Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:Hey Stemelbow,
I considered providing a well referenced post to begin with, but I didn't have time before going out. Here are the references and a bit of further explanation of the point I was making.
The main reference in the Book of Mormon for the complaint that many plain and precious truths that have been removed from the Bible, that the Book of Mormon is supposedly by divine design meant to restore. If you read the chapter heading for 1 Nephi 13 and then read in particular verses 20-42 you will see the claim that the Bible is missing truths and that the Book of Mormon is designed to restore them. The Book of Mormon therefore as a book is supposed to clarify these "plain and precious things" which were removed from the Bible and which have caused confusion and apostasy. So what does the Book of Mormon add to our understanding of the Bible? The fact is, as I stated in my previous post, there are a number of elements that the Book of Mormon resolved that were being debated at the time the Book was produced, the answers to which were not clear from reading the Bible. To name but a few, for example:
1. The Book of Mormon goes further than the Bible in explaining the Godhead.
2. Infant Baptism
3. Apostasy and Restoration
I do think 1 Ne 13 is quite a revealing text. It speaks of the loss of plain and precious truths as the new church shall cause. It also speaks of the loss of plain and precious things that were lost in the Biblical record. Then in the concluding verses it speaks of the things lost in the Bible being shown by the other books, which is not referencing the Book of Mormon, necessarily. I don’t know if its all as simply put as you make it sound. Truths were lost, it seems, in practice, according to 1 Ne. Also some things were taken out of the Bible, which in some respects has been vindicated.
stemelbow wrote:My allusion was not simply to Mosiah 15, but to a number of passages within the Book of Mormon that explain the nature of God. It was also to a number of references which were included in the original 1830 Book of Mormon, but were changed by Joseph Smith in 1837 and to Joseph Smith's translation of the Bible.
a) Jesus is the Eternal God:
I don’t see how that differs from LDS teaching. Afterall Jesus is the Eternal God. I also can say that the modern LDS teaching need not strictly conform. We have a different vocabulary, a different way of describing things. I just don’t see the grand problem on this that you assume.
b) Jesus is both Eternal Father and the Son:
In a very real sense He is both the Father and Son, though.
b) Explanation of how Jesus and the Father are one.[/quote]
But the Father and Son are one in every imaginable way of the idea one except being, says Holland a few years ago. There’s consistency here rather than contradiction.
d) Jesus Christ as Father of our Spirits:
Really not a problem, I dn’t think.
Current LDS understanding of God:
God is the Father who is an exalted man who has a tangible body of flesh and bone who is the father of our spirits in the pre-existence and we are his spirit children. That one of his spirit children was Jesus Christ who is also a God and that there is also a Holy Spirit who is a God and is a personage of spirit without a body. That when Jesus explained that he and the Father are one he meant in purpose and that he desires his disciples to become one in purpose too.
But its more than just one in purpose. That’s really just a way of saying for brevity’s sake. Oh well.
Book of Mormon understanding of God:
The Book of Mormon explanations actually refer to a God who is Jesus Christ, who is both the Father and the Son, that Jesus Christ is our Father when we have a change of heart and we become spiritually begotten by him. That when Jesus explained that he and the Father are one it is because they share the same spirit. When Jesus says he desires his disciples to become one with the Father and Son it is through them receiving the Spirit of Christ within them, like Christ has the Spirit of the Father within his body.
Other than the bolded part (what?), which I don’t see anywhere, what you write here also fits nicely with the way we modernly see Jesus and the Father.
The current LDS concept of Heavenly Father God is completely missing from the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon doesn't even just duplicate the passages from the Bible, but it provides further commentary explaining the nature of God. It is not only completely silent on the current LDS understanding of the nature of God which is supposedly so important for us to know today, but it in fact contradicts it.
I see no contradictions, per se. I agree that Mosiah 15 itself is a bit of a problem on this. But, in a way, Jesus is the Father of us, even by adoption. Surely we LDS don’t emphasize that or speak of it that way, but I don’t think that means it’s a contradiction.
So I stand by my criticism, if knowing God is life eternal then the Book of Mormon not only fails to contain a fulness of that knowledge, but in fact actually contradicts it.
In my mind, knowing God does not necessarily entail being able to articulate His metaphysical make-up, using the proper, consistent terminology of philosophy. It means praying to Him, getting to understand how He works with the individual, and in so doing, through many experiences, being able to recognize His ways, His promptings and directions.
Not only that but Joseph Smith's 1833 translation of the Bible also contradicts the modern LDS position. Then as Joseph Smith's concept of God evolved later in 1837 Joseph Smith made the changes adding "Son of" to statements that Jesus is the "Eternal Father". The problem for Joseph Smith was that the supposed sermons of King Benjamin, Abinadi and Jesus own words in the Book of Mormon as well as a number of other references couldn't be changed in that way. To use your own words I think the claim the Book of Mormon is consistent with the modern LDS position is a bit off, especially when considered with the development of Mormon theology and scripture. I could go further into that if you want me to, but it would probably require another thread.
Indeed, Joseph Smith, in essence, grew a little in knowledge and probably over time realized he ought to be much more consistent in his theological language. I don’t see this as a problem so much as a reasonable expectation for him.
stemelbow wrote:George Orwell defined double think as being able to hold two contradictory ideas in a person's head at the same time as true and it appears that modern LDS apologists and members are required to do this in this case
I simply don’t think you made your case on this. I appreciate the effort though, because it helps me see where you’re coming from.
I would appreciate examples of the Book of Mormon differentiating between Jesus and his Father in a way that explains and supports the modern LDS explanation of God the Father. To my knowledge there are none which cannot be explained by reference to the Book of Mormon passages above, making them the same person. So if you have any I would be grateful for you sharing them with me and your thoughts on my post.
Thanks,
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I don’t see anything in the Book of Mormon saying they are the same person. I do see some evidence that roles between them may overlap. Anyway, 3 Ne 11 probably constitutes the best explanation of them being shown as distinct in some sense. The Father Himself, testifies of the Son, and calls Him His Son. That’s distinction—referring to Jesus in the third person.