Get your own Free Home PageTo go to the beginning, click here.
“I am Amulek; I am the son of Giddonah, who was the son of Ishmael, who was a descendant of Aminadi; and it was that same Aminadi who interpreted the writing which was upon the wall of the temple, which was written by the finger of God.” (Alma 10:2)
The problem Br. Clif finds is, quote: “Why is there no record of this sacred thing?” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
I searched through the Book of Mormon, developing three theories why no previous mention of Aminadi was made in the Book of Mormon. My favorite one is below. If you want to know the other two, e-mail myriad@oocities.com
The Book of Mormon records the history of the people through the land of Zarahemla. It does not record the history of the land of Ammonihah where Alma 10:2 occurred. The Book of Mormon is not an all-encompassing history of all the groups of Nephites that spread out over the land. Like a journal, it follows the events happening around the custodian of the plates at that time. It follows the migration of Lehi’s company to the promised land and their establishment in the land. Then for several generations, from Enos to the first part of Omni, the record is passed to guardians who write very little about what’s going on around them. However, one, Jarom, does write: “And they [the Nephites] were scattered upon much of the face of the land...” (Jarom 1:6), plus, “And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land...” (Jarom 1:8). So, the Nephites were spreading out into new lands and cities, the names of which are not told. Then from the ending of Omni to Alma, for three generations, the Book of Mormon only focuses on a “splinter group” which broke from the main body of Nephites (...and the return of a group that splintered off from them...See Solution 9). Then the book of Alma follows the ministry of Alma II, son of the Alma who founded the “church of Christ”. Alma II begins to travel, leaving the land of Zarahemla. As he travels far and wide, he preaches to people in the “land of Melek”. How and when Nephites settled the “land of Melek”, and their history from the time of Nephi, is unknown --The record followed the settlement of the land of Zarahemla, not the land of Melek. (Perhaps they settled Melek several generations back, during the time of Jarom, above.) Then, Alma travels north from Melek and comes to the land of Ammonihah. Verse Alma 10:2, above, occurs in the land of Ammonihah. Amulek, who is making the statement in Alma 10:2, is a native of Ammonihah. Again-- How and when Nephites settled the “land of Ammonihah”, and their history from the time of Nephi, is unknown. The record followed the settlement of the land of Zarahemla, not the land of Ammonihah. The only reason the Book of Mormon even mentions Ammonihah at all is because Alma II, the keeper of the record at that time, preached among them. As I stated above, the record follows the events happening around the keeper the plates. THEREFORE-- The Book of Mormon does not previously mention Aminadi and the writing in the temple, which happened during the history of Ammonihah, because the Book of Mormon does not follow the history of Ammonihah. It follows the history of the land of Zarahemla.
It is interesting to note Acts 1:3: “To whom also he (Jesus) shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:” So, after Yeshua was resurrected, he taught among the disciples for forty days. Those forty days, when the resurrected Messiah taught things about the kingdom of God, must have been a wondrous, sacred event. Yet, the Bible is strangely quiet about what were probably the most incredible teachings of Yeshua. [Certainly, the words of the resurrected Messiah about the kingdom of God would be even more sacred than Aminadi translating writing on a temple wall...] Does the silence about those teachings make the Bible a fake? No. Likewise, the Book of Mormon’s silence about Aminadi translating the temple writing does not make it a fake.
“(28) Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? (29) And he [Amulek] answered, No. (30) And he [Zeezrom] said unto him again: How knowest thou these things? (31) And he [Amulek] said: An angel hath made them known unto me. (32) And Zeezrom said again: Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God? (33) And [Amulek] said unto him, Yea.” (Alma 11:28-33)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: Alma 11:28-29 goes against the Mormon doctrine that the Godhead is made up of three separate personages who are one in purpose. He adds that LDS doctrine teaches their names are Elohim (God the Father), Jehovah (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost/Spirit. Then he states, quote, “And, we cannot go on without mentioning that Mormonism believes in the existence of a multitude of gods whose power is equal to or greater than that of our own Father (though in some other universe).” (Quote correct as of mid May 1998.)
* * * * *
I will: (1) Look at Alma 11:28-29 in context; (2) Comment on the supposed belief of Mormonism, in gods equal to or greater than our Father -- a common mistake made by those who don’t see a line between official LDS doctrine vs. speculation and opinion.
(1) It helps to examine Alma 11:28-29 in context. Note that Amulek and Zeezrom are discussing God the Father in verses 28-29, because then they begin discussing the Son of God in verses 32 and 33. Thus, it is evident they were discussing God the Father in verses 28-29. It is also evident they made a distinction between God and the Son of God, which fits with the LDS doctrine of separate personages.
Thus, Amulek answered correctly in verse 29. They were discussing God the Father. We do have only one God the Father, whom we serve and follow. Therefore, by reading Alma 11:28-29 in context, it does not conflict with LDS doctrine.
(2) I have been around the LDS Church since 1967. I have been an active member of the LDS Church since 1988. I have never heard a doctrine of multiple gods, equal to or greater than Father, formally taught in LDS Church services. I have never read of such a doctrine in the LDS canon nor in official LDS publications. Official LDS doctrine (that which members are expected to accept) is defined by the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price and official, ratified pronouncements of the First Presidency of the Church....and none of those contain anything about gods equal to or greater than our Father. All are welcome to search LDS canon for such a doctrine. You won’t find it.
I understand there are some individual Mormons who have read “extra Mormon literature” --extra literature that is not from the LDS canon nor official publications of the LDS Church. That “extra Mormon literature” belongs in the realm of opinion and speculation. If some individual Mormons want to draw their own interpretations from such writings, then they are entitled to their opinions like everyone else.
Speaking for myself, as a member of the LDS Church: I believe that Father is the Supreme Deity. There is only one Elohim the Father, and He is the one I strive to obey. I am content to draw my core religious beliefs from materials officially published by the LDS Church. As for all that “extra Mormon literature” out there: If a prophet does not say, “Thus saith the Lord...”, then it’s their opinion or speculation, not revelation for the Church. Plus, sometimes it’s easy for us --or a secondary writer-- to draw our/their own interpretion of what someone else wrote or said, and sometimes our/their own interpretation is not correct.
The idea that “Mormonism believes in the existence of a multitude of gods whose power is equal to or greater than that of our own Father (though in some other universe)” probably has it’s roots in Joseph Smith’s “King Follett Sermon”. However, the “King Follet Sermon” was reported by a secondary writer, in longhand, by memory. According to the the LDS History of the Church 4:446: "It must be remembered that the above report of the Prophet's remarks, as also the report of the King Follett Sermon ... were reported in longhand and from memory, so that they are very likely to contain inaccuracies and convey wrong impressions." (bold added by me)
[Since we’re on the topic of God and gods-- The idea of God (with a capital “G”), existing with lesser gods (with a lower-case “g”), is not a new idea dreamed up by “Mormons”. If one checks the original Hebrew behind the English translations of the Old Testament, they will find there is a supreme Elohim existing with lesser elohim. (Hebrew “elohim” = English “god” or “gods”). For example, Psalm 8:4-5 in the KJV (and most other translations) says that man is made “a little lower than the angels “. The Hebrew word that “angels” was translated from was “elohim”...So, a more accurate translation from the Hebrew is: “man is made a little lower than the gods”. Such elohim (gods) are divine beings serving or representing Elohim (God), being subservient to Him. Mainstream Christians are probably more comfortable describing those beings as “angels”, not “gods”. However, since the literal Hebrew translation is “gods”, there is no sense in persecuting Mormons for using the same meaning used by the Hebrews who wrote the Bible to begin with.]
As for Br. Clif’s comments about the LDS doctrine of the Godhead-- I have saved my comments for Solution 22, below.
“(35) Now Zeezrom said unto the people: See that ye remember these things; for he said there is but one God; yet he saith that the Son of God shall come, but he shall not save his people--as though he had authority to command God.......(38) Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? (39) And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” (Alma 11:35, 38-39; Bold added by me for future comparison)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: The Book of Mormon teaches the Trinitarian doctrine of the Godhead, which contradicts LDS doctrine. He adds the LDS Church asserts that “Jesus” and “Jehovah” are one and the same, and tells about a learned clergyman who said Mormons have a “confused” idea about the Trinity. (5/98)
* * * * *
I will: (1) Examine the above verses and show they do fit LDS doctrine; (2) Comment on the Godhead and Jesus as YHWH.
(1) The verses above are not saying “God the Father” and “God the Son” are the same Being. Here is how:
Examining Alma 11:35-- They are discussing two Beings: God (the Father) and His Son (see also Solution 21). “God the Father” sent his Son to save mankind--That is Biblical fact. Father is the one doing the sending. He’s the one who made the command. Zeezrom is saying: If someone says the Son will not save mankind, they are commanding Father. Since Father is the one making the command (sending His Son to save), someone making a reverse command must be commanding Father -- and man cannot command Father. There is nothing in that verse saying Father and His Son are the same Being. Father is doing the sending. The Son, subservient, obeys. This does not conflict with LDS doctrine.
Alma 11:38-39 does not mean that “God the Father” and the “Son of God” are the same Being. Those verses agree with Isaiah 9:6 about the Messiah: “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting father, The prince of peace.” (Bold added by me; compare with Alma 11:38-39 above.)
Alma 11:38-39 says the Messiah is the Eternal Father of heaven and earth. Isaiah 9:6 says the Messiah will be called the everlasting father. (everlasting = eternal) Alma 11:38-39 simply agrees with Isaiah 9:6. Here is how the Son can be called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth: The Son --under Father’s direction-- created heaven and earth (John 1:10; Eph. 3:9). The Son is the Creator. That is how the Son can be called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth, because he created them. People call Sigmund Freud the father of modern psychology -- not because he literally begat it, but because he founded it. In a similar sense, the Son is the Eternal Father of heaven and earth because he created the heaven and earth.
Notice Alma 11:39 makes a statement similar to Rev. 1:8, which is about Yeshua: “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Bold added by me.) Comparing Alma 11:39 to Rev. 1:8 shows Alma 11:39 is about the Messiah.
Therefore, Alma 11:35 does discuss “God (the Father)” who sends, and the “Son of God” (who obeys) as separate Beings. In Alma 11:38-39, the Son is called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth, which makes sense because he did create the heaven and earth. Thus, Alma 11:38-39 does not contradict with LDS doctrine.
(2) The Book of Mormon does not teach the traditional Trinity. See Solution 52 for an example.
There are many Bible passages that point to the Father and Yeshua as separate Beings. Here are just a few examples:
Matt. 16:27-- Yeshua says: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.” The glory belongs to the Father. If the Father and the Son are equal and the same “substance”, then they would have the same glory. The Son wouldn’t have to come in his Father’s glory because it would be his own glory as an equal, same Being. What would belong to one would belong to both equally. Yet the Son is clearly coming in the glory of his Father -- not his own glory. Thus, the Son is subordinate to the Father and is a separate Personage.
Luke 22:41-45-- (Yeshua’s prayer to the Father in Gethsemane) The New Testament mentions various prayers by Yeshua to the Father. If the Father and the Son were somehow the same “God”, then he was praying to himself....If they are the same Being, there would be no need for him to pray to himself.
John 3:35-- “The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.” If the Father and the Son were the same substance and co-equal, the Father would not have to give anything to the Son. If the Father and the Son were the same “God”, then they would both have it already.
John 3:28-- “...If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.” If the Father and the Son are somehow the same “God”, then how can Elohim be greater than Himself? If they were both the same “God”, they would be equal. Yet, the Son is clearly lesser than the Father.
Looking at the above verses, and other verses like Matt. 3:16-17; John 1:18; 5:26-27,36; 7:16; 8:42 and Acts 7:55-56.... Trying to shove a “same God /same Being” philosophy into those verses, in my opinion, doesn’t work.
Mormons do believe that the Father and the Son are one in purpose. An example of that can be seen in John 17:20-21: “(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.” The Jews used symbolism and figurative speech extensively. Yeshua, as a Jew, also used symbolism and figurative speech. If Yeshua was praying for his disciples to literally merge into one substance, it doesn’t make sense. However, if those verses are taken in the symbolic language that Yeshua often used, they have beautiful meaning. Examining the verse in context shows it was a prayer for unity, not a prayer for literal oneness. When one is reading a German book, one must look at it from a German viewpoint to fully understand and appreciate it. The same thing goes for books written by ancient Jews, including the Bible.
The Mormons aren’t the only ones who believe that Father and Yeshua are separate Personages united in purpose. One example are followers of Nazarene Judaism (a movement of both Jewish and non-Jewish followers of Yeshua back to the Jewish roots of the first century followers of Yeshua) (http://www.nazarene.net/ -URL correct as of May 1998). Then there is Margaret Barker, author of The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God. According to her research, there were numerous early Christians who interpreted scriptures to mean that Elohim and Yeshua were separate Personages united in purpose. Therefore, the Mormon interpretation is not only plausible, but it is a genuine ancient interpretation. While surfing the Net, I’ve also noticed a few non-LDS Christians who are coming to the same conclusion.
The belief that Father and Yeshua are the same God comes from Greek philosophy that infiltrated the early Church. To conserve space, I’m not going to go into the detailed history of how that happened. It suffices to say I’ve read about Tertullian, Hippolytus, Theophilus, Origen, Arian views, the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian Creed, Jesuit scholar Edmund J. Fortman, Harper's Bible Dictionary, and other material on the topic. I have come to the conclusion that mainstream Christianity’s concept of the Trinity did not exist among the earliest “Christians”. It evolved from Hellenistic philosophy that crept into the Church--The documented history is out there for anyone serious and open-minded enough to research it. The belief that the Trinity consists of one Personage who manifests Himself in three different modes (held by many Christians today) is actually a heresy called “Modalism”. It was one of the belief systems condemned at the Nicene Council.
As for Mormons believing Elohim is a name for Father-- Here is what the LDS Bible Dictionary says about the name Elohim: “In Hebrew and related languages, it [El] designates ‘the divine being.’....Possibly the best known use of El is in Elohim, a plural form signifying the “almighty” or “omnipotent,” a name applied to the Father.” [Curious, I checked Judaism 101 at http://www.jewfaq.org/, and found: “The first Name used for God in scripture is Elohim. In form, the word is a masculine plural of a word that looks feminine in the singular (Eloha). The same word (or, according to Maimonides, a homonym of it) is used to refer to princes, judges, other gods, and other powerful beings. This Name is used in scripture when emphasizing God's might, His creative power, and his attributes of justice and rulership. Variations on this name include El, Eloha, Elohai (my God) and Elohaynu (our God).” (URL correct as of June 1998)]
As for Mormons believing that YHWH (“Jehovah”) of the Old Testament was premortal Yeshua-- In my opinion, it would be more accurate to say this: The LDS Church teaches that “Jehovah” was a name/title applied to the premortal Messiah. “Jehovah” is the Anglicized form of YHWH (see the LDS Old Testament Student Study Manual: Genesis-2 Samuel, pg. 45). Remembering that in the Old Testament, the word LORD was substitued for YHWH-- Compare Hosea 13:4 with Luke 2:11 (savior); Zech. 12:10 with John 19:34,36-37 (whom they have pierced); Isaiah 45:11-12 with John 1:1,3 (creator); Isaiah 43:14 with Gal. 3:13 (redeemer), Hosea 13:14 with 1 Cor. 15:20-22 (deliver men from death); Exodus 13:21-22 & Num. 21:5-7 with 1 Cor. 10:1-4,9 (with Israel in the wilderness, tempters destroyed by serpents); Isaiah 54:5 with Rev. 19:7-8 (the husband/bridegroom); Isaiah 44:6 with Rev. 1:8 (first and the last / Alpha and Omega). Also, the name YHWH has essentially the same meaning as “Ehyeh” signifying “I Am”--Take that with Ex. 3:13-14 + John 8:56-59. (See also Solution 52.) It is Biblical fact that Yeshua was with Elohim in the beginning, and created the heavens and the earth. I don’t think Yeshua the Messiah, Father’s mediator with mankind (1 Tim. 2:5), just sat in heaven “twiddling his thumbs” for the next few thousand years while he waited to be born on the very earth he created. Instead, he was very active in what was going on. Nazarene Jews and some Christians are coming to the same conclusion-- Examples, see http://www.nazarene.net/ (discussion board); http://www.aristotle.net/~bhuie/ch ristot.htm (Jesus=YHWH=Angel of YHWH) (URLs correct as of May 1998).
The doctrine of the Godhead, as taught by the LDS Church, is in line with the earliest doctrines of Judeo-Christianity. The LDS Church teaches that the Father is the Elohim greater than the Son, and the Son is greater than the Spirit (subordinationism). That doctrine was part of the “primitive Church” until about the Nicene Council.
[As for “learned clergy” saying that Mormons have a “confused” idea of the Trinity-- I have heard respected “learned clergy” telling outright lies about the LDS Church. As I recall, the Romans thought early Jewish-based Christianity had “confused” ideas and decided to feed them to lions. Now that Greco-Roman Christianity is the dominant religion in various nations, many of them think they can call others “confused”. I will remember to not put my trust in the arm of flesh (Jer. 17:5), and remember there are some “learned” people who don’t know truth (2 Tim. 3:7) nor speak truth.]
“And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews.” (Alma 16:13)
The problem Br. Clif finds is: How could the Nephites have had synagogues which were built after the manner of the Jews when this verse was recorded around 78 B.C. [my note: around 522 years after Lehi’s group left Jerusalem]? (5/98)
* * * * *
(Note: “Synagogue” means “congregation”. It is used in the Septuagint to refer to a gathering of the faithful.)
It’s possible the Nephites had information describing what a synagogue (congregation) was like around 600 B.C. Possibly the information was in the Brass Plates. Possibly Lehi or Nephi wrote about the country they left behind, a record for posterity to know from whence they came.
Alma does not say that Nephite synagogues were exactly like Jewish synagogues built in 78 B.C. Rather, the verse refers to reasonably similar likeness, according to whatever information they had about synagogues. Today, people use the description in 1 Kings 5 - 8 to build scale models of the temple built by Solomon. That temple was built in around 960 B.C. (over 2950 years ago), so there is no way for us to know exactly what Solomon’s temple looked like. Yet, builders can say their models are like the original --that they are a reasonable representation of the original-- based on the information they have. The same idea goes for models and representations of the Ark of the Covenant.
Today, for some ceremonies and celebrations, Sioux use tipis made of canvas and other modern materials. Their ancestors lived in tipis made of buffalo hides, sinew and other materials. Yet, today’s Sioux still call their canvas structures “tipis”. They aren’t exactly like the tipis their ancestors lived in, but they are built after the manner of their ancestor’s tipis...and thus they are still called tipis.
Nephites probably had synagogues according to the information they had about synagogues. They probably thought, then, that their synagogues were reasonably similar to Jewish synagogues. Therefore Alma 16:13 states: “...in their temples, and in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews.”
Get your own Free Home Page