Comments on: Mormon Thought vs. Open Theism

By: onika

onika — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:10:04 +0000

Ben is wrong. Father does Not translate to immortal god. Abinadi says God is called the Father because he is conceived by the power of God, which is himself. God created for himself a body in the form of Jesus and that is why he is called the Father.

By: Blake

Blake — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:48:07 +0000

Robert: Thanks for pointing out Ben’s exegesis. I agree that Mosiah 15′s primary focus in the dual nature of Christ — he is both human and divine in the same nature because of his relation to the Father. We agree that it doesn’t teach modalism.

By: Robert Boylan

Robert Boylan — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:33:47 +0000

I just found a URL to Ben’s approach to Mosiah 15 in a thread on MAD entitled, “Modalism, does it appear in the Book of Mormon.”

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/40232-modalism-does-it-appear-in-the-bom/page__st__40__p__1208563812__hl__mosiah__fromsearch__1#entry1208563812

FWIW,

Robert B.

By: Robert Boylan

Robert Boylan — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:36:55 +0000

Blake: Fair enough, but at least we can agree that the Book of Mormon does *not* teach Modalism, right? Methinks you will agree with me when I say that Charles, Vogel, Bodine and Rhodes, et al., rely on eisegesis to make such a case.

I think you might be right, however, in light of the statement of the will of the Son being swallowed up by the Father. I will have to look at that pericope again, though I think Ben might be onto something in his exegesis of the passage. With his permission, I could pass it onto you, if you want (don’t want this thread to go of topic even more than it has now . . .)

Best,

Robert Boylan
Tralee, Ireland.

By: Thanh Schreyer

Thanh Schreyer — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:04:41 +0000

I like your style, the fact that your site is a little bit different makes it so interesting, I get fed up of seeing same-old-same-old all of the time. I’ve just stumbled this page for you

By: Blake

Blake — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 18:51:33 +0000

Robert: I disagree with your reading of Mosiah 15:1-4 — I don’t believe your suggested reading can make sense of the assertion that the Son has a will that he subjects to the Father’s will. There are two wills and not one. I address this issue further here: http://www.smpt.org/docs/ostler_element1-1.html

By: Robert Boylan

Robert Boylan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:25:04 +0000

One final thing–do ignore my JW comment. I misread your statements (you seem to be arguing that such a view was part and parcel of early LDS theology). Sorry for that

By: Robert Boylan

Robert Boylan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:24:04 +0000

Furthermore, you might want to read the review by Paulsen of Widmer’s awful book, “Mormonism and the Nature of God.”

URL: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392

Also, Noel B. Reynold’s article on the authorship of the Lectures on Faith (no. 5 being most pertinent here) at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=47&chapid=274 (from the 2000 text, The Disciple as Witness).

By: Robert Boylan

Robert Boylan — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:20:50 +0000

On Mosiah 15:1-4, I tend to agree with Ben McGuire that “father” and “son” refer to Jesus alone, not God the Father and God the Son, with “father” referring to Christ’s divinity, and “son” referring to his mortality, so I would have to disagree with your interpretation of that particular passage.

Furthermore, I can’t help but see that you are reading into these passages a theology not too disimilar to that of Jehovah’s Witnesses

By: onika

onika — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:48:00 +0000

According to this scripture God is one being who played different roles. He is called the Father because by his power he was conceived in the flesh, and he is called the Son because he dwelled in the flesh and was conceived by his power. God was a spirit (John 4:24) and the Holy Ghost was God’s influence and power, not a person. This shows that the early doctrine of the church about the nature of God was different than what it is now. Note the Holy Ghost is referred to in the Book of Mormon as an “it.”

Mosiah 15:

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.
2 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—
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.

By: aquinas

aquinas — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:07:56 +0000

If you are interested, Believing Minds did an interview with Clark Pinnock when he was visiting BYU in 2005. You can listen to the interview here: A Theology of God’s Openness: Clark Pinnock

By: Mormonism and Open Theism : Mormon Metaphysics

Mormonism and Open Theism : Mormon Metaphysics — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 01:01:16 +0000

[...] and Open Theism discussed by Louis Midgley and George Cobabe. I’m an Open Theist skeptic as regular readers probably are aware although I’m quite [...]

By: Eric Nielson

Eric Nielson — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:51:58 +0000

Thanks for passing this along. I will have to read the longer version. At first glance I think I would prefer this to How Wide the Divide. I think I like Paulsen