Abinadi's Convoluted Description of God

[_Nightlion]

Nobody just naturally believed Jesus.

So you're on the course of Jesus?

So must every true Christian. And what I was talking about was ONLY true Christianity. Obviously, you do not know what that is. You keep defaulting to Joseph Smith as a con man.
I am talking about a subject few come to realize.

It is not without precedent that only one in a generation gets it?

Joseph Smith taught that same IT and nobody in his generation got it.

IT can be found all through the Old Testament but the Jews never got it.

IT was taught by Christ but Jesus had to coach the disciples for forty day and tell them to continue with one accord until they got IT. And a few did. Not long and IT was lost.

IT can be found all through the Book of Mormon. How did Joseph Smith "con" into the Book of Mormon the most difficult concept to get right?

You find me a thousand Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic clergy and NOT one will know what IT is or how to go about getting it. Same with a thousand Mormon leaders.

Since I got a handle on what IT is and can prove is consistently and disprove everything wrong in all the fake "its" Joseph Smith getting IT right warrants him your concession that he was no con man. That is not possible.

I realize this entire line of thought escapes your comprehension. IT remains a demonstrable fact. This rag-board is dedicated to giving Joseph Smith no respect. That is why I enjoy myself here rubbing your noses in your ignorance and inexperience because IT is true religion and that is what this board cannot escape from.

[_thews]

What part of an ever-changing account do you find confusing? You're talking about an account regarding seeing God, and imply these many different accounts are from someone telling the truth. At what point do you logically conclude they're all lies?

The part that makes it confusing is that the Lectures on Faith, in which the Father is described as a separate (though spirit) being from Jesus, is dated to the approximate time that Joseph Smith wrote the earliest First Vision account in which only one Lord appears to be mentioned.

Because of this, it may be too simplistic to argue from Joseph Smith's 1832 First Vision account that he believed in only one God at the time.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That's because he hadn't heard the story of Jame G Marsh yet... who he ripped off:

http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

Michael Quinn, in his book "The Mormon Hierarchy : Origins of Power" mentions that in 1838 a 14 year-old Mormon boy had a vision of God and Jesus and talked to them "face to face."

"7 May, 1838. James G. Marsh, 14-year-old son of the president of the Quorum of Twelve, dies. The Elder's Journal issue of July notes that at age nine this boy "had a remarkable vision, in which he talked with the Father and many of the ancient prophets face to face, and beheld the Son of God coming in his glory." No publication at this time had yet referred to Smith's vision of the Father and the Son."

(D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, p.628)

It's interesting to note that this boy's first vision-type story was published just before Joseph Smith's secretary wrote the "official" first vision story with the Father and the Son.

Joseph Smith was the editor of the Elders Journal when the boy's obituary appeared:

Elder's Journal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

[_consiglieri]

Joseph Smith had a differing account on the Godhead because he was schooled after the Book of Mormon. If God (Jesus) really did give Joseph Smith his new gospel, what sense does it make to then change it from a monotheistic to henothesitic version years later? Does this make sense to you?

Yes, actually.

[_BartBurk]

Where is Black Elk when we need him?

[_thews]

Joseph Smith had a differing account on the Godhead because he was schooled after the Book of Mormon. If God (Jesus) really did give Joseph Smith his new gospel, what sense does it make to then change it from a monotheistic to henothesitic version years later? Does this make sense to you?

Yes, actually.

Please explain...

[_Tobin]

But there is a problem with Abinadi’s applying this to “God himself,” and that is that Isaiah 53 says it is God himself who is going to be involved in laying these punishments on his servant. The suffering servant will grow up before the Lord” (14:1), he is “smitten of God” (14:4), the “Lord hath laid on him the iniquities of us all” (14:7), it “pleased the Lord to bruise him” (14:10), and the “pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand,” (14:10)

How can Abinadi apply the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 to “God himself” when God is mentioned several times as being separate from the servant?

Interestingly, Abinadi himself sees the problem, and therefore launches into a convoluted argument as to how it is that the Father and the Son are one and the same being. Here we must leave all notions of the First Vision and D&C 130 behind us, for this is not Abinadi’s paradigm, nor is it the point he is making. Rather, Abinadi distinguishes the Father as a being of spirit and the Son as a being of flesh, with the implication that they are the same being manifesting in two forms.

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. 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 earth.” (Mosiah 14:1-4)

I don't think this is a problem for the Mormon concept of God at all, IF you modify the Mormon understanding of God. It is also not as convoluted as it may appear. If you carefully study the Bible, you'll notice that Jehovah and El (or Elohim) are often used interchangeably. If there were really a distinction between them, then this should not be the case. The fact is whether it is the Son or the Father, they are God. They are united in will and purpose and in reality both are the Son and Father. It is one eternal round in which the Father conceives the Son (his only begotten), the Son suffers, atones, and saves his generations, and then rises, and is the Father and the cycle repeats. This is at the heart of what God is about. God saves us. The necessity of this is what Abinadi was communicating and without it, the Law of Moses is worthless.

It is interesting to note that Abinadi's teaching attacks the modern Mormon notion that man is or can be God. We can never do what the Son and Father does for us and so we are NOT God.

[_Nightlion]

That's because he hadn't heard the story of Jame G Marsh yet... who he ripped off:

http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

Why ripped off? All this incident accomplished was to get Joseph Smith off his dime about his own experience that he was not sharing. The Lord wanted Joseph's experience to come out. And according to other accounts there were multiple first visions types around that other men already published. Why did Joseph have to wait precisely until this event? Supposedly this was a common motif in Early American Religion.

Joseph was the editor and perhaps having some fun testing the waters attributing this sort of story to young boy just to see how people might react. According to Joseph Smith's own account he was persecuted from the first incident of his telling it back in the day.

Skeptics have so little imagination.

[_consiglieri]

It is interesting to note that Abinadi's teaching attacks the modern Mormon notion that man is or can be God. We can never do what the Son and Father does for us and so we are NOT God.

For myself, I think it quite possible for different people to hold different ideas about God (and even mutually exclusive ideas about God) and still be prophets.

God is not something, I think, that can be comprehended entirely by mortal minds, and hence any attempt to describe God in totality is doomed to failure, misapprehension and error.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_The Mighty Builder]

You don't know that, Nobody knows for sure, You weren't there.

[_Tobin]

It is interesting to note that Abinadi's teaching attacks the modern Mormon notion that man is or can be God. We can never do what the Son and Father does for us and so we are NOT God.

For myself, I think it quite possible for different people to hold different ideas about God (and even mutually exclusive ideas about God) and still be prophets.

God is not something, I think, that can be comprehended entirely by mortal minds, and hence any attempt to describe God in totality is doomed to failure, misapprehension and error.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Doesn't that fly counter to what Abinadi is doing here? He is literally stating what God is going to do for us to make the Law of Moses worthwhile. Unless you know of some scripture about time machines that allows man to come back to earth, reinhabit our mortal bodies, and have a go at being the Son and the Father, I really don't see how the fact people have different ideas about God matters. Of course they do. In this case, TBMs have the WRONG idea about God.