Jesus in Mosiah 15

[RBerman]

This is not a thread for mocking Mormonism. I'm trying to understand how LDS read their own Scriptures.

Mosiah 15:1-4

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 of earth.

How was this understood in the early 1800s, and how is it understood today? It seems like a jumbling of Trinitarianism (The Father and Son are both equally the one God in the same sense) and hypostatic union (Jesus' dual nature as one person who is fully God and fully man) so that Jesus' divine nature is identified as the Father, and his human nature is identified as the Son.

[Cow Poke]

[One Bad Pig]

This is not a thread for mocking Mormonism. I'm trying to understand how LDS read their own Scriptures.

Mosiah 15:1-4

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 of earth.

How was this understood in the early 1800s, and how is it understood today? It seems like a jumbling of Trinitarianism (The Father and Son are both equally the one God in the same sense) and hypostatic union (Jesus' dual nature as one person who is fully God and fully man) so that Jesus' divine nature is identified as the Father, and his human nature is identified as the Son.

Looks more like modalism than Trinitarianism to me.

[Cow Poke]

There is an interesting paper -- The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology -- written by THOMAS G. ALEXANDER, Professor of History and Associate Director of the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at Brigham Young University. The paper was given on May 3 at the 1980 Mormon History Association meetings in Canandaigua, New York. In it, he chronicles the various changes theology of a number of Mormon positions.

For example, he deals with Mosiah 13-14, and shows that Mormon Theology was much more "orthodox" in its beginnings than it is now.

The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine

The Book of Mormon tended to define God as an absolute personage of spirit who, clothed in flesh,
revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Abinidi’s sermon to King Noah in Mosiah chapters 13-14 is a good
example). The first issue of the Evening and Morning Star published a similar description of God, the
“Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ,” which was the Church’s first statement of faith and
practice. With some additions, the “Articles” became section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The
“Articles,” which according to correspondence in the Star was used with the Book of Mormon in
proselytizing, indicated that “there is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to
everlasting, the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth and all things which are in them.”
The Messenger and Advocate published numbers 5 and 6 of the Lectures on Faith, which defined the
“Father” as “the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fullness and perfection dwells;
who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life.” In a letter
published in the Messenger and Advocate, Warren A. Cowdery argued that “we have proven to the
satisfaction of every intelligent being, that there is a great first cause, prime mover, self-existent, independent
and all wise being whom we call God . . . immutable in his purposes and unchangeable in his nature.

© source where applicable

Also.... what you referenced in the OP and the Title of this thread...

same source

Joseph Smith’s 1832 account of the First Vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the
explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version. The Book of Mormon declared that Mary
“is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh,” which as James Allen and Richard Howard have
pointed out was changed in 1837 to “mother of the Son of God.” Abinidi’s sermon in the Book of Mormon
explored the relationship between God and Christ: “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 of earth .” (Mosiah 15:1- 4.)

© source where applicable

[onefour1]

This is not a thread for mocking Mormonism. I'm trying to understand how LDS read their own Scriptures.

Mosiah 15:1-4

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 of earth.

How was this understood in the early 1800s, and how is it understood today? It seems like a jumbling of Trinitarianism (The Father and Son are both equally the one God in the same sense) and hypostatic union (Jesus' dual nature as one person who is fully God and fully man) so that Jesus' divine nature is identified as the Father, and his human nature is identified as the Son.

D&C 93:2-5
2 And that I am the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world;

3 And that I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one—

4 The Father because he gave me of his fulness, and the Son because I was in the world and made flesh my tabernacle, and dwelt among the sons of men.

5 I was in the world and received of my Father, and the works of him were plainly manifest.

Hyrum L Andrus explains in his great book, "God, Man and the Universe", "The attributes and powers of diety are manifest to others by means of the divine nature of the Father, Elohim. When Jesus received a fulness of the Father's glory, it therefore was said of Him: "He received all power, both in heaven and on earth." (D&C 93:16-17) There was then centered in Him a fulness of the Godhead bodily, (Col 1:19, 2:9) and He became an extension of the Man of Holiness to others - the lving revelation and expression of that primary being to man."

The divine nature of the Father is centered in Christ and He was appointed to manifest this unto us on earth. Because he is a perfect revelation of the Father and because it is through him that we receive light and truth and life, he becomes a Father unto us, giving us light, truth and life. The Father is manifest to us through Jesus Christ. Christ is the light and the life of the world. Only in and through him are we able to receive the grace, power, and glory of the Father. This Jesus taught in the 17th Chapter of John.

John 17
1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.

14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.

16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.

19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.

26 And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

It is through Jesus Christ that we are spiritually born while in this life. The book of Mormon teaches us that we must become the children of Christ:

Mosiah 5:7
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.

Moroni 7:19
19 Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ.

If we are to become children unto Christ, then Christ is surely to be our Father. It is through him that we are spiritually begotten from our fallen state. Through Jesus Christ, we receive life and light and are sanctified through him. He is the light and the life of the world and through him the Father is manifest to man on earth. When we are baptized we take upon us the name of Christ. We become his sons and daughters. When we partake of the sacrament we take upon us the name of Christ. He is our spiritual Father.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:77
77 O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it, that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them; that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen.

[Cow Poke]

Hyrum L Andrus explains in his great book, "God, Man and the Universe", "The attributes and powers of diety are manifest to others by means of the divine nature of the Father, Elohim. When Jesus received a fulness of the Father's glory, it therefore was said of Him: "He received all power, both in heaven and on earth." (D&C 93:16-17) There was then centered in Him a fulness of the Godhead bodily, (Col 1:19, 2:9) and He became an extension of the Man of Holiness to others - the lving revelation and expression of that primary being to man."

141,

Have you read Alexander's work that I referenced? Would you dispute that, AT ONE TIME, Mormons taught a doctrine pretty close to Trinitarianism?

[nrajeff]

Pretty weird: LDS theology has allegedly evolved and changed somewhat over the years. Just like mainstream Christianity has done between the 1st century and the 21st.

A question to ask is: Were they more correct in the beginning, and gradually became less correct? Or did they start out less correct and are now more correct than they were when they were founded?

What seems apparent is that neither is currently identical, doctrinally, to what it used to be.

Whether that is a good or a bad thing may be a subjective judgment that could vary from one person to another.

[RBerman]

Pretty weird: LDS theology has allegedly evolved and changed somewhat over the years. Just like mainstream Christianity has done between the 1st century and the 21st. A question to ask is: Were they more correct in the beginning, and gradually became less correct? Or did they start out less correct and are now more correct than they were when they were founded? What seems apparent is that neither is currently identical, doctrinally, to what it used to be. Whether that is a good or a bad thing may be a subjective judgment that could vary from one person to another.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, Jeff. Are you saying that Mosiah 15, part of the Book of Mormon, teaches a doctrine which Mormons now believe to be false?

[Cow Poke]

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, Jeff. Are you saying that Mosiah 15, part of the Book of Mormon, teaches a doctrine which Mormons now believe to be false?

Mormonism, according to Alexander, started off pretty close to orthodoxy. If Jesus really was "restoring" His Church, and this was revealed directly to Joseph Smith as prophet, you wouldn't think it would start off pretty orthodox, THEN change. You wouldn't think it would start off fairly Trinitarian, for example, with God being a Spirit, then subsequently "obtaining" a body.

Even the Apostle's Creed, which current Mormon teaching shuns, was pretty much accepted in the early Mormon Church.

FairMormon.org

Since the LDS believe in an apostasy from true doctrine, they see the creedal Trinitarianism—which is an admitted novelty in the centuries after Christ—as evidence of it.

© source where applicable

By 1845, enough "new doctrine" was introduced that some who had come in under the 1830 teaching were leaving the Church.

The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine

As Marvin Hill and Timothy Smith have argued, much of the doctrine that early investigators found in Mormonism was similar to contemporary Protestant churches. The section on the nature of God in the "Articles and Covenants," now Doctrine and Covenants 20:17-28, was similar to the creeds of other churches. In fact, what is now verses 23 and 24 is similar to passages in the Apostle's Creed.

... between 1842 and 1844 Joseph Smith spoke on and published doctrines such as the plurality of gods, the tangibility of God's body, the distinct separation of God and Christ, the potential of man to become and function as a god, the explicit rejection of ex nihilo creation, and the materiality of everything including spirit. These ideas were perhaps most clearly stated in the King Follett discourse of April 1844.

Because doctrine and practice changed as the result of new revelation and exegesis, some members who had been converted under the doctrines of the early 1830s left the Church. John Corrill exhibited disappointment rather than rancor and defended the Church against outside attack, but left because of the introduction of doctrine which he thought contradicted those of the Book of Mormon and the Bible.

© source where applicable

Since Mormons are pretty "up front" about the fact that new revelation supersedes older revelation, changes in doctrine are pretty easily discounted. But the changes within the first two decades of the "restored Church", and were pretty significant.

[One Bad Pig]

Pretty weird: LDS theology has allegedly evolved and changed somewhat over the years. Just like mainstream Christianity has allegedly done between the 1st century and the 21st.

Fixed that for you.

A question to ask is: Were they more correct in the beginning, and gradually became less correct? Or did they start out less correct and are now more correct than they were when they were founded?

What seems apparent is that neither is currently identical, doctrinally, to what it used to be.

Whether that is a good or a bad thing may be a subjective judgment that could vary from one person to another.

What is apparent is that the LDS has a history of continuing revelation that supersedes older material, but mainstream Christianity has a history of affirming older material and rejecting doctrinal change (even the Protestant Reformers looked to the early fathers of the church when determining doctrine).

[nrajeff]

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here, Jeff. Are you saying that Mosiah 15, part of the Book of Mormon, teaches a doctrine which Mormons now believe to be false?

No; I am showing that I am amenable to conceding that LDS theology has evolved/developed over the centuries, which does not necessarily mean that it now has official doctrines that show former official doctrines to have been false.

[nrajeff]

Fixed that for you.

And justifiably so; thanks.

What is apparent is that the LDS has a history of continuing revelation that supersedes older material, but mainstream Christianity has a history of affirming older material and rejecting doctrinal change (even the Protestant Reformers looked to the early fathers of the church when determining doctrine).

I challenge part of that assertion. What about the controversy over the true meaning of Acts 2:38? I am not sure that the Protestant Reformers looked to the early fathers of the church when determining what "baptism for the remission of sins" means. : )

And I wonder whether ANY Christian church/denom currently in existence has doctrines identical in every respect to the doctrines of the apostolic-era church. If there is one such group of Christians, I would like it to be identified. If none such group exists, then doesn't that suggest that ALL churches have at least SOME doctrines that have "evolved" into something different than the originals?

[RBerman]

No; I am showing that I am amenable to conceding that LDS theology has evolved/developed over the centuries, which does not necessarily mean that it now has official doctrines that show former official doctrines to have been false.

OK. What about the text itself, though? Do you think that Mosiah 15 teaches that Jesus is both the Father and the Son? As someone who knows nothing about LDS interpretaions of this passage (I haven't read any of the links posted above), that's what it seems to be saying.

[One Bad Pig]

I challenge part of that assertion. What about the controversy over the true meaning of Acts 2:38? I am not sure that the Protestant Reformers looked to the early fathers of the church when determining what "baptism for the remission of sins" means. : )

That gets a little complicated. Martin Luther, for example, kept the sacraments and probably would have agreed with the ECF; other Reformers did not. Keep in mind that, while America is a Protestant majority nation, most other nations are not; Protestants worldwide are in the minority among Christians. Also keep in mind that Protestants by and large are a rather independent bunch; some of them honor the Reformers for their independence and little else.

And I wonder whether ANY Christian church/denom currently in existence has doctrines identical in every respect to the doctrines of the apostolic-era church. If there is one such group of Christians, I would like it to be identified. If none such group exists, then doesn't that suggest that ALL churches have at least SOME doctrines that have "evolved" into something different than the originals?

In my opinion, the Orthodox Church holds to doctrines from the apostolic era. There has been development of doctrine, but that has served to clarify, not change, it; to the church fathers of the ecunenical councils, doctrinal change was anathema.

[nrajeff]

OK. What about the text itself, though? Do you think that Mosiah 15 teaches that Jesus is both the Father and the Son?

Good question, and yes, it is apparent that it's teaching that Jesus is both father and son in some way. So the $64 question is: In WHAT way is Jesus both father and son? Literally? Metaphorically? I am not an expert, so I don't know whether the consensus of the 19th-century LDS leaders regarding the answer is different from that of today's leaders. And if it was different, I don't know how much.

But I can refer you to current explanations as to what the verse in question is alleged to mean.

Such usage has been explained in several ways consistent with the fundamental LDS understanding of the Godhead as three distinct beings.
There is no lack of clarity about Christ´s sonship. Jesus is the Son of God in at least three ways. ...Jesus Christ is also known by the title of Father. The meaning of scriptures using this nomenclature is not always immediately clear...

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewEM.aspx?number=105