DiscussMormonism.com

It has long been a question to me why it is that Abinadi launches into a complicated and very foreign (to modern Mormon ears) description of God at the beginning of Mosiah 15.

While perusing the text this past week, I think I figured it out. (I had buried this in the overly long Sunday school notes which have managed to hit page 2 without a single comment, so thought I would extract and highlight it here.)

I would be interested in hearing any thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

____________________________


Abinadi tells them that they are not keeping the commandments of God as contained in the Decalogue, regardless of how well they are keeping the ordinances and sacrifices, and will later explain that the law of Moses is of no effect unless they recognize that it is done as a type and shadow of the sacrifice of Christ who alone can redeem them from the bands of death. “And moreover, I say unto you, that salvation doth not come by the law alone; and were it not for the atonement, which God himself shall make for the sins and iniquities of his people, that they must unavoidably perish, notwithstanding the law of Moses.” (13:28)

In making the transition from the law of Moses to the gospel of Christ, Abinadi says the law is not sufficient of its own but was given to the children of Israel as a strict law because they were a “stiffnecked people.” (13:29) He says Moses prophesied of the coming of the Messiah, and that “God should redeem his people” (a possible reference to Deuteronomy 18:18-19?). He then cites other unnamed prophets as having predicted that “God himself should come down among the children of men, and take upon him the form of man, and go forth in mighty power upon the face of the earth.”

But Abinadi now quotes, as if in support of his proposition, all of Isaiah 53 in Mosiah 14, and begins apparently explicating the passage in 15:1 by reiterating the point that “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.” (15:1) In other words, Isaiah 53 seems to be the source for this prophecy of Abinadi that will end up getting him executed. It seems clear, then, that Abinadi sees the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as referring to God himself, and that he will come down to earth and suffer on our behalf, will bear our griefs and carry our sorrows (14:4), we will be healed with his stripes (lashes) (14:5), and will “pour out his soul unto death. (14:12).

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)

Having established this point, Abinadi goes on to explicate the suffering servant element of Isaiah 53: “And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptations, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people. . . . the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father.” (15:5-6).

Having extricated himself from this thorny theological bramble, Abinadi goes on to selectively quote from Isaiah 53 in his exegesis, saying that Jesus was “as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth,” and that the Son had power to “make intercession” for the children of men,” having “taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions.”

consiglieri wrote:It has long been a question to me why it is that Abinadi launches into a complicated and very foreign (to modern Mormon ears) description of God at the beginning of Mosiah 15.

Read it like a Trinitarian or a modalist and it makes more sense. I bolded the part that is causing your problems.

Aristotle Smith wrote:
Read it like a Trinitarian or a modalist and it makes more sense. I bolded the part that is causing your problems.

I completely agree. Abinadi is preaching anything but modern Mormon doctrine on the subject. If anything, it is more reminiscent of Lecture on Faith Number 5.

I was just excited that I think I finally saw the link in the chain of reasoning that led him to take what seems an otherwise pointless (and perplexing) theological detour.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

consiglieri wrote:

Aristotle Smith wrote:
Read it like a Trinitarian or a modalist and it makes more sense. I bolded the part that is causing your problems.

I completely agree. Abinadi is preaching anything but modern Mormon doctrine on the subject. If anything, it is more reminiscent of Lecture on Faith Number 5.

--Consiglieri

I was told that the modern Mormon concept of three separate gods came later on in early Mormonism.

moksha wrote:I was told that the modern Mormon concept of three separate gods came later on in early Mormonism.

I think this is probably demonstrable.

Joseph Smith's first known account of his First Vision (the one in his own handwriting and dated to 1832) seems to mention only one "Lord" (though it can be forced to yield two in a pinch; both called "the Lord," mind you).

The Lectures on Faith, which I believe date to the same year (or is it 1833?) refer to two beings in the Godhead, the Father (who is Spirit) and the Son (who is physical); the Holy Ghost being a disembodied "mind" that they two share.

Joseph Smith's second known account of the First Vision (in 1835) does mention two beings.

It is all somewhat complicated, and I believe others have done the heavy-lifting in putting together a chronology.

I think it fair to say that Joseph Smith's concept of God developed over his career, and was just undergoing some very interesting permutations when his life was cut short. (Here I refer to God's once having been a man on another world, together with the idea of an eternal rescension of Gods above the Father.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Where's Uncle Dale when we need him?

This thread calls for a view into some religious writings of the time.

consiglieri wrote:
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?

This very problem I took on with singleness of heart and at great personal sacrifice. The answer changed Mormon theology forever. Christ IS the Very Eternal Father. So he IS very God. At the same time when he is in the flesh his Father in heaven also is God even the Very Eternal Father.

I have explained this and was of course never heard or explored and covetously ignored so as to minimize that I am a bright and shining light in this generation of darkness.

Intelligence was not created or made. God appointed intelligence to an independent sphere of existence. HOW? By the word of his power. Oh, then that is Christ. Yes, and that command carried the will of the Father by the power of the Holy Ghost to cause the intelligences to be organized. Thus all three acted together in the first cause to organize intelligence and are together one God, Eternal without beginning of days or end of years, all three, The Very Eternal Father, the Eternal God. Christ is our Maker we are the workmanship of his hands.

Nothing at all convoluted about anything the prophet Abinidi spoke. The fault is all in your traditional trust in LDS adolescent un-zion lack of understanding.

Should I run this by you again? Will that help? I have added nothing to LDS standard works. Well, that is not entirely true. I added understanding.

consiglieri wrote:Joseph Smith's first known account of his First Vision (the one in his own handwriting and dated to 1832) seems to mention only one "Lord" (though it can be forced to yield two in a pinch; both called "the Lord," mind you).

The Lectures on Faith, which I believe date to the same year (or is it 1833?) refer to two beings in the Godhead, the Father (who is Spirit) and the Son (who is physical); the Holy Ghost being a disembodied "mind" that they two share.

Joseph Smith's second known account of the First Vision (in 1835) does mention two beings.

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?

http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm

The First Vision was not taught in church until 22 years after it happened.

The First Vision wasn't even known by church members until 1842, and even then it wasn't very important. Joseph said that he was persecuted for telling people that he had seen a vision. There is simply no evidence that Joseph told anyone about the vision until many years later and not until after the Book of Mormon was published. There are no accounts in the newspapers, by neighbors, preachers or even by the members of Joseph's own family. There is much evidence to indicate that the First Vision either never really happened or was very different than we've been taught.

James B. Allen, who served as assistant church historian, frankly admitted that the story of the first vision "was not given general circulation in the 1830's." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, p.33). Dr. Allen makes some startling concessions in this article. He admits, for instance, that "none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830's, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision...." Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830's "the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it." Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1966, pages 29-45.

"As far as Mormon literature is concerned, there was apparently no reference to Joseph Smith's first vision in any published material in the 1830's. Joseph Smith's history, which was begun in 1838, was not published until it ran serially in the Times and Seasons in 1842. The famous "Wentworth Letter," which contained a much less detailed account of the vision, appeared March 1, 1842, in the same periodical. Introductory material to the Book of Mormon, as well as publicity about it, told of Joseph Smith's obtaining the gold plates and of angelic visitations, but nothing was printed that remotely suggested earlier visitations."

"In 1833 the Church published the Book of Commandments, forerunner to the present Doctrine and Covenants, and again no reference was made to Joseph's first vision, although several references were made to the Book of Mormon and the circumstances of its origin."

"The first regular periodical to be published by the Church was The Evening and Morning Star, but its pages reveal no effort to tell the story of the first vision to its readers. Nor do the pages of the Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate, printed in Kirtland, Ohio, from October, 1834, to September, 1836. In this newspaper Oliver Cowdery, who was second only to Joseph Smith in the early organization of the Church, published a series of letters dealing with the origin of the Church. These letters were written with the approval of Joseph Smith, but they contained no mention of any vision prior to those connected with the Book of Mormon."

"In 1835 the Doctrine and Covenants was printed at Kirtland, Ohio, and its preface declared that it contained "the leading items of religion which we have professed to believe." Included in the book were the "Lectures on Faith," a series of seven lectures which had been prepared for the School of the Prophets in Kirtland in 1834-35. It is interesting to note that, in demonstrating the doctrine that the Godhead consists of two separate personages, no mention was made of Joseph Smith having seen them, nor was any reference made to the first vision in any part of the publication."

"The first important missionary pamphlet of the Church was the Voice of Warning, published in 1837 by Parley P. Pratt. The book contains long sections on items important to missionaries of the 1830's, such as fulfillment of prophecy, the Book of Mormon, external evidence of the book's authenticity, the resurrection, and the nature of revelation, but nothing, again, on the first vision."

"The Times and Seasons began publication in 1839, but, as indicated above, the story of the vision was not told in its pages until 1842. From all this it would appear that the general church membership did not receive information about the first vision until the 1840's and that the story certainly did not hold the prominent place in Mormon thought that it does today."

- Dialogue, Vol.1, No.3, p.31 - p.32

consiglieri wrote:It is all somewhat complicated, and I believe others have done the heavy-lifting in putting together a chronology.

Note the use of "heavy-lifting" to define pounding the square peg into the round hole to force it to make sense when it doesn't.

consiglieri wrote:I think it fair to say that Joseph Smith's concept of God developed over his career, and was just undergoing some very interesting permutations when his life was cut short. (Here I refer to God's once having been a man on another world, together with the idea of an eternal rescension of Gods above the Father.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So Joseph Smith, who was "chosen" to use his occult magical seer stones to convey the restored word of Jesus Christ, has "developed" from a monotheistic doctrine (Book of Mormon), into a henotheistic doctrine in the Book of Abraham? What about the Book of Joseph? How could they simply "lose" the supposed scrolls that came from God himself and were supposed to be extremely long, yet fit into the entrails of a mummy? What about Ham and the translation of the Kinderhook plates? How many versions of something so important does one need to see that it's all a fabricated lie? Seriously... you must have zero critical thinking skills to even question this.

Nightlion wrote:I have explained this and was of course never heard or explored and covetously ignored so as to minimize that I am a bright and shining light in this generation of darkness.

The entire world was created for you Nightlion, so that you, and you alone may find the answer while all of humanity missed it. Heaven... party of one. Nightlion, your table is waiting for you.

thews wrote: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 acount that he believed in only one God at the time.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri