons. 45 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Would you mind giving examples. I’d like to date these. I'd say D&C 109 & 110 is a classic example of confusing things. That's 1836 at the Kirtland Temple dedication. There the figures get conflated and not addressed clearly. But the issue of someone speaking as God but not being God has a long history. So Rev 22:8-9 has John falling down to worship the angel. Interestingly the angel then responds saying he's a fellow prophet (an indication this may be Enoch as Metatron or the Lesser YHWH). So this sort of thing happens in that ancient Jewish tradition I mentioned. 56 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said: Could you elaborate? Bits of Moses as well as D&C 93 (1833) seem very similar to Mosiah 15. Particularly the latter. I've argued that Mosiah 15 is a Merkabah like text similar to how Enoch becomes Metatron thereby being the Father and a Son in a sense. Moses 7 starts out with "behold, our father Adam taught these things, and many have believed and become the sons of God." So this speech in Moses 6-7 is tied to becoming a son of God. In Mosiah 15 you have how Jesus is the Father and Son but the key is an exegesis of Isaiah 52 on how we become saviors. So it's setting up a parallel where people become prophets and become sons (or daughters). So what's described as happening to Jesus is supposed to happen to each of us. This is then re-emphasized in 3 Nephi 11:27 which may be paraphrasing John 14:11;20 and 1 John 3:2-3 (// Moroni 7:48) So I've long argued you can't keep the exegesis of Isaiah 52 by Abinadi out of the discussion of the unity of God. The question of "who shall be his seed" is asking who will be sons of God. This usage persists up through D&C 76:58. "...they are gods, even the sons of God..." Again that's 1 John 1-3. "we should be called the sons of God." There's a pretty pronounced theory of theosis in the Book of Mormon. This is a phrase that pops up not only in Joseph's revelations but his revisions of the Bible. (Compare say John 1:12 to D&C 11:30) This unity is emphasized in D&C 35:2 as well. "...as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even done in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one." Note that's dated to Dec 1830. So regardless of the metaphysical questions (and from what I can tell Joseph just didn't care much about them) the emphasis of theosis seems to be an important context for understanding the relationship of the Father and Son. 1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said: You’re misreading my exegesis. My point is that Enoch clearly defines the God he is talking to as the Father when he petitions him in the name of his son, Jesus Christ. I’m just establishing identity, which is unmistakeable. Enoch is talking to the Father in Moses 7. After that JS established the conflation of the Father and Son occurs with Enoch’s question of His return. Ah. OK. I misunderstood your argument there. Yeah that is more muddled there. 1
Recommended Posts