Book of Mormon modalism?

Aaron32

Active member
Except for staying into Modalism, sometimes, when it claims that Jesus is His own Father.
No, actually is doesn’t. This is the problem with most Christians imposing their view on scripture (thanks to the fallacious doctrine of the Trinity) and believe it’s the only way scripture can be interpreted.

First, let’s define modalism:
1. the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature. (From google search:’modalism definition’)

But let’s suppose that the Book of Mormon does not believe In the Trinity. Let’s consider that the Father and the Son are distinct personages AND there is a hierarchy between the Father and the Son.

Second, Let’s look at the actual BOM verses:
Mosiah 15:1-2:
“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.”
Speaking about Jehovah, the God of Israel, who is Jesus Christ, not the Father.

“2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God...”
Who is the son of God the Father

“...and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father,...“
Because the Son is subject to the Father

“...being the Father...”
to men and women having taken upon his name (see Mosiah 5:7 - And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.)

“... and the Son—“
of God the Father - thus the Son Being the Only Begotten

Look at that! No more “3–in-1-in-3”/“God is a mystery that can never be understood”/“God is a different species” -all extra biblical nonsense.

Rather, we can understand that a single person can play different roles in relationships to other people. And thereby understanding that Jesus meant what he said:
John 14:6 “...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

See also “Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, October 1962, pp. 20-22”
 

The Prophet

Member
Notice that Joseph Smith taught Modalism, Trinitarianism, Polytheism, Tritheism and several other teachings :)

 

Aaron32

Active member
Notice that Joseph Smith taught Modalism, Trinitarianism, Polytheism, Tritheism and several other teachings :)

What in these statements prove to be contradictory?
Do you use an “-ism” to prove the scriptures, or let the scriptures provide your “-ism”
 

The Prophet

Member
What in these statements prove to be contradictory?
Do you use an “-ism” to prove the scriptures, or let the scriptures provide your “-ism”

Acts 17 ;11

And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
 
Last edited:

Aaron32

Active member
Acts 17 ;11

And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.

Exactly! Priesthood + Scriptures + Holy Ghost = Doctrine

What they didn’t do is cherry pick scriptures to fit their narrative, and tell Paul he was wrong.

Paul never claimed his authority from the scriptures:
Gal 1:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
 

Aaron32

Active member
Exactly! Priesthood + Scriptures + Holy Ghost = Doctrine

What they didn’t do is cherry pick scriptures to fit their narrative, and tell Paul he was wrong.

Paul never claimed his authority from the scriptures:
Gal 1:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Well...I guess the Judiazers did.
 

The Prophet

Member
Well...I guess the Judiazers did.
No where in The New Testament did any Apostle hold the Priesthood other than The Holy Priesthood of all men and women and races, which would not be the Mormon office

“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (v. 9).


-
1 Peter 2:9–10
 

Aaron32

Active member
No where in The New Testament did any Apostle hold the Priesthood other than The Holy Priesthood of all men and women and races, which would not be the Mormon office

“You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (v. 9).


- 1 Peter 2:9–10
Then what’s this all about:
he ordained twelve, Mark 3:14.

I have chosen you, and ordained you, John 15:16.

fasted and prayed, and laid their hands, Acts 13:3.

ordained them elders in every church, Acts 14:23.

with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Tim. 4:14.

ordain elders in every city, Titus 1:5.

For every high priest … is ordained for men, Heb. 5:1.
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
Exactly! Priesthood + Scriptures + Holy Ghost = Doctrine

Um, that's NOT what Acts 17:11 says.

What they didn’t do is cherry pick scriptures to fit their narrative, and tell Paul he was wrong.

You mean "cherry-picking" verses like 1 Cor. 8:5 and Ps. 82:6, like Mormons do, and IGNORING Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45:5,21,22, Isa. 46:9, Mark 12:32, 1 Cor. 8:4, etc. etc., and telling Paul he was wrong?

You mean "cherry-picking" verses like James 2:26, like Mormons do, and IGNORING other verses, and telling Paul he was wrong (Eph. 2:8-9, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:5, Rom. 4:1-6, Rom. 11:5-6, etc. etc. etc.)?

You mean like that?

Paul never claimed his authority from the scriptures:
Gal 1:
11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Hmm.... Let's see...

Matt. 22:29
Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Jesus)

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. (Jesus)

2Tim. 3:115 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (Paul)
 

The Prophet

Member
Then what’s this all about:
he ordained twelve, Mark 3:14.

I have chosen you, and ordained you, John 15:16.

fasted and prayed, and laid their hands, Acts 13:3.

ordained them elders in every church, Acts 14:23.

with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery, 1 Tim. 4:14.

ordain elders in every city, Titus 1:5.

For every high priest … is ordained for men, Heb. 5:1.
Are you saying ordaining something is giving them the Priesthood ? Aaron32 :)

Doctrine and Covenants 89

10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

This is just out of section 89 only :)

 
Last edited:

Aaron32

Active member
Are you saying ordaining something is giving them the Priesthood ? Aaron32 :)

Doctrine and Covenants 89

10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man

12 Yea, flesh also of beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

14 All grain is ordained for the use of man and of beasts, to be the staff of life, not only for man but for the beasts of the field, and the fowls of heaven, and all wild animals that run or creep on the earth;

This is just out of section 89 only :)

If the priesthood is defined as “the authority to act in the name of God.” Yes, yes I am.
 

Aaron32

Active member
Better change your thinking if Herbs, Grains and meat don't hold the Priesthood :)
It depends on your definition of priesthood.
When we receive what God ordains, we receive God, and we are blessed for it.

Matt 10:40 “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

The promise to partaking of what God has ordained is that they will receive hidden treasures of knowledge, and protection from the destroying angel.

That what the Apostles in the Bible sought, right? To have knowledge and not be deceived.
 

brotherofJared

Active member
No, actually is doesn’t. This is the problem with most Christians imposing their view on scripture (thanks to the fallacious doctrine of the Trinity) and believe it’s the only way scripture can be interpreted.

First, let’s define modalism:
1. the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature. (From google search:’modalism definition’)

But let’s suppose that the Book of Mormon does not believe In the Trinity. Let’s consider that the Father and the Son are distinct personages AND there is a hierarchy between the Father and the Son.

Second, Let’s look at the actual BOM verses:
Mosiah 15:1-2:
“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.”
Speaking about Jehovah, the God of Israel, who is Jesus Christ, not the Father.

“2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God...”
Who is the son of God the Father

“...and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father,...“
Because the Son is subject to the Father

“...being the Father...”
to men and women having taken upon his name (see Mosiah 5:7 - And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.)

“... and the Son—“
of God the Father - thus the Son Being the Only Begotten

Look at that! No more “3–in-1-in-3”/“God is a mystery that can never be understood”/“God is a different species” -all extra biblical nonsense.

Rather, we can understand that a single person can play different roles in relationships to other people. And thereby understanding that Jesus meant what he said:
John 14:6 “...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

See also “Joseph Fielding Smith, Conference Report, October 1962, pp. 20-22”
Very well said. You may have added this after this post, I don't know. I haven't read the whole thread, but; Isaiah prophesied the coming of the Messiah and called his name, wonderful, counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the prince of peace.

The Book of Mormon explains this odd title beautifully but left to the Bible alone, one might think that they are speaking about the same being and one portion of his personality. The Book of Mormon shows that the correct relationship. Everyone knows that sons often grow up to be fathers. That isn't modal. He isn't the son and the father to the same people. The same is true of Jesus Christ's role as the son. It is different and to different people as a father. I like the wording above, though I'm not sure the KJV of the Bible has it translated properly, but in this case, everlasting seems to imply that unlike Heavenly Father who is our Eternal Father, no beginning or end, the everlasting Father has a beginning and no ending.
 

The Prophet

Member
Very well said. You may have added this after this post, I don't know. I haven't read the whole thread, but; Isaiah prophesied the coming of the Messiah and called his name, wonderful, counselor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the prince of peace.

The Book of Mormon explains this odd title beautifully but left to the Bible alone, one might think that they are speaking about the same being and one portion of his personality. The Book of Mormon shows that the correct relationship. Everyone knows that sons often grow up to be fathers. That isn't modal. He isn't the son and the father to the same people. The same is true of Jesus Christ's role as the son. It is different and to different people as a father. I like the wording above, though I'm not sure the KJV of the Bible has it translated properly, but in this case, everlasting seems to imply that unlike Heavenly Father who is our Eternal Father, no beginning or end, the everlasting Father has a beginning and no ending.
The Bible in Isaiah calls Jesus "Father of Eternity" which makes more sense in other Translations since we know Jesus and God The Father are separate persons

 

Bonnie

Well-known member
Actually, I did some research on this verse years ago, and it is more like "Father of eternity," meaning the originator of eternity. The Triune Godhead IS ETERNAL, no beginning and no ending. Plus, Jesus Christ is the "Father" or our eternal lives in heaven with Him, after we die and at the Resurrection.

We used to have a book on Isaiah, by an English Scholar whose area of expertise is in Hebrew and in Isaiah. We gave that book to our pastor, but I remember researching in it years ago, and he too said it was basically "Father of eternity." I also asked Dr. Luginbill about this and he told me:

Hi Bonnie,

Hebrew 'abhi 'adh (אֲבִי עַד) is a construct phrase, that is "X of Y". Hebrew is replete with these phrases, and translating them correctly is probably half the problem in producing a good rendition of any lengthy OT passage, especially in poetry. In English, we have limited the way we use our default genitive "of"; so for example we now avoid objective / subjective genitives on account of the possibility of confusion. "The price of the senator": does it mean "the price the senator has to pay" or "the price to buy the senator's help"? There are many more possible genitive relationships in Greek and Latin, and they are even more frequent in Hebrew since Hebrew lacks the extensive case system of those two languages and uses the construct to make up for it (at least that is one way to look at it).

I take the word "father" here in semi-verbal sense as in "the one fathering", and "eternity" as the essential direct object. This sort of thing is common enough in Hebrew. The point is, there is a relationship between the two nouns and "eternal father" and "one fathering eternity" cannot both be correct. Since these verses are taking about the Messiah, it's not the former. Also, 'adh (עַד) is a NOUN, not an adjective, AND "father" comes first, not second. So my version is far closer to being literal.

For whatever reason, translators often mess things up when they do not understand the text they are translating.

In Jesus,

Bob L.

So, Jesus is NOT His own Father in heaven. But He IS the "Father" of our eternal life in heaven for all believers.
 
Last edited:

brotherofJared

Active member
Actually, I did some research on this verse years ago, and it is more like "Father of eternity," meaning the originator of eternity.
There is no such thing as an originator of eternity. The passage is talking about Jesus Christ, not about God the Father. It appears that in the New Testament terminology, we would have two fathers. It doesn't really matter what you think the term more likely means.
The Triune Godhead IS ETERNAL, no beginning and no ending.
But the implication here is that Fatherhood is not. It has a beginning. Godhood is eternal, Fatherhood is not. For example, my father wasn't a father until I was born. Try to keep your apples and your oranges separated.

Plus, Jesus Christ is the "Father" or our eternal lives in heaven with Him, after we die and at the Resurrection.
Why wait so long? I thought you were saved already. Why isn't he your Father now?
So, Jesus is NOT His own Father in heaven. But He IS the "Father" of our eternal life in heaven for all believers.
LOL. Good ole Bob. No one here ever said that Jesus is his own Father. That is the natural conclusion one must draw in a single being with three personalities.

But thank you for seeing what we have seen all along. Jesus is here called Father. But we already have a Father in Heaven. This clearly points out the dual role of Jesus as being both a son to his Father and the Father to his followers. No modalism in that. That is how the Book of Mormon sees the role of Jesus Christ as both the Son and the Father.

But you will disagree and insist you are right and that we are wrong, and even if you don't, you'll probably continue insisting that the Book of Mormon teaches modalism. :rolleyes:
 

The Prophet

Member
There is no such thing as an originator of eternity. The passage is talking about Jesus Christ, not about God the Father. It appears that in the New Testament terminology, we would have two fathers. It doesn't really matter what you think the term more likely means.

But the implication here is that Fatherhood is not. It has a beginning. Godhood is eternal, Fatherhood is not. For example, my father wasn't a father until I was born. Try to keep your apples and your oranges separated.
Jesus' Son hood is not Eternal either Mosiah 15:3

Why wait so long? I thought you were saved already. Why isn't he your Father now?

LOL. Good ole Bob. No one here ever said that Jesus is his own Father. That is the natural conclusion one must draw in a single being with three personalities.

But thank you for seeing what we have seen all along. Jesus is here called Father. But we already have a Father in Heaven. This clearly points out the dual role of Jesus as being both a son to his Father and the Father to his followers. No modalism in that. That is how the Book of Mormon sees the role of Jesus Christ as both the Son and the Father.

But you will disagree and insist you are right and that we are wrong, and even if you don't, you'll probably continue insisting that the Book of Mormon teaches modalism. :rolleyes:
 
Top