Critical (but Polite) LDS Discussion (for Pa Pa)

[_GR33N]

Just to jump in with one point re: Nephi and Laban.
I did actually go back and read the entire series you selected (after I wrote what I wrote (!)) Yes, there is a strong reference in the earlier verses to turning the other cheek. I just don't think Christ gave the option of determining when 'enough is enough' and finally striking back. I am not saying Christ is right and Joseph Smith's D&C revelation is wrong, or vice versa, but I am pointing out that there is a fundamental difference between those two approaches.

The Nephi story does not follow the law that is outlined in D&C 98.

The law states, you must bear him coming upon you 3 times, forgiving him each time. Then, you must warn him in the name of Jesus Christ to leave you and your family alone. IF he comes upon you a FOURTH time, you may do what you wish. Killing is justified, but sparing him will be rewarded for righteousness.

1 Nephi 3:13 We have our first encounter with Laban. He tries to have Laman killed.

1 Nephi 3:25 We have our second attempt to get the plates-this time by purchasing them. Laban tries to have them killed.

1 Nephi 4 we have Nephi going alone to retrieve the plates. He does not warn Laban, since Laban is passed out. He kills Laban and uses deception to steal the plates.

Nephi did not follow this law as outlined in D&C 98. Laban only "came upon" Nephi and his brothers TWO times. Plus, there was no warning given.

In Nephi 3:13 Laban accuses (bears false witness) Laman of trying to steal from him (1) and then tries to have him killed (2).

In Nephi 3:25 Laban steals from Lehi's sons (3) and then tries to have them killed again (4)

Four technically recorded instances of Laban transgressing the law against Lehi's family. As for giving a warning to Laban we don't know if he was directly warned since Nephi's doesn't record it except for a possibility in 1 Nephi 1:18 where Lehi prophesies to the people concerning their destruction.

Thanks for that analysis. It seems to be similar to the pattern we see in D&C 132, where the rules for polygamy are laid out, but nowhere in Smith's practice of polygamy do we see him abiding by any of those rules.

[_Pa Pa]

beefcalf asked...

Why don't you join us, Pa Pa, and show the world that critics and believers can discuss the issues without resorting to rude behavior?

I thought rude was required here...I don't have the time to have one question, backed up with another and another, unless I truly believe they really want my opinion.

[_beefcalf]

beefcalf asked...

Why don't you join us, Pa Pa, and show the world that critics and believers can discuss the issues without resorting to rude behavior?

I thought rude was required here...I don't have the time to have one question, backed up with another and another, unless I truly believe they really want my opinion.

Rude is not required here, thankfully.

If you are not here to discuss, for what purpose are you here?

[_beefcalf]

(The following exchange came from another thread. I have moved it here so as to not derail the other thread and to allow a more measured and polite discussion.)

There is no "Mormon God"; there is God the Father, his Son and the Holy Ghost...they are God.

Mosiah 15: 2-5
2And 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—
3The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5And 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.

Of course I could have it wrong…as I have no intelligence.

by the way…to both Jews and Muslims we are all polytheist.

Pa Pa,

I find it notable that you reference Book of Mormon scripture which describes a Nicene version of the Godhead, thus helping prove that Joseph Smith's 1820 First Vision was unknown to him in 1830.

It seems to me that Mosiah is explaining some of the titles given to Jesus Christ and the reasons he is given those titles. He further explains that those titles refer to one God (again a title). I don't think this describes the Nicene creed.

GR33N: [I will leave this as a stub, as I am at work at the moment, and am unable to give this topic the attention it deserves. I should have some time tonight to organize and post some of my own observations. Thanks!]

[_basilII]

(The following exchange came from another thread. I have moved it here so as to not derail the other thread and to allow a more measured and polite discussion.)

There is no "Mormon God"; there is God the Father, his Son and the Holy Ghost...they are God.

Mosiah 15: 2-5
2And 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—
3The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—
4And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.
5And 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.

Of course I could have it wrong…as I have no intelligence.

by the way…to both Jews and Muslims we are all polytheist.

Pa Pa,

I find it notable that you reference Book of Mormon scripture which describes a Nicene version of the Godhead, thus helping prove that Joseph Smith's 1820 First Vision was unknown to him in 1830.

That is not the Nicene or orthodox view of God. Jesus is not the Son and the Father. Jesus is God the Son distinct from God the Father. It strikes me more as modalism than trinitarianism.

[_beefcalf]

GR33N,

Ok, yesterday was my 21st wedding anniversary, so I made the obviously correct decision NOT to get on the computer last night and write a bunch of stuff my wife disagrees with... ;-)

Let me go through those verses in Mosiah that Pa Pa referenced:

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.

First, my perspective is that of a layperson. I don't have a background in the esoteric interpretations of scriptures. I consider that since the LDS church considers the Gospel to be 'plain and precious truth' that one should not need an advanced degrees in theology to read the scriptures and analyze their meaning.

My original comment was that these verses allow us to see that Smith had a view of the Godhead in 1828-1830 that is closer to the Nicene trinity than to the descriptions given later of the Godhead (those made explicit in the 1838 account of the First Vision).

Lets add back in Mosiah 15, verse 1, which Pa Pa did not include in his quote:

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.

For the forty years I attended LDS services, a phrase commonly heard was "God and Jesus." To my ears, and I would wager that most LDS (non-apologetic!) would agree, the title 'God' would always refer to the Father and not to the Son. So if we look at this from the modern LDS perspective, it seems clear that Abinadi in verse 1 is speaking of God, as in the Father, Elohim, and not speaking of Jesus Christ.

In verse 2 he goes on to list one of the defining criteria of the Nicene trinity, that whole One-God, Three-Persons thing. When verse two first says 'he', it is in reference to 'God' mentioned previously in verse 1. So here we have Abinadi saying that God shall come down among the children of men, and be called the Son of God.

The only sane way anyone could interpret this is that it refers to the traditional view of the Trinity and not to the modern LDS view of the Godhead.

As an active Latter-Day Saint, I didn't understand it, but accepted it as just the strange/funny way we Mormons talked about things. Only when I came to understand that the 1838 version of the first vision was an innovation, did it all start to make sense to me.

At the time Smith (or whoever) composed the narrative in the Book of Mormon, he (or they) were clearly working with the understanding of the Godhead as the traditional Methodist-style Trinity.

Support for this view comes from the Lectures on Faith series, (once part of the canon in the D&C, but removed), Lecture Fifth, which specifically describes the Father as "personage of spirit, glory and power." The Lectures on Faith were published in the original 1835 D&C, some 15 years after the 1820 vision would have happened. If Smith had known about God being a personage of flesh, why would the Book of Mormon refer repeatedly to a (trinitarian) God as a Spirit? It makes a lot of sense when one realizes that the idea that God was a Personage of flesh and bones was newly introduced around 1838, which, of course, calls the validity of the 1820 first vision into question. Elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, God the Father is referred to as a Spirit, as when Alma teaches King Lamoni, in Alma 18. In fact, some of the references to Jesus being the Son of God were originally "Jesus is God" with the "the Son of" being added in later additions.

I have heard apologists say that these edits were made to clarify what was originally unclear, but this seems to be a difficult approach to take for a book that God himself deemed to be perfectly correct.

The balance of these verses (3,4 and 5) does nothing if not strengthen the view that Smith was clearly referring to the then-universal view of the Godhead, that being the Nicene trinity (or at least completely at odds with the 1838 first vision account and virtually all LDS teachings on the matter since that time).

GR33N, your forbearance and patience is appreciated. I look forward to another of your thoughtful responses to my analysis.

----------------

That is not the Nicene or orthodox view of God. Jesus is not the Son and the Father. Jesus is God the Son distinct from God the Father. It strikes me more as modalism than trinitarianism.

basilII: not being trained in these matters, I would appreciate it if you could provide a somewhat detailed analysis on this matter, and explain the significance of your observations. Thanks!

[_moksha]

I thought rude was required here....

This is the root of the misunderstanding. Rude behavior is not required anywhere outside of a Klingon barroom. While this board does afford the freedom to say rude things, there is no compelling need to do so. One of the good things about going to Church is that we learn to exercise benevolent behavior toward others. That would include restaining our impulses for insulting others here or elsewhere. Sometimes we lob a friendly grenade at a few posters from MAD, but we do so in such a way as to not cause any permanent injury.

[_beefcalf]

I thought rude was required here....

This is the root of the misunderstanding. Rude behavior is not required anywhere outside of a Klingon barroom. While this board does afford the freedom to say rude things, there is no compelling need to do so. One of the good things about going to Church is that we learn to exercise benevolent behavior toward others. That would include restaining our impulses for insulting others here or elsewhere. Sometimes we lob a friendly grenade at a few posters from MAD, but we do so in such a way as to not cause any permanent injury.

That is what is ironic here. I saw Pa Pa lamenting about the rudeness he saw in everything here and offered him a place wherein people could be polite without being compelled to be polite (hence the thread is here and not in the Celestial Forum)

My idea is that by laying an implicit ground rule (in the title of the thread) that this would be a polite discussion, an ensuing absence of rudeness would then prove that people have voluntarily decided not to be rude, and not that they were compelled to be polite.

As you can see, regrettably, Pa Pa has effectively declined my invitation to engage in polite discussion.

I hope he reconsiders. I also would encourage anyone else who would like to add to a polite interchange to post. Even if you have a reputation for being caustic, put on your sunday-go-to-meetings and post a polite observation, just to prove the point.

[_GR33N]

GR33N,

Ok, yesterday was my 21st wedding anniversary, so I made the obviously correct decision NOT to get on the computer last night and write a bunch of stuff my wife disagrees with... ;-)

You did make the right choice in honoring your eternal companion on your wedding anniversary. I commend you for it and an apology is unnecessary. 21 years is an accomplishment that should be cherished. Taking time to respond on these trivial message boards pale in comparison. (maybe you shouldn't ever be writing a bunch of stuff your wife disagrees with?) ;)

Let me go through those verses in Mosiah that Pa Pa referenced:

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.

First, my perspective is that of a layperson. I don't have a background in the esoteric interpretations of scriptures. I consider that since the LDS church considers the Gospel to be 'plain and precious truth' that one should not need an advanced degrees in theology to read the scriptures and analyze their meaning.

I hardly think that your a typical layperson. Your knowledge on these topics is much more in depth in my opinion (from what I've read) than most average LDS church attendee. I also agree that one should not need an advanced degree in theology to read the scriptures to gain an understanding of their meaning. It doesn't come all at once though.

2 Nephi 28:30 For behold, thus saith the Lord God: I will give unto the children of men line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little; and blessed are those who hearken unto my precepts, and lend an ear unto my counsel, for they shall learn wisdom; for unto him that receiveth I will give more...

My original comment was that these verses allow us to see that Smith had a view of the Godhead in 1828-1830 that is closer to the Nicene trinity than to the descriptions given later of the Godhead (those made explicit in the 1838 account of the First Vision).

My response to your comment was already give in an earlier post but I will expound somewhat.

It seems to me that Mosiah is explaining some of the titles given to Jesus Christ and the reasons he is given those titles. He further explains that those titles refer to one God (again a title). I don't think this describes the Nicene creed.

The word God is a title and can refer to and individual or a group of individuals synonymous with the term Godhead. Godhead being made up of multiple individuals (Gods). For example if a group of people on a library committee are referred to as the "committee". Such as in conversation: "Yesterday the committee made the decision to increase the fees for late library books". Even though the word committee is singular it refers to multiple individuals that make up the committee.

Lets add back in Mosiah 15, verse 1, which Pa Pa did not include in his quote:

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.

For the forty years I attended LDS services, a phrase commonly heard was "God and Jesus." To my ears, and I would wager that most LDS (non-apologetic!) would agree, the title 'God' would always refer to the Father and not to the Son. So if we look at this from the modern LDS perspective, it seems clear that Abinadi in verse 1 is speaking of God, as in the Father, Elohim, and not speaking of Jesus Christ.

In their most simplistic terms most LDS would agree with your observation. When you realize, as you have, that looking closer it creates a tendency to question Abinadi's meaning because at face value it seems to contradict the simplistic understanding. For me it is clear that Abinadi is speaking of Jesus Christ and referring to him with the title of God which he is. Really, 40 years? Wow! ;)

In verse 2 he goes on to list one of the defining criteria of the Nicene trinity, that whole One-God, Three-Persons thing. When verse two first says 'he', it is in reference to 'God' mentioned previously in verse 1. So here we have Abinadi saying that God shall come down among the children of men, and be called the Son of God.

The only sane way anyone could interpret this is that it refers to the traditional view of the Trinity and not to the modern LDS view of the Godhead.

Sanity is a matter of perception in my opinion. My perception (and I may suffer from insanity) is that Abinadi provides further testimony of the Godhead.

As an active Latter-Day Saint, I didn't understand it, but accepted it as just the strange/funny way we Mormons talked about things. Only when I came to understand that the 1838 version of the first vision was an innovation, did it all start to make sense to me.

At the time Smith (or whoever) composed the narrative in the Book of Mormon, he (or they) were clearly working with the understanding of the Godhead as the traditional Methodist-style Trinity.

Again, I would beg to differ. It seems clear to me that the Book of Mormon does support the Godhead.

Support for this view comes from the Lectures on Faith series, (once part of the canon in the D&C, but removed), Lecture Fifth, which specifically describes the Father as "personage of spirit, glory and power." The Lectures on Faith were published in the original 1835 D&C, some 15 years after the 1820 vision would have happened. If Smith had known about God being a personage of flesh, why would the Book of Mormon refer repeatedly to a (trinitarian) God as a Spirit? It makes a lot of sense when one realizes that the idea that God was a Personage of flesh and bones was newly introduced around 1838, which, of course, calls the validity of the 1820 first vision into question. Elsewhere in the Book of Mormon, God the Father is referred to as a Spirit, as when Alma teaches King Lamoni, in Alma 18. In fact, some of the references to Jesus being the Son of God were originally "Jesus is God" with the "the Son of" being added in later additions.

Thank you for referring to the Lectures on Faith series. I have never read them before and so researched and found a copy online. I have really been enjoying reading it! I found the part in the fifth lecture that you quote from and it doesn't specifically say that God the Father has a physical body and yet it doesn't say that he doesn't either. It goes on in the same sentence: possessing all perfection and fullness.which can be interpreted to include having a physical body when place in the context of the plan of salvation and the requirement to have a physical body as part of that plan. As for the timeline, Joseph worked on revisions to the Bible in the early 1830's of which verses address the Godhead and support his knowledge of the Godhead which he did before working on the Lectures of Faith.

I have heard apologists say that these edits were made to clarify what was originally unclear, but this seems to be a difficult approach to take for a book that God himself deemed to be perfectly correct.

The balance of these verses (3,4 and 5) does nothing if not strengthen the view that Smith was clearly referring to the then-universal view of the Godhead, that being the Nicene trinity (or at least completely at odds with the 1838 first vision account and virtually all LDS teachings on the matter since that time).

GR33N, your forbearance and patience is appreciated. I look forward to another of your thoughtful responses to my analysis.

I again would like to thank you for this exchange, and helping me to discover the Lectures on Faith!

[_beefcalf]

GR33N,

I wanted to add this link to our discussion which spilled over on another thread (with regard the nature of the Godhead we've been discussing here).

I posted some things which make mention of the nature of the Godhead and you posted a thoughtful reply.

For any who are reading through these posts, I want to provide a link to that post as it has relevance to this discussion.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=416592#p416592

I am considering copying and pasting the entry to make it easier to read... what do you think, GR33N? Leave it as a link, or paste the whole thing?