Please Explain This Scripture For Me

[Amillia]

THE BOOK OF MOSIAH

CHAPTER 15

How Christ is both the Father and the Son—He shall make intercession and bear the transgressions of his people—They and all the holy prophets are his seed—He bringeth to pass the resurrection—Little children have eternal life. [About 148 B.C.]

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill 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.

[Jenda]

IMO, it means that God the Father is Christ. That when he put on flesh, he became the Christ.

Modalism at it's finest. :)

Check out these changes that were made from the Palmyra edition to the Kirtland edition.

Palmyra edition 1 Nephi 3:58 And he said unto me: "Behold, the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

vs.

Kirtland edition 1 Nephi 3:58 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Palmyra edition 1 Nephi 3:62 And the angel said unto me: "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

vs.

Kirtland edition 1 Nephi 3:62 And the angel said unto me, Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

The BoMormon is chock full of scripture that states that Jesus is God the Father.

(I used the RLDS verses (because that is where I know to find these, but they are the same changes in the LDS BoM, just different verses.)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Amillia,

I read that Mosiah passage and other similar passages as declaring that the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead is that the Father and Son are one in every way but in substance. That is, it differs from old-line Christian Trinitarianism only in that it does not teach that the Father and Son share the same substance, but rather that they each have bodies of flesh and bone while nevertheless being "one" in every other sense.

Of course, since most traditional Christians no longer teach that God has a body of flesh and bone, holding instead that the concept of man being created in God's image refers to our sharing God's capacity for reason, the distinction shouldn't matter too much, but they still don't want us in their club.

Sorry -- no Homers.

[Amillia]

Don't we believe that Jehovah of the Old Testiment was God/Christ? Couldn't there be God the Father of our Spirit's and Christ the Father of our rebirth and earth's experience? One working with the other, but both being our Father just in different ways?

Doesn't the term Father mean that a man/God has increase of himself/stuwardship?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 24 2005, 08:05 PM

IMO, it means that God the Father is Christ. That when he put on flesh, he became the Christ.

Modalism at it's finest. :)

Check out these changes that were made from the Palmyra edition to the Kirtland edition.

Palmyra edition 1 Nephi 3:58 And he said unto me: "Behold, the virgin which thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

vs.

Kirtland edition 1 Nephi 3:58 And he said unto me, Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

Palmyra edition 1 Nephi 3:62 And the angel said unto me: "Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!

vs.

Kirtland edition 1 Nephi 3:62 And the angel said unto me, Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

The BoMormon is chock full of scripture that states that Jesus is God the Father.

(I used the RLDS verses (because that is where I know to find these, but they are the same changes in the LDS BoM, just different verses.)

Interesting changes Jenda. Thanks for showing me these. When it comes to the scriptures, meanings can be so easily confounded. Maybe that is why they were changed.

I also found the part in 3rd Nephi, where Christ is having the people pray right to him, a little disconcerting, until he states that he is doing so because he is with them. But then that also causes more questions.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 23 2005, 11:30 PM

1 AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall bcome down among the children of men, and shall credeem his people.

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

Yes, Jesus is the Lord G-d - he is the G-d of the OT, and he is the G-d of this Earth.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the dwill of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

He then became known as the Son of G-d because he was born of flesh. He is the Father of all of us, because he created our flesh - our bodies, he created the Heavens and the Earth to which we deal with - he created all that we know of. He is the Son, because he is the son of our Heavenly Father - the Father that sent him, the Father of all of our spirits.

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

They are one in purpose. The Savior said '...if you have seen me, you have seen the Father, for he sent me...'

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 24 2005, 08:05 PM

Check out these changes that were made from the Palmyra edition to the Kirtland edition.

The BoMormon is chock full of scripture that states that Jesus is God the Father.

(I used the RLDS verses (because that is where I know to find these, but they are the same changes in the LDS BoM, just different verses.)

You forget to mention that the original copies/publications of the BoM have the Son of G-d, in reference to the Lord...

The BoMormon is chock full of scripture that states that Jesus is God the Father.

Yes, because he IS the Father - of our flesh, this Universe...

He IS NOT our Heavenly Father - who created/organized our spirits.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Jan 25 2005, 12:26 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Jan 25 2005, 12:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 24 2005, 08:05 PM

Check out these changes that were made from the Palmyra edition to the Kirtland edition.

The BoMormon is chock full of scripture that states that Jesus is God the Father.

(I used the RLDS verses (because that is where I know to find these, but they are the same changes in the LDS BoM, just different verses.)

You forget to mention that the original copies/publications of the BoM have the Son of G-d, in reference to the Lord...

The BoMormon is chock full of scripture that states that Jesus is God the Father.

Yes, because he IS the Father - of our flesh, this Universe...

He IS NOT our Heavenly Father - who created/organized our spirits.

That is your opinion.

And I didn't forget to mention anything. What I quoted up above as the Palmyra edition is the original publication of the BoM.

[huma17]

Originally posted by Jenda@Jan 25 2005, 01:42 PM

That is your opinion.

Are you LDS?

Because it's not just MY 'opinion'.

And I didn't forget to mention anything.

Your quotes seem to suggest that the original conformed with the thinking of the time - the theory of the 'Trinity', but was later changed to have the wording conform more with the First Vision of JS.

I 'could' be wrong here, but...

Anyway, if that IS what you are trying to suggest, then you WOULD have forgotten to mention that the original already referenced the Lord as the Son of G-d. Which would seem to suggest that some of those verses that had been changed didn't have the right words to begin with.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by huma17+Jan 25 2005, 12:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (huma17 @ Jan 25 2005, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--Jenda@Jan 25 2005, 01:42 PM

That is your opinion.

Are you LDS?

Because it's not just MY 'opinion'.

No, I am not LDS. Let me rephrase my statement, then. It is only your church's opinion.

And I didn't forget to mention anything.

Your quotes seem to suggest that the original conformed with the thinking of the time - the theory of the 'Trinity', but was later changed to have the wording conform more with the First Vision of JS.

I 'could' be wrong here, but...

Anyway, if that IS what you are trying to suggest, then you WOULD have forgotten to mention that the original already referenced the Lord as the Son of G-d. Which would seem to suggest that some of those verses that had been changed didn't have the right words to begin with.

Let me repeat, what I quoted above is the original edition of the BoM. And it states that Jesus is God the eternal Father. Please check out things before stating that others are wrong.

The quotes from the original BoM lead towards, not trinitarian, but modalist beliefs. Modalism is that God is one entity with three modes of expression. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

I am not suggesting anything about the verses that were changed. I am putting them out there for everyone to think and decide for themselves.

[Traveler]

The first member of the G-dhead is known as our Father in Heaven. There is a notion from scripture that G-d the Father is also the father of our spirits and that we can also properly address this member of the G-dhead as our Father or G-d the Father.

When the fall occurred all men lost direct access to G-d the Father. It is my personal belief that after the fall all the spirit children of the Father were (according to the plan of salvation) separated from G-d the Father and Jesus became the only mediator. Now back to official doctrine, as I understand it. According to covenant Jesus and the Holy Ghost were not separated from the Father through the fall as were all the other spirit children and as such Jesus could be thought of as G-d the Father’s only appointed son and heir. This is because when man fell all our rights and treasures of heaven were lost. Therefore we no longer have any rights as children of G-d the Father.

Now review D&C 84. Somewhere around verse 30 to 35 it talks about the oath and covenant of the priesthood. It explains that by and through this covenant we become the “children” of Moses and Aaron. Moses and Aaron received their blessings in the priesthood through Jesus Christ who mediates all blessings of heaven for man.

Under the covenant, Jesus is the only G-d that can save us from the fall, which is the separation from heaven and our heavenly birthright and treasure. By accepting Jesus as our only mediator he becomes our father through the covenant of adoption. Though he is not our spiritual birth parent he becomes our legal father by adopting us through covenant and making us his heir to restore to us all our heavenly blessings, rights and treasure.

I have attempted, without success, to convince our Trinitarian brothers and sisters that they have misunderstood the mission of the Christ in not realizing he is the only remaining son and heir that offered himself (his complete infinite self as a G-d that is the Son of G-d) as a sacrifice to save us. Under the covenant of his sacrifice he becomes our father. Everything Jesus does he does in the name of G-d the Father. This can seem a little confusing because he becomes our Father in the name of G-d the Father of our spirits but he remains subordinate to and lesser than G-d the Father even in becoming our adopted father in the covenant.

Therefore Jesus is the Son of G-d in that he did not fall but remained with the Father as his heir, when man was “cast out”. And Jesus is our father because he has adopted us as his legal heir that we might have a legal inheritance in heaven. Therefore in the great plan there is justice in that all legal demands are met and there is also mercy in order that man is saved from the fall where by we all have came to know good from evil by mortal experience.

The Traveler

[Amillia]

Interesting and most probably right on. I was wondering what you might think about the concept that the term "Only Begotten of the Father" meant that HE, Jesus Christ, was spiritually purified by HIS Father as we are spiritually purified through Christ's atonement~ therefore making Christ perfect, without sin and therefore able to be presented as the sinless sacrifice?

[Cal]

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 25 2005, 07:15 PM

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

That could possibly be true, except that the "trinitarian view" clearly isn't espoused in the BoM. As I pointed out, the earliest editions of the BoM, as well as other scriptures that were never changed clearly point to a modalist view of the Godhead.

[pushka]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 25 2005, 07:15 PM

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

Do you think that those changes were made under the guidance of the Spirit? or just by the writers so that people did not get confused about the Trinity beliefs within the church? I just feel a little suspicious of changes being constantly made to the BoM, it sort of makes it less likely to be an inspired book if it constantly needed altering.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 25 2005, 08:15 PM

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

Evolve. Is that anything like line-upon-line?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by pushka+Jan 25 2005, 08:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Jan 25 2005, 08:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 25 2005, 07:15 PM

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

Do you think that those changes were made under the guidance of the Spirit? or just by the writers so that people did not get confused about the Trinity beliefs within the church? I just feel a little suspicious of changes being constantly made to the BoM, it sort of makes it less likely to be an inspired book if it constantly needed altering.

Have you ever spoken with someone who has done the translating of the BofM into another language? It is interesting to see just how many concepts are lost in the translation and must be edited until it is made clear in the new language.

I find it amazing that there are relatively few of these kinds of editings.

[Amillia]

For clarity's sake since I can't edit my posts, my last statement should mean:

I find it comforting that there are relatively few editings in the BofM.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 25 2005, 05:43 PM

Interesting and most probably right on. I was wondering what you might think about the concept that the term "Only Begotten of the Father" meant that HE, Jesus Christ, was spiritually purified by HIS Father as we are spiritually purified through Christ's atonement~ therefore making Christ perfect, without sin and therefore able to be presented as the sinless sacrifice?

I think that "Only Begotten of the Father" means that Jesus Christ is G-d the Son and is conceived and begotten by the Father. Because Jesus was begotten of the Father he was not in the fallen state that man is. Because he was not fallen he would not need to be purified. He resisted sin and therefore remained the only Son of G-d. Because we are fallen we have lost our legal claim as a Son or Daughter of G-d. We must be made pure before we can be in G-d’ presents ever again.

I believe perfect means to covenant and remain faithful through a trial or test. When I test an automated system I will perform functional test to determine that a system will perform the correct functions in the proper sequence when everything is happening as it should. But I will also perform what are called anomaly testing. This is when we introduce failures or problems into the system to determine how the system will identify problems and recover. I believe Jesus was tested in much the same manner. Because he completed his trial or test by remaining faithful as a G-d he then became the Father of our covenant salvation. This then gives us an inheritance and the only way to the Tree of Life.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Originally posted by pushka+Jan 25 2005, 07:47 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (pushka @ Jan 25 2005, 07:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 25 2005, 07:15 PM

Using "Occum's razor" to make sense of the original BoM text and the "Kirkland" edition, it becomes pretty clear that as JS's theology of the Godhead evolved, the trinitarian view clearly espoused in the BoM was at odds with the "new view" of the Godhead, so the church had to try to make the two theologies mesh--they had to change the BoM in several places, which as been pointed out.

Do you think that those changes were made under the guidance of the Spirit? or just by the writers so that people did not get confused about the Trinity beliefs within the church? I just feel a little suspicious of changes being constantly made to the BoM, it sort of makes it less likely to be an inspired book if it constantly needed altering.

The first edition of the Book of Mormon was made by making a printers manuscript which was a copy of the original. The printers manuscript was a hand printed copy. This was then taken to the printer’s from which the type was set and the pages printed.

The original copy was hidden in the grave of Joseph Smith and mostly ruined. Our RLDS/CofC friends have what is left of the original manuscript. If this part of the manuscript was ruined then we will never know if the original printed text was a misprint or correctly transcribed. Perhaps our RLDS/CofC friends can clarify this for us since they brought up this point in the first place.

The Traveler

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Traveler@Jan 25 2005, 11:30 PM

The original copy was hidden in the grave of Joseph Smith and mostly ruined. Our RLDS/CofC friends have what is left of the original manuscript. If this part of the manuscript was ruined then we will never know if the original printed text was a misprint or correctly transcribed. Perhaps our RLDS/CofC friends can clarify this for us since they brought up this point in the first place.

The Traveler

Actually, it is the other way around.

The RLDS has the printer's manuscript, and the LDS own what is left of the original manuscript. I got my quotes from the Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) of the BoM, which was researched and printed by neither church. The person who did the research used both the printers manuscript and what was left of the original, along with the Kirtland edition to put together the RCE. He maintained RLDS versification since it is closest to what was used in the earliest editions (which was paragraph form).

The original Kirtland edition matches the original manuscript, yes.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 26 2005, 08:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 26 2005, 08:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jan 25 2005, 11:30 PM

The original copy was hidden in the grave of Joseph Smith and mostly ruined.  Our RLDS/CofC friends have what is left of the original manuscript.  If this part of the manuscript was ruined then we will never know if the original printed text was a misprint or correctly transcribed.  Perhaps our RLDS/CofC friends can clarify this for us since they brought up this point in the first place.

The Traveler

Actually, it is the other way around.

The RLDS has the printer's manuscript, and the LDS own what is left of the original manuscript. I got my quotes from the Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) of the BoM, which was researched and printed by neither church. The person who did the research used both the printers manuscript and what was left of the original, along with the Kirtland edition to put together the RCE. He maintained RLDS versification since it is closest to what was used in the earliest editions (which was paragraph form).

The original Kirtland edition matches the original manuscript, yes.

So we know that the end result of the research is right? Was it checked by either church?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Traveler+Jan 26 2005, 12:22 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Traveler @ Jan 26 2005, 12:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 25 2005, 05:43 PM

Interesting and most probably right on. I was wondering what you might think about the concept that the term "Only Begotten of the Father" meant that HE, Jesus Christ, was spiritually purified by HIS Father as we are spiritually purified through Christ's atonement~ therefore making Christ perfect, without sin and therefore able to be presented as the sinless sacrifice?

I think that "Only Begotten of the Father" means that Jesus Christ is G-d the Son and is conceived and begotten by the Father. Because Jesus was begotten of the Father he was not in the fallen state that man is. Because he was not fallen he would not need to be purified. He resisted sin and therefore remained the only Son of G-d. Because we are fallen we have lost our legal claim as a Son or Daughter of G-d. We must be made pure before we can be in G-d’ presents ever again.

I believe perfect means to covenant and remain faithful through a trial or test. When I test an automated system I will perform functional test to determine that a system will perform the correct functions in the proper sequence when everything is happening as it should. But I will also perform what are called anomaly testing. This is when we introduce failures or problems into the system to determine how the system will identify problems and recover. I believe Jesus was tested in much the same manner. Because he completed his trial or test by remaining faithful as a G-d he then became the Father of our covenant salvation. This then gives us an inheritance and the only way to the Tree of Life.

The Traveler

How was he perfect without sin and the only one? How did that happen? We are all brothers and sisters, zillions of us. Yet not but one is perfect?

There are thoughts which say we have different comings, such as the Adam God idea. It seems that it must be true if Christ was perfect and we were not. Don't you think? How else can you explain his perfectness?

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 26 2005, 10:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 26 2005, 10:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 26 2005, 08:40 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jan 25 2005, 11:30 PM

The original copy was hidden in the grave of Joseph Smith and mostly ruined.  Our RLDS/CofC friends have what is left of the original manuscript.  If this part of the manuscript was ruined then we will never know if the original printed text was a misprint or correctly transcribed.  Perhaps our RLDS/CofC friends can clarify this for us since they brought up this point in the first place.

The Traveler

Actually, it is the other way around.

The RLDS has the printer's manuscript, and the LDS own what is left of the original manuscript. I got my quotes from the Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) of the BoM, which was researched and printed by neither church. The person who did the research used both the printers manuscript and what was left of the original, along with the Kirtland edition to put together the RCE. He maintained RLDS versification since it is closest to what was used in the earliest editions (which was paragraph form).

The original Kirtland edition matches the original manuscript, yes.

So we know that the end result of the research is right? Was it checked by either church?

(I'm sorry, I should have been saying the original Palmyra edition, not the Kirtland edition.)

Why does it need to be checked by either church?

The person who did this started with the RLDS 1908 edition, and, after checking the manuscripts and the original Palmyra edition, changed only those words that were changed from the original. The rest was left as is.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Jenda+Jan 26 2005, 11:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Jenda @ Jan 26 2005, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Jan 26 2005, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by -Jenda@Jan 26 2005, 08:40 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Traveler@Jan 25 2005, 11:30 PM

The original copy was hidden in the grave of Joseph Smith and mostly ruined.  Our RLDS/CofC friends have what is left of the original manuscript.  If this part of the manuscript was ruined then we will never know if the original printed text was a misprint or correctly transcribed.  Perhaps our RLDS/CofC friends can clarify this for us since they brought up this point in the first place.

The Traveler

Actually, it is the other way around.

The RLDS has the printer's manuscript, and the LDS own what is left of the original manuscript. I got my quotes from the Restored Covenant Edition (RCE) of the BoM, which was researched and printed by neither church. The person who did the research used both the printers manuscript and what was left of the original, along with the Kirtland edition to put together the RCE. He maintained RLDS versification since it is closest to what was used in the earliest editions (which was paragraph form).

The original Kirtland edition matches the original manuscript, yes.

So we know that the end result of the research is right? Was it checked by either church?

(I'm sorry, I should have been saying the original Palmyra edition, not the Kirtland edition.)

Why does it need to be checked by either church?

The person who did this started with the RLDS 1908 edition, and, after checking the manuscripts and the original Palmyra edition, changed only those words that were changed from the original. The rest was left as is.

I just wondered if he was trust worthy. It seems to be the question everyone asks of JS. Equal questionability under the law and all that.