Michael Servetus: Early Modern Abinadi

[JarMan]

8 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Again, I think you are speaking inaccurately. Bruening and Paulsen aren't presenting a non-standard version of modalism. Paulsen, in particular, is highly qualified to comment in this area. Modalism, like standard Trinitarianism and Social Trinitarianism, is not something that is explicitly defined in the Bible, much less the Book of Mormon. Thus whether or not modalism is a preferred reading or understanding of a text (which is one of the topics that Bruening and Paulsen were directly engaged in debating) necessarily involves interpreting that text's passages and comparing them to the established features of modalism. Bruening and Paulsen simply demonstrated that the type of passages that seem to favor (rather than are merely compatable) with modalism are outnumbered by passages that seem to be neutral or implicitly antimodalist. They write:

I'm simply not seeing how they are misconstruing or misrepresenting modalism. Your argument that those who favor modalism can, from their perspective, potentially accommodate what Bruening and Paulsen refer to as neutral or antimodalist passages is a moot point. Of course a modalist will try to explain those passages, just like Bruening and Paulsen have a section in their article that tries to accommodate the passages that seem to implicitly support modalism. The fact that modalists will try to accommodate seemingly contrary passages isn't, on its own, good evidence that Bruening and Paulsen are wrong in their analysis. Yet, thus far, it has been your only rebuttal. What would really be needed is to go through the passages one by one and show how Bruening and Paulsen are wrong in categorizing them as "modalist" and "antimodalist" according to the criteria and definitions that they explicitly established for the purpose of their article. They aren't offering a different version of modalism at all, but instead are assessing the implicit support or non-support that various passages seem to lend to a modalistic interpretation of the text. Those are two different things. 

I cited the article from Bruening and Paulsen that sets out a detailed argument for why the Book of Mormon doesn't clearly teach modalism (contrary to Kurt Widmer's claims that it does) and which also addresses the 1916 issue and some of Abinadi's statements. The article directly relates to and pushes back against your thesis that Abinadi was teaching the "same heresy" as Servetus (who is understood to have espoused a version of modalism). So far, your response to those detailed arguments has basically amounted to, using your own words, "stomp[ing] around and saying you disagree." You haven't engaged with their detailed analysis at all, besides labeling them as employing logical fallacies. Therefore, you have literally given me nothing substantive to respond to at this point. 

You have characterized Servetus as teaching a version of modalism, and you have claimed that Abinadi was teaching the "same heresy." It seems that all that is needed for your thesis to be undermined is to demonstrate that Abinadi may very well not have been teaching a form of modalism. Besides, I doubt I would disagree with you about what Servetus was teaching. So that is rather irrelevant, in my view. 

But one thing that I think is important to point out is that Servetus' articulations about the nature of the Godhead are extensive, while Abinadi's statements on the matter are limited to only a few verses. Servetus elaborates upon things like the "personhood" of God and articulates their unity in ways that are akin to other versions of modalism. In contrast, Abinadi doesn't spend long pages elaborating distinctions about personhood or divine substance. His brief statements relevant to the nature of God are obviously far more open to interpretation, and therefore his intent (and not the intent of Servetus) is where the debate really lies. 

Actually, your argument started out (and strangely is continuing) to assert that Abinadi and Servetus taught the very same heresy, which goes well beyond it being merely consistent or compatible with the form of modalism espoused by Servetus. If you want to back peddle (essentially taking my advice) and only assert that Abinadi's statements could be interpreted as a form of modalism, then I agree with that, as long as your position responsibly acknowledges that Abinadi's statement could easily be accommodated by Trinitarian and Social Trinitarian perspectives, and by other views, such as deity complexes in a Mesoamerican setting. As it stands now, however, your thesis seems to be double minded, asserting equivalency in one breath and then mere compatibility in the other. 

 

When a person can repeat my argument back to me in a way that I agree with then I know I have done a good job of explaining it. In this exchange, that is not happening. I will takes most of the responsibility for that. But I would also appreciate a genuine attempt to understand what I am saying.

I'm not making a case for or against modalism. I have no desire to untangle the scriptural passages to determine whether they qualify as modalistic or not. That is simply not my interest and doesn't relate to any claim I am making.

My underlying claim is that Abinadi and the rest of the Book of Mormon have a view of the godhead that is consistent with Servetus' view. (I have been using "modalism" as a proxy for Servetus' views since modalism is something people understand while most have never heard of Servetus.) The MI article does nothing to refute that claim. The article points to several Book of Mormon passages that seem to contradict modalism, and by extension, Servetus' views. But in fact they don't contradict Servetus' views. We know they don't contradict his views because there are corollaries in the bible that Servetus embraces. The MI article doesn't even acknowledge the biblical corollaries. And this is where it fails. Had they looked, the authors would have found that almost every verse in the Book of Mormon with a seemingly antimodalist outlook has a corollary in the bible.

Let's pretend the authors did the same study with the bible as they did with the Book of Mormon. They would have found many verses they consider antimodalist. Their conclusion using their own logic, therefore, would have to be that there are no Christian modalists. This is in essence, what they were trying to show with early Mormons: that they weren't modalists. Obviously this conclusion would be wrong because we know there are Christian modalists. And by the same logic we can't rule out early Mormon modalists, either. They could have conducted the same study of the bible looking for trinitarian passages and, finding the weight of the evidence against trinitarianism, would have to conclude using their own logic that there aren't any christian trinitarians. I trust you can see the fallacy in this approach, which is that what they personally believe has no effect on what others choose to believe about the same writings.

The better way of conducting the study would have been to separate out all of the passages that don't have corollaries in the bible and then analyze those. After all, the passages that do agree with the bible are already presumably accepted by all other Christians whether Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, modalist, Arian, orthodox, and so forth. So they can't tell you anything except that they are generally Christian in nature. When you do this separation you will find that the non-corellated pasages lean very heavily Servetian. This is most pronounced with Abinadi's story.

Here are a couple of examples from Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. 2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son— 3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son— 4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. 5 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.

Now here are a couple of quotes from Servetus that relate very closely:

"Christ, who had pre-existed in God, came down to earth and took flesh."

"Christ is one God with the Father, not a second God."

I am not aware of any scripture in the bible that explicitly says that 1) God himself came down to take flesh or 2) Christ and the Father are one God. Since these ideas are not in the bible, it is significant that they are found in both Servetus and the Book of Mormon.

 

[JarMan]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

How we are supposed to know when a man is speaking as a prophet of God is by us how we receive a testimony from the Holy Ghost to assure us that what the man said was said as a prophet of God.  By that same spirit, we can know when a man is speaking as a prophet of God.

You should know this if you are acquainted with God enough to know how to receive a witness from him, personally.  It's not as if somebody else calling that man a prophet is supposed to "clue you in" and tell you that, yeah, okay, what he said is what God inspired him to say.

You're never supposed to just take another man's word for when someone is speaking as a prophet of God, and you shouldn't need anyone other than God to tell you when another man is speaking for him.  You're supposed to do your own homework and any witness from anyone else about anything is only evidence of what that man says is true, or not true.  You're supposed to use your own mind to communicate with God for yourself.

And yes you could possibly be wrong about something, and so could I, but it is better to use your own mind to communicate with God, or at least try to, instead of depending on some other man to act as an intermediary for you to let you know what God thinks.

I agree it is up to each individual to decide the truth for himself. But in that case, it doesn't matter if you hear something from a prophet or from a homeless man on the corner. Either way it's up to you to decide if you want to believe it.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I would suggest to do as I suggested- and make quotes with references to each position that YOU think the person you are quoting said, indicating why they are wrong.

This does none of that.  We have not even gotten into what a modalist is or is not or why certain scriptures are interpreted as "modalist" etc, nor are there any quotes showing Bruening and Paulsen's words for comparison.

Again I would simply suggest that to make your argument clear, you should write it in the format I suggested and not simply repeat your same assertions again and again.

As I said though I will go through the thread to suggest ways to make your argument stronger.

Frankly I have no dogs in this fight- it is pretty clear to me that the early BOM shows Protestant modalist tendencies and as Joseph's grasp of how each position he took implied an entire theological paradigm, he tweaked his positions until he finally ended up at the doctrine in the King Follette discourse.

I don't have any problem with this, and others do.  It does not cause me to think he was not a prophet any more than following the progression of others in other areas- perhaps Mozart's music and his progression as a composer for example, means that Mozart was not a great composer.   It is a wonderful progression and after all aren't we all about progression??

And do we believe that prophets must always be consistent and fixed in their positions attempting to be infallible?  Why does the fact that Joseph's grasp of doctrine changed and developed bother anyone?  Oh wait- I get it- the Book of Mormon is supposed to be "historical" and it is therefore PERCEIVED that it contains no input from Joseph- but that he is quoting God verbatim and of course God does not progress.

There are so many problems with that position I cannot even list them all.

But I just really really dislike bad arguments. 

I am not trying to show what you think I am trying to show, if I understand you correctly. So what you are suggesting isn't really going to help me.

I am not arguing that early Mormonism or early Joseph Smith was modalist. Actually, I don't think they were. And I don't really care one way or another.  And it doesn't matter how modalism is defined or whether you or I or anyone else thinks a certain passage is modalist. The question I am trying to get at is Book of Mormon authorship. I take the early modern hypothesis very seriously. Abinadi's story compared to Servetus' is more evidence of an early modern production. Many of Servetus' doctrinal ideas are reflected in the Book of Mormon. I've mentioned the godhead and infant baptism. To that you can add a rejection of faith alone and predestination. The Book of Mormon, while largely protestant in doctrine, veers away from mainstream protestant reformers in the same key areas the protestant Servetus veered away from the reformers. This is significant in light of the Abinadi story.

The real question for me is, how would an early modern person, well-versed in the bible and sympathetic to Servetus' views, present various doctrinal issues, particularly the godhead. I look to Servetus' writings for clues. He doesn't shy away from the New Testament verses that seem ambiguous, but rather incorporates them freely into his writings. In this sense he is no different than any other biblical commentator. In this sense, also, the Book of Mormon is no different. But where Servetus is different from other biblical exegetes is exactly where the Book of Mormon is different. And these differences are most highly concentrated in Abinadi's words. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

I am not trying to show what you think I am trying to show, if I understand you correctly. So what you are suggesting isn't really going to help me.

I am not arguing that early Mormonism or early Joseph Smith was modalist. Actually, I don't think they were. And I don't really care one way or another.  And it doesn't matter how modalism is defined or whether you or I or anyone else thinks a certain passage is modalist. The question I am trying to get at is Book of Mormon authorship. I take the early modern hypothesis very seriously. Abinadi's story compared to Servetus' is more evidence of an early modern production. Many of Servetus' doctrinal ideas are reflected in the Book of Mormon. I've mentioned the godhead and infant baptism. To that you can add a rejection of faith alone and predestination. The Book of Mormon, while largely protestant in doctrine, veers away from mainstream protestant reformers in the same key areas the protestant Servetus veered away from the reformers. This is significant in light of the Abinadi story.

The real question for me is, how would an early modern person, well-versed in the bible and sympathetic to Servetus' views, present various doctrinal issues, particularly the godhead. I look to Servetus' writings for clues. He doesn't shy away from the New Testament verses that seem ambiguous, but rather incorporates them freely into his writings. In this sense he is no different than any other biblical commentator. In this sense, also, the Book of Mormon is no different. But where Servetus is different from other biblical exegetes is exactly where the Book of Mormon is different. And these differences are most highly concentrated in Abinadi's words. 

I guess you are right. We are are on different wavelengths.

I read and study the Book of Mormon because of its spiritual value. Its authorship is totally irrelevant to me.

One could argue authorship forever and miss completely the spiritual value of the book.

To me that is the same category as geography or historicity.

We have the book, period. It is either worth spending time studying or it is not.

It's value does not lie in who wrote it, so why pursue what is not valuable, and will remain forever insoluble in the presence of such riches? What value is there in the time spent in that pursuit?

I tend to be uninterested in puzzles for their own sake. I wish I could understand how others see it but at my age I think I never will. I know others find this very important but I have never understood why.

Edited September 20, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ryan Dahle]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

When a person can repeat my argument back to me in a way that I agree with then I know I have done a good job of explaining it. In this exchange, that is not happening. I will takes most of the responsibility for that. But I would also appreciate a genuine attempt to understand what I am saying.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, it seems you have almost completely missed my point in literally every post I have made.  And I am genuinely trying to understand your position. In fact, I think I understand it very well. You just are misunderstanding my critique of it. 

Let me try to spell this out as clearly as possible:

From the very beginning, my essential point has simply been that you came out too strong in your opening position. The issue of identifying what Abinadi taught is more complex and more ambiguous than you were presenting. My purpose in drawing attention to the Bruening and Paulsen article wasn't to demonstrate that the text clearly lends itself better to a Trinitarian or Social Trinitarian reading, but rather my point was simply to show that a Trinitarian or Social Trinitarian reading is easily just as valid as a Modalist reading. If that is the case, then it can  be said that Abinadi's statements are consistent with Trinitarianism or Social Trinitarianism. And if that is the case, then your claim that Abinadi's statements are consistent with Modalism is of little significance. The text is consistent with all sorts of readings! It is our complex set of assumptions and biases about the text that will guide our preferred readings of it. (Now I'm not saying that everything in the text is so ambiguous; it's just that, IMO, this issue is very ambiguous.)

All of this is to say that one of the parallels between Abinadi and Servetus that you seem to think is significant is not evident from the text itself, but stems from your assumptions about it. And if that is the case, then claiming that Abinadi and Servetus taught the "same heresy" is clearly too strong of a statement. If the author of the text actually had a Trinitarian or Social Trinitarian perspective, then clearly it wouldn't be the "same heresy," and your proposed parallel would be significantly weakened. That is why I advised you to back away from the equivalency argument (i.e. Abinadi's heresy = Servetus' heresy) and opt for a more generic claim that they were both martyred for teaching something about the Godhead that those in power disagreed with. 

That's it. That's my argument. I really don't have any interest in trying to demonstrate that Social Trinitarianism is preferred over Modalism because I don't think that such arguments can be convincingly made from the text itself. Thus, like you, I don't have a dog in the fight on that front. I prefer the standard Latter-day Saint version of Social Trinitarianism and apply that reading of the Book of Mormon for reasons besides (although not in contradiction to) what is strictly in the text itself. See, I think we are really on the same page.

I suspect Abinadi believed a version of Social Trinitarianism, but was likely adapting his theology a bit so that it would make sense to a people who were familiar with deity complexes in ancient Mesoamerica, just like Paul modified his presentation about God when speaking to the Athenians or like when Ammon seemed to modify his teachings about God when teaching King Lamoni. I realize I can't demonstrate that my interpretation is accurate. But I see it as being easily as consistent as the assumption that Abinadi was teaching a version of 16th century Modalism.

Other relevant assumptions about the text that would affect its interpretation are also unable to be demonstrated from the text itself. You seem, for example, to assume that one shouldn't attempt to harmonize passages in the text relating to the Godhead. You claim that such a reading is "ad hoc." Actually, it is simply a product of one's assumptions about the text. Choosing to interpret passages discretely could be just as "ad hoc," depending on the actual history, provenance, and authorship of the text. If the text was truly written by various prophets who generally held a consistent view of fundamental doctrines and principles, including a consistent view of the Godhead, then attempting to harmonize the text on that matter would be a reasonable exercise.

Again, my point isn't to prove anything about the text itself. My point is simply to demonstrate that your opening position was too strong and that the critiques and labels (e.g. ad hoc or prooftexting) that you slap on others interpretations' of the text could apply equally well to your own interpretation if your starting assumptions aren't valid. Like you, I also care about Book of Mormon authorship. I literally wake up just about every work day and conduct extensive research on that topic. I see lots of evidence for ancient origins that are consistent with the text's own claims, and so far I haven't found your parallels with Early Modern figures to be superior to the research that I am familiar with.

I think we certainly agree that the text utilizes EModE lexis, grammar, and syntax in ways that seem beyond what Joseph Smith would have been capable of, but we account for that evidence differently based on our assumptions about the true authorship of the text. For me, my assumptions about its authorship involve a very complex weighing and balancing of lots of categories of evidence (spiritual, historical, linguistic, archaeological, textual, scientific, etc.). I will probably never understand all the factors that go into your own interpretation. All I can do is sample aspects of your theory and see what I think of them. I've sampled this aspect, and think it is certainly interesting but not as persuasive as you seem to find it, for the reasons I outlined above. Again, that is why I am engaging with you about this issue. I really could care less about debating Modalism vs. Social Trinitarianism, at least not for its own sake. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 20, 2019 by Ryan Dahle

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, JarMan said:

I agree it is up to each individual to decide the truth for himself. But in that case, it doesn't matter if you hear something from a prophet or from a homeless man on the corner. Either way it's up to you to decide if you want to believe it.

I would say "discover" rather than "decide" but yes other than that we agree on this, I think.  And yes anyone could speak as a prophet.  All it takes is personal revelation from God and sharing what he said with others.

[JarMan]

10 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, if it makes you feel any better, it seems you have almost completely missed my point in literally every post I have made.  And I am genuinely trying to understand your position. In fact, I think I understand it very well. You just are misunderstanding my critique of it. 

Let me try to spell this out as clearly as possible:

From the very beginning, my essential point has simply been that you came out too strong in your opening position. The issue of identifying what Abinadi taught is more complex and more ambiguous than you were presenting. My purpose in drawing attention to the Bruening and Paulsen article wasn't to demonstrate that the text clearly lends itself better to a Trinitarian or Social Trinitarian reading, but rather my point was simply to show that a Trinitarian or Social Trinitarian reading is easily just as valid as a Modalist reading. If that is the case, then it can  be said that Abinadi's statements are consistent with Trinitarianism or Social Trinitarianism. And if that is the case, then your claim that Abinadi's statements are consistent with Modalism is of little significance. The text is consistent with all sorts of readings! It is our complex set of assumptions and biases about the text that will guide our preferred readings of it. (Now I'm not saying that everything in the text is so ambiguous; it's just that, IMO, this issue is very ambiguous.)

All of this is to say that one of the parallels between Abinadi and Servetus that you seem to think is significant is not evident from the text itself, but stems from your assumptions about it. And if that is the case, then claiming that Abinadi and Servetus taught the "same heresy" is clearly too strong of a statement. If the author of the text actually had a Trinitarian or Social Trinitarian perspective, then clearly it wouldn't be the "same heresy," and your proposed parallel would be significantly weakened. That is why I advised you to back away from the equivalency argument (i.e. Abinadi's heresy = Servetus' heresy) and opt for a more generic claim that they were both martyred for teaching something about the Godhead that those in power disagreed with. 

That's it. That's my argument. I really don't have any interest in trying to demonstrate that Social Trinitarianism is preferred over Modalism because I don't think that such arguments can be convincingly made from the text itself. Thus, like you, I don't have a dog in the fight on that front. I prefer the standard Latter-day Saint version of Social Trinitarianism and apply that reading of the Book of Mormon for reasons besides (although not in contradiction to) what is strictly in the text itself. See, I think we are really on the same page.

I suspect Abinadi believed a version of Social Trinitarianism, but was likely adapting his theology a bit so that it would make sense to a people who were familiar with deity complexes in ancient Mesoamerica, just like Paul modified his presentation about God when speaking to the Athenians or like when Ammon seemed to modify his teachings about God when teaching King Lamoni. I realize I can't demonstrate that my interpretation is accurate. But I see it as being easily as consistent as the assumption that Abinadi was teaching a version of 16th century Modalism.

Other relevant assumptions about the text that would affect its interpretation are also unable to be demonstrated from the text itself. You seem, for example, to assume that one shouldn't attempt to harmonize passages in the text relating to the Godhead. You claim that such a reading is "ad hoc." Actually, it is simply a product of one's assumptions about the text. Choosing to interpret passages discretely could be just as "ad hoc," depending on the actual history, provenance, and authorship of the text. If the text was truly written by various prophets who generally held a consistent view of fundamental doctrines and principles, including a consistent view of the Godhead, then attempting to harmonize the text on that matter would be a reasonable exercise.

Again, my point isn't to prove anything about the text itself. My point is simply to demonstrate that your opening position was too strong and that the critiques and labels (e.g. ad hoc or prooftexting) that you slap on others interpretations' of the text could apply equally well to your own interpretation if your starting assumptions aren't valid. Like you, I also care about Book of Mormon authorship. I literally wake up just about every work day and conduct extensive research on that topic. I see lots of evidence for ancient origins that are consistent with the text's own claims, and so far I haven't found your parallels with Early Modern figures to be superior to the research that I am familiar with.

I think we certainly agree that the text utilizes EModE lexis, grammar, and syntax in ways that seem beyond what Joseph Smith would have been capable of, but we account for that evidence differently based on our assumptions about the true authorship of the text. For me, my assumptions about its authorship involve a very complex weighing and balancing of lots of categories of evidence (spiritual, historical, linguistic, archaeological, textual, scientific, etc.). I will probably never understand all the factors that go into your own interpretation. All I can do is sample aspects of your theory and see what I think of them. I've sampled this aspect, and think it is certainly interesting but not as persuasive as you seem to find it, for the reasons I outlined above. Again, that is why I am engaging with you about this issue. I really could care less about debating Modalism vs. Social Trinitarianism, at least not for its own sake. 

The purported heresy Abinadi was guilty of was this: "For thou hast said that God himself should come down among the children of men." What do you think this means. (There are other statements that probably contributed.) And what heresy do you think Servetus was guilty of?

 

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by JarMan

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, JarMan said:

What heresy do you think Abinadi was killed for? And what heresy do you think Servetus was killed for? Maybe that's where we should start.

Severus was killed by Voldemort because he thought it would make the Elder Wand work for him. Oh sorry, is that a spoiler?

 

 

 

 

Okay, I will try to stop now.

[JarMan]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I guess you are right. We are are on different wavelengths.

I read and study the Book of Mormon because of its spiritual value. Its authorship is totally irrelevant to me.

One could argue authorship forever and miss completely the spiritual value of the book.

To me that is the same category as geography or historicity.

We have the book, period. It is either worth spending time studying or it is not.

It's value does not lie in who wrote it, so why pursue what is not valuable, and will remain forever insoluble in the presence of such riches? What value is there in the time spent in that pursuit?

I tend to be uninterested in puzzles for their own sake. I wish I could understand how others see it but at my age I think I never will. I know others find this very important but I have never understood why.

The value of the Book of Mormon and its authorship are both important to me. Part of the reason I like to research authorship is because it gives me a focused reason to study the Book of Mormon. And I also love puzzles.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Okay, I will try to stop now.

I know. It's hard. But I can quit any time I want

 

[JarMan]

I should point out that Bruening and Paulsen identify Abinadi's statements as being "credible evidence" for modalism in the Book of Mormon:

Quote

Widmer and those of similar persuasion quote passages unqualifiedly affirming that the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son as “the strongest evidence” for Book of Mormon modalism (pp. 23, 33, 34).[25] Indeed, these passages constitute the only credible evidence that can be found for modalism in the Book of Mormon.

Skousen points out that Abinadi's doctrine is no longer taught in the church (even though he associates it with the Gospel of John).

Quote

God will come down among the children of men and take upon himself a body of flesh and be sacrificed for mankind. This was the heresy that led to the death of Abinadi (or at least it was the official accusation against him, described in Mosiah 17:7–8). This characterization of the Trinity is not the current LDS view of the Godhead.

Countless critical sources have described Abinadi as modalist or Sabellian. Abinadi-as-modalist is a rational reading of the text regardless of one's own personal opinion.

Edited September 22, 2019 by JarMan