Michael Servetus: Early Modern Abinadi

[Ryan Dahle]

On 9/13/2019 at 9:08 PM, JarMan said:

On 9/13/2019 at 9:18 AM, Bernard Gui said:

  Quote

From the First Presidency declaration  and 3 Nephi. Seems compatible to me.

But in what sense are the Father and the Son one? The 1916 statement offers several suggestions but they aren’t really found in the Book of Mormon or bible. That’s why I think the explanations are merely ad hoc. And certainly the Elohim/Yahweh dichotomy in Mormonism is not biblical. 

I think the history of exegesis concerning the nature of the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is more complicated than JarMan is presenting. The 1916 statement doesn't seem ad hoc to me. The following articles provide helpful background on this particular topic (I could only find a link to the second one, now that MI links are dead):

• David L. Paulsen and Ari D. Bruening, “The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi,” in Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture, ed. Andrew C. Skinner and Gaye Strathearn (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell for Religious Scholarship, 2012), 191–233.
• Ari B. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, “The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Early Myths,” FARMS Review of Books 13, no. 2 (2001): 109–169.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190213001244/https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12 

Edited September 16, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, JarMan said:

I see what you are getting at. But the context is that I compared the Mormon church to the Catholic church since they both have leaders who claim the right to interpret scripture as opposed to Protestants who believe in sola scriptura. I pointed out that this approach lead to corruption and abuses in the Catholic church. I believe Stargazer was essentially saying that the pope doesn't have real authority, but that the prophet does, so corruption and abuse shouldn't be a problem for Mormons. The challenge I was bringing was squaring this belief with the principle that the prophet is infallible. What good is it to have a prophet interpret scripture if the prophet is fallible? Having fallible prophets who can re-interpret scripture as they please means that Mormon doctrine is constantly a moving target. Mormon doctrine is the proverbial slippery bar of soap.

This kind of “I cannot trust someone absolutely in all circumstances without reservation therefore I cannot trust anything” argument is kind of silly. Do you demand this level of infallibility in all areas of your life?

[Ryan Dahle]

20 hours ago, JarMan said:

I see what you are getting at. But the context is that I compared the Mormon church to the Catholic church since they both have leaders who claim the right to interpret scripture as opposed to Protestants who believe in sola scriptura. I pointed out that this approach lead to corruption and abuses in the Catholic church. I believe Stargazer was essentially saying that the pope doesn't have real authority, but that the prophet does, so corruption and abuse shouldn't be a problem for Mormons. The challenge I was bringing was squaring this belief with the principle that the prophet is infallible. What good is it to have a prophet interpret scripture if the prophet is fallible? Having fallible prophets who can re-interpret scripture as they please means that Mormon doctrine is constantly a moving target. Mormon doctrine is the proverbial slippery bar of soap.

The following blog post may shed some light on the question: "What good is it to have a prophet interpret scripture if the prophet is fallible?"

https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/watchmen-on-the-tower-on-the-limits-of-prophetic-fallibility/

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, JarMan said:

If I proclaim that the Lord will not permit me to lead anyone astray, are you obligated then to believe me? 

Put another way, if a prophet is fallible, then we can have no assurance that Wilford Woodruff's statement is true in the first place.

Yes, I realize that, from a worldly perspective at least, the claim is possibly circular, but I trust that the Lord knows what He is doing. I have also found that the Lord responds to my inquiries, and I have no reason to believe that President Woodruff cannot be trusted on this.

From the link that @Ryan Dahle posted:

"So appeals to prophetic fallibility must account for whether the thing which is believed to be in error has been taught by just one or two of the prophets or apostles or many of the prophets and apostles; taught repeatedly by past prophets as well as current ones or taught unanimously by the living prophets and apostles."

Edited September 16, 2019 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

23 hours ago, JarMan said:

I see what you are getting at. But the context is that I compared the Mormon church to the Catholic church since they both have leaders who claim the right to interpret scripture as opposed to Protestants who believe in sola scriptura. I pointed out that this approach lead to corruption and abuses in the Catholic church. I believe Stargazer was essentially saying that the pope doesn't have real authority, but that the prophet does, so corruption and abuse shouldn't be a problem for Mormons. The challenge I was bringing was squaring this belief with the principle that the prophet is infallible. What good is it to have a prophet interpret scripture if the prophet is fallible? Having fallible prophets who can re-interpret scripture as they please means that Mormon doctrine is constantly a moving target. Mormon doctrine is the proverbial slippery bar of soap.

Not quite. I am saying that the pope doesn't have a prophetic connection to the Lord.  He has plenty of authority, of course, only meaning authority to administer to the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The following blog post may shed some light on the question: "What good is it to have a prophet interpret scripture if the prophet is fallible?"

https://www.sixteensmallstones.org/watchmen-on-the-tower-on-the-limits-of-prophetic-fallibility/

Now, that is a blog post!

I liked this:

"There is a limit to how fallible a prophet can be and still rightly be called a prophet. At some point claims of prophetic fallibility make a prophet SO fallible that it amounts to saying that that the watchman is not actually on the tower at all! Or otherwise that his fallibility is so great that the natural advantage afforded by the tower is completely nullified; in which case they are claiming not only ordinary fallibility, but extraordinary fallibility because if the watchman suffered from only ordinary fallibility his position on the tower would still be superior to those on the ground– they proclaim not that he has average eyesight then, but that he is nearly blind!"

[Ahab]

23 hours ago, JarMan said:

I see what you are getting at. But the context is that I compared the Mormon church to the Catholic church since they both have leaders who claim the right to interpret scripture as opposed to Protestants who believe in sola scriptura. I pointed out that this approach lead to corruption and abuses in the Catholic church. I believe Stargazer was essentially saying that the pope doesn't have real authority, but that the prophet does, so corruption and abuse shouldn't be a problem for Mormons. The challenge I was bringing was squaring this belief with the principle that the prophet is infallible. What good is it to have a prophet interpret scripture if the prophet is fallible? Having fallible prophets who can re-interpret scripture as they please means that Mormon doctrine is constantly a moving target. Mormon doctrine is the proverbial slippery bar of soap.

Please don't jump on the bandwagon with those people who believe that a man who is called a prophet is always a prophet regardless of what he is saying.  A man is a prophet only when he is actually speaking for the Lord, saying what the Lord would say or have him say.

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think the history of exegesis concerning the nature of the Godhead in the Book of Mormon is more complicated than JarMan is presenting. The 1916 statement doesn't seem ad hoc to me. The following articles provide helpful background on this particular topic (I could only find a link to the second one, now that MI links are dead):

• David L. Paulsen and Ari D. Bruening, “The Social Model of the Trinity in 3 Nephi,” in Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture, ed. Andrew C. Skinner and Gaye Strathearn (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Neal A. Maxwell for Religious Scholarship, 2012), 191–233.
• Ari B. Bruening and David L. Paulsen, “The Development of the Mormon Understanding of God: Early Mormon Modalism and Early Myths,” FARMS Review of Books 13, no. 2 (2001): 109–169.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190213001244/https://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1454&index=12 

I haven't tried to present a history. The 1916 statement is the source on this subject people usually point to and I've simply observed that it contradicts both the bible and the Book of Mormon. Shouldn't Mormons care about that?

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This kind of “I cannot trust someone absolutely in all circumstances without reservation therefore I cannot trust anything” argument is kind of silly. Do you demand this level of infallibility in all areas of your life?

This is not a fair presentation of my position.

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I realize that, from a worldly perspective at least, the claim is possibly circular, but I trust that the Lord knows what He is doing. I have also found that the Lord responds to my inquiries, and I have no reason to believe that President Woodruff cannot be trusted on this.

From the link that @Ryan Dahle posted:

"So appeals to prophetic fallibility must account for whether the thing which is believed to be in error has been taught by just one or two of the prophets or apostles or many of the prophets and apostles; taught repeatedly by past prophets as well as current ones or taught unanimously by the living prophets and apostles."

Where does the authority of scripture come into play? Can we not weigh a prophet's words against scripture in order to test his fallibility?

[JarMan]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Please don't jump on the bandwagon with those people who believe that a man who is called a prophet is always a prophet regardless of what he is saying.  A man is a prophet only when he is actually speaking for the Lord, saying what the Lord would say or have him say.

None of this really plays into my position. If a prophet is fallible as a prophet then he's also fallible when he's not a prophet.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Can we not weigh a prophet's words against scripture in order to test his fallibility?

So do you see scripture as infallible or close enough to treat it that way?

Edited September 17, 2019 by Calm

[JarMan]

Let's consider several Book of Mormon citations from the 1916 statement.

Mosiah 15:

Quote

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

 Mosiah 16:

Quote

15 Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Ether 3:

Quote

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

Ether 4:

Quote

7 And in that day that they shall exercise faith in me, saith the Lord, even as the brother of Jared did, that they may become sanctified in me, then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.

Alma 11:

Quote

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;

The 1916 statement refers to each of these passages, but does not put any of them into proper context. It simply cites them as support for its position. In short, it's classic prooftexting.

The unitarianism aspect of these scriptures is ignored. Christ as the creator of mankind is ignored. The biblical meanings of Elohim and Jehovah are severely distorted. Serious readers of the scriptures shouldn't be fooled by the mis-direction.

 

[JarMan]

58 minutes ago, Calm said:

So do you see scripture as infallible or close enough to treat it that way?

I don't have a source for this off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure some of the brethren at various times have said we should weigh a prophet's words against scripture. On a basic logical level, scripture that can be replaced by revelation is not really scripture. And revelation that can be replaced by later revelation is not really revelation.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I haven't tried to present a history. The 1916 statement is the source on this subject people usually point to and I've simply observed that it contradicts both the bible and the Book of Mormon. Shouldn't Mormons care about that?

Your claim that the 1916 statement is ad hoc necessarily assumes a history of interpretation. And I believe the articles I cited push back against your interpretation of the Book of Mormon, showing it is neither necessary nor privileged above other interpretations. 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

Where does the authority of scripture come into play? Can we not weigh a prophet's words against scripture in order to test his fallibility?

Sure, if you want to start your own church.  

This is the origin of the Reorganized CoJCoLDS.  Or CoC.  It's easy enough to say that they took your question seriously, because they looked at D&C 132 and said "Nope. Not happening".  Because of course polygamy is not scriptural.

 

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Your claim that the 1916 statement is ad hoc necessarily assumes a history of interpretation. And I believe the articles I cited push back against your interpretation of the Book of Mormon, showing it is neither necessary nor privileged above other interpretations. 

It doesn't matter if the 1916 statement has antecedents, it's still an ad hoc explanation. Just like the doctrine of the trinity.

The Book of Mormon presents its own conception of the godhead which deserves to be judged on its own. When this is done it harmonizes very well with Servetus' views. But it compares very poorly against Mormon views. So the question we really ought to be asking is, why does the Book of Mormon teach a 16th Century conception of the godhead? And why does a Book of Mormon prophet get burned at the stake for teaching this doctrine just like a 16th Century man was burned at the stake for teaching the very same doctrine?

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Your claim that the 1916 statement is ad hoc necessarily assumes a history of interpretation. And I believe the articles I cited push back against your interpretation of the Book of Mormon, showing it is neither necessary nor privileged above other interpretations. 

The problem with the article you cited is that it presents a straw man. The authors define modalism in a such a way that necessarily excludes or neutralizes many of the passages in the Book of Mormon. Yet they fail to realize that modalists face all of the same issues in the bible and yet explain them in a way favorable to their modalist views. They haven't addressed or probably even considered the nuances of the modalist argument, but instead have interpreted scripture in the way most favorable to their own hypothesis. This is not good scholarship and it completely undermines their conclusions about what the Book of Mormon is really saying about the godhead.

[Ryan Dahle]

9 hours ago, JarMan said:

The problem with the article you cited is that it presents a straw man. The authors define modalism in a such a way that necessarily excludes or neutralizes many of the passages in the Book of Mormon. Yet they fail to realize that modalists face all of the same issues in the bible and yet explain them in a way favorable to their modalist views. They haven't addressed or probably even considered the nuances of the modalist argument, but instead have interpreted scripture in the way most favorable to their own hypothesis. This is not good scholarship and it completely undermines their conclusions about what the Book of Mormon is really saying about the godhead.

In other words, you disagree. That's fine. My personal view is that the text's presentation of the unity and distinctness of God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost can be interpreted in a variety of semi-valid ways, depending on one's assumptions and interpretive framework. IMO, the very nature of that ambiguity undermines your position. Exegetical arguments about metaphysical realities typically have very little convincing power on their own. You will, of course, interpret the text in a way that is "most favorable to [your] hypothesis," just like those you characterize as employing ad hoc and straw man arguments.   

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

None of this really plays into my position. If a prophet is fallible as a prophet then he's also fallible when he's not a prophet.

I think it's naturally understood that any man is fallible when he is not acting as a prophet.  When a man speaks or acts as a prophet, though, then he is speaking and acting as the Lord would.  Surely you don't consider the Lord to ever be fallible, do you?

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In other words, you disagree. That's fine. My personal view is that the text's presentation of the unity and distinctness of God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost can be interpreted in a variety of semi-valid ways, depending on one's assumptions and interpretive framework. IMO, the very nature of that ambiguity undermines your position. Exegetical arguments about metaphysical realities typically have very little convincing power on their own. You will, of course, interpret the text in a way that is "most favorable to [your] hypothesis," just like those you characterize as employing ad hoc and straw man arguments.   

When critics bash a view of Mormonism that is incorrect, apologists rightly point out that they have created a straw man to beat up on. When apologists use the same technique the same criticism applies. The paper presents a view of modalism that no modalist would ever agree with. Then they show how the Book of Mormon is incompatible with this made-up modalism. This isn't me disagreeing with them. It's me pointing out that a logical fallacy as the basis of an argument is poor scholarship and invalidates the argument.

So far nobody has addressed my main issue, which is that the Book of Mormon presentation of the godhead is Servetian. And at its most clear and distinctly Servetian point the Servetian character is burned at the stake for the same heresy Servetus was. Plus there are many other corroborating details as I've mentioned. How do we explain this coincidence?

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think it's naturally understood that any man is fallible when he is not acting as a prophet.  When a man speaks or acts as a prophet, though, then he is speaking and acting as the Lord would.  Surely you don't consider the Lord to ever be fallible, do you?

How, exactly does God communicate something to a prophet? Based on Hinckley's 60 Minutes interview it's something like a thought or feeling that comes to him, if I remember correctly. The prophet then has to put that thought or feeling into words using his own brain that is biased by his own experiences and preferences. The words that then come out of his mouth are colored by his own fallibility.

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, JarMan said:

How do we explain this coincidence?

[Ryan Dahle]

14 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The paper presents a view of modalism that no modalist would ever agree with.

That's a pretty bold claim. CFR, please. 

[Ahab]

57 minutes ago, JarMan said:

How, exactly does God communicate something to a prophet? Based on Hinckley's 60 Minutes interview it's something like a thought or feeling that comes to him, if I remember correctly. The prophet then has to put that thought or feeling into words using his own brain that is biased by his own experiences and preferences. The words that then come out of his mouth are colored by his own fallibility.

Whatever comes out of the man's mouth or in print, the message that the man is conveying is either the thought and mind and will of the Lord on that issue, or it is not.  If it is, then the man can be considered a prophet.  If it isn't, then he isn't.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

That's a pretty bold claim. CFR, please. 

This is easier to show than you might imagine. The MI article begins by identifying three categories: 1) passages that are antimodalist, 2) passages that are neutral, and 3) passages that are modalist. They claim that, in the Book of Mormon, antimodalist passages outnumber modalist passages 20 to 1. But in doing so, they set themselves up as the sole arbiters of what is modalist and what is antimodalist. They didn't bother to consider what a modalist considers to be modalist and for this reason their results reflect only their own biases.

Consider that many of the "neutral" and "antimodalist" passages identified have clear corollaries in the bible. What we need to determine is how an actual modalist construes those passages. Well, modalists derive their views on the godhead from the bible. So they are no strangers to all of the ambiguous passages. Yet they interpret them in a way that supports modalism. For example, the article claims that one of the most clearly explicit antimodalist scriptures in the Book of Mormon is 3 Nephi 11:7: "Behold my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him." But this passage has clear corollaries at Jesus' baptism in Matthew 3:17: "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Modalists are quite aware of this verse in Matthew but are undeterred from their position. For example, Servetus refers to Matthew 3:16 or 3:17 five different times in his "On the Errors of the Trinity."

The article's authors have failed to consider the nuanced views on bible passages by those considered to be modalists. They haven't even tried to approach the Book of Mormon as a modalist approaches the bible. Instead they have projected their own views onto passages in the Book of Mormon and proclaimed it to be antimodalist.

[JarMan]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Whatever comes out of the man's mouth or in print, the message that the man is conveying is either the thought and mind and will of the Lord on that issue, or it is not.  If it is, then the man can be considered a prophet.  If it isn't, then he isn't.

I see two problems with this. The first is, how would you ever know if what is being pronounced is being pronounced as a prophet? And the second problem is that, like it or not, a person's brain is fallible: it's human, even if God is not.