LDS Joseph Smith was a Modalist

Solomon Smith

Well-Known Member
Sep 25, 2018
477
215
46
Idaho
✟8,377.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
I understand that, but if the Father and Son and HS are in 1 God, and Jesus is talking to a crowd on the Mt. of the beatitudes, what is God doing? Is His person somehow behind the face of Jesus, whose face is forward speaking to the crowd?

You see, that is what modalism is. The Father and the Son and the HS are in 1 God and are all the same God, with different masks that are used to depict the Person who is speaking at the time.

In fact the would hoomoisia was used by the modalists to describe how their god lived. When the Nicean Fathers tried to describe the relationship of the Trinity Persons, they finally decided to use hoomoisia, and a lot of the bishops at Nicean objected vehemnently because 150 years before they condemned modalism and the hoomoisia concept as heretical, and now 150 in the future were using it to describe God again. The Trinity passed, only because Constantine had an army and would have killed every bishop if they had not come to a consensus of this important relationship between the Father and the Son and the HS, so the kingdom could move forward more united. So they gave up on true doctrine for true unity.

Modalism and Trinity are very closely associated by the word hoomoisia (could be spelling this wrong).

Modalism and Trinity are two very different doctrines. If you fail to understand that then you should research it. I can provide links to the two doctrines if needed. Please let me know if you remain confused on the vast difference between the two doctrines.

Modalistic Monarchianism - Wikipedia

Trinity - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rescued One
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,340
26,780
Pacific Northwest
✟728,054.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
You can squirm around the text and give us your opinion, but if you had 10,000 people draw a picture of what Stephen saw in the heavens it would look like the picture we are talking about.

So mutilate all you want, but it does not matter, Stephen saw Jesus Christ standing on the right hand of the Father, just like the picture depicts, and of course it would be powerful and glorious.

Small problem: My understanding of the text is in harmony with the rest of the biblical witness and two thousand years of Christian teaching as it is the holy and apostolic religion; seeing as Scripture is pretty explicit that the only way to see God is to behold the Incarnate Person of the Son. "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" "No one has at any time seen God, but the only-begotten Son who is at the bosom of the Father makes Him known" "The Son is the radiance of His glory and the express image of His Hypostasis".

In ever instance where God manifests Himself before Christ it is through Theophany--as burning bush, a pillar of smoke/fire, as fire, lightning, and smoke on the mountain, as the glimmer of the Shekinah on Mt. Horeb. These Theophanies are never God-as-God, indeed as the Evangelist is clear, "No one has at any time seen God". The only way for man to see God is in the Hypostasis of the Son who has become flesh and dwelt among us. The Father makes Himself known through His Son "whom He appointed heir of all things and by whom He made all ages". Indeed, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

This is precisely what the Father cannot be depicted directly in icons; and is instead recognized as being present in and through the Son. So that when we depict Christ we behold also the Father, for the Father is known by His Son, and because the Lord said, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father"--and all else as previously said.

For God, invisible and who dwells in unapproachable light, cannot be seen.

"[God] the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no human being has seen, nor can see; to Him be honor and power everlasting. Amen." - 1 Timothy 6:15-16

To God all-wise, invisible, glorious, unfathomable, incomprehensible, and above all things be alone glory, praise, honor, and kingdom forever.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Ironhold

Member
Feb 14, 2014
7,625
1,463
✟201,967.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Single
God is a Spirit. He has no physical right hand as he has no physical body.

John 4:24
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

You do realize that this rendering is exclusive to only certain English translations, right?

Others have "God is Spirit" or another variation.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
God is Spirit
God is a Spirit

either way makes no difference regarding the dismissal of the idea that God the Father had/has a flesh and bone body

There is no indefinite article in Koine Greek,
renderings into English are based on context,
and in the case we are talking about
it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Solomon Smith
Upvote 0

drstevej

"The crowd always chooses Barabbas."
In Memory Of
Mar 18, 2003
47,493
27,114
74
Lousianna
✟1,001,611.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
God is Spirit
God is a Spirit

either way makes no difference regarding the dismissal of the idea that God the Father had/has a flesh and bone body

There is no indefinite article in Koine Greek,
renderings into English are based on context,
and in the case we are talking about
it doesn't make a dime's worth of difference


Exactly, Ironhold, do you know Koine greek?
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The two Greek terms homoousia and homoiousia

(that is how their transliterations into English are spelled)

represent
"of the same nature, essence, substance"
and
"of LIKE nature, essence, substance" -- respectively

homoiousia was put forth by the Semi-Arians as a compromise
between what we now know as Nicene Christianity
and the outright Arians -- who denied the pre-existence of Christ -- remember, their slogan was
"there was when He was not" and the Arians did not have a full view of the deity of Christ

Constantine did not force one term or the other, his desire was that there would be a unified statement of faith FOR THIS NEW FAITH OF THE EMPIRE, he was not settled on Arianism, Semi-Arianism, or Orthodoxy, he just wanted the bishops to settle things so Christianity could have an agreed-upon statement of Faith (which was finally achieved in Nicene Creed.)

Arius championed a weak/near-non-existant view of Christ's deity; Athanasius championed a full deity of the pre-existent Christ. These two and their followers went back and forth as having Constantine agree with their POV. Athanasius was in fact banished 5 times but always got re-instated; never giving up until views of Arius were squashed -- that took until after Arius kicked the bucket.

(And in some parts of Europe, it took centuries, pockets of Arianism lingered long and long.)

The Semi-Arians were the "why can't we all just get along" crowd; with their medium term of HOMOIOUSIAS.

Most of the Greek terms in the creed were extra-biblical, though HUPOSTASIS is actually in the Greek New Testament (homoousias is not, if my memory serves me well, neither is actual term "Trinity").

Hypostatic Union concept came from that biblical word -- hupostatsis or hypostasis. Nature or essence or 'substance' in this sense did not apply to physical body of Father or Son, but to Christ's pre-existent state before he became flesh and dwelt among us.

Christ and the Father are of the SAME ESSENCE - this is what the Nicene Creed is all about - thoughts on the Holy Spirit were added to the FINAL form of the Creed at Constantinople in 381 AD.

These are the BASICS of orthodox Christianity - lowercase o orthodox - asserting that Jesus was TRULY GOD; and later at council of Chalcedon it was stressed that Jesus was also TRULY MAN. This was the GRAVY of the Christological menu, and is still not fully accepted by Oriental Orthodox Christians as I understand things; they have a full view of the DEITY of Christ just like Eastern Orthodox, RCC and Protestants; but may differ on the TRULY MAN aspect.

Christological error regarding the deity of Christ technically constitutes HERESY -- heresy is not a word to use lightly about someone's eschatology, form of church government, or other non-essential matters.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The "definition of a Christian" here at CF is really straight-down-the-pipe NICENE CREED.

JW's and Mormons are excluded because of a faulty view of Christ's deity; Oriental Orthodox are included because of a proper view of Christ's deity even though they may vary on Chalcedonian matters regarding Christ as TRULY MAN as well as truly God.

The original creed stated that the Holy Spirit PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER, and did not contain a filioque in that clause, though it went ON to say (of the Holy Ghost) that:

"With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified".

When I say that RCC, Orthodox and PROTESTANTS are agreed on these creedal essentials, it must be remembered that some groups are called/considered PROTESTANTS which are not orthodox/trinitarian at all -- like Unitarians, Moonies or whatever.

IMHO, CF.COM is correct in using Nicene Creed as a ruler of "what is Christian?" and differences about filioque and Chalcedon are not deal-breakers.

In fact, I have seen Nicene Creed printed in Prrotestant bulletins with AND without filioque, I guess some just repeat what is in the bulletin; but I consider 'sans filioque' the original, though not dogmatic about that. The creed is carved into the steps of the Vatican without the filioque clause.
 
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Of JW's I am fairly ignorant, but I know that in their New World Translation, they try to bend the lack of an actual indefinite article in Greek to turn gospel of John's

"In the beginning was The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God"

into

"In the beginning was The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

which supports their faulty Christology

It is beyond my four semesters of undergraduate Greek to understand all that the experts take into consideration in supplying an English indefinite article or not; I think it is over-simplistic to say that one can put an "a" before any singular Greek noun that does not have a definite article (the definite articles are there in the Greek text, with breathing marks).

I do feel that the 'a' before Spirit or not is a hill of beans as far as our discussion here; but that 'a god' in prologue of John is quite bogus.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Luk 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

That, and its companion narratives in the other gospels which describe Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, are the scriptures which decimate MODALISM -- the three PERSONS of the Trinity all appear independently doing something in same place at same time. Spirit descending like a dove, Father speaking, Jesus being baptized.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Anto9us

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 10, 2013
5,089
2,040
Texas
✟95,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
We are fortunate to have the narratives of Jesus' baptism as they are to squash the assertions of Modalism. The term PERSONA (plural PERSONAE) is originally from Greek Drama -- it was a MASK whose features identified the character in a play; a huge mask that also had a built-in megaphone for voice amplification in days before microphones. MODALISTS tried to assert that God put on one mask for Father, one for Son, one for Holy Spirit -- this idea falls when we see all 3 personae of Trinity acting simultaneously (at the same time, too) at Jesus' baptism.

We have terms that are now THEOLOGICAL that originally came from other aspects of life in ancient Greece. Our words for SIN and APOSTLE originally came from Greek MILITARY matters, apostle was one sent with a commission like a naval officer, hamartalos (sin) was originally an ARCHERY term meaning miss the mark or fall short of the target.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
quote:

Examples in the Book of Mormon that tend to describe God in a modalistic manner include the following:

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.”

Mosiah 16:15 — “Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.”

Alma 11:38-40 — “Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father? 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; and he shall come into the world to redeem his people; and he shall take upon him the transgressions of those who believe on his name; and these are they that have eternal life, and salvation cometh unto none else.”

3 Nephi 1:14 — “Behold, I come unto my own, to fulfill all things which I have made known unto the children of men from the foundation of the world, and to do the will, both of the Father and of the Son—of the Father because of me, and of the Son because of my flesh.”

Mormon 9:12 — “Behold, he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.”

Ether 3:14 — “Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.”

Ether 4:8, 12 — “And he that will contend against the word of the Lord, let him be accursed; and he that shall deny these things, let him be accursed; for unto them will I show no greater things, saith Jesus Christ; for I am he who speaketh. . .For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.

Modalism in the Book of Mormon
 
  • Winner
Reactions: 1 person
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Small problem: My understanding of the text is in harmony with the rest of the biblical witness and two thousand years of Christian teaching as it is the holy and apostolic religion; seeing as Scripture is pretty explicit that the only way to see God is to behold the Incarnate Person of the Son. "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father" "No one has at any time seen God, but the only-begotten Son who is at the bosom of the Father makes Him known" "The Son is the radiance of His glory and the express image of His Hypostasis".

In ever instance where God manifests Himself before Christ it is through Theophany--as burning bush, a pillar of smoke/fire, as fire, lightning, and smoke on the mountain, as the glimmer of the Shekinah on Mt. Horeb. These Theophanies are never God-as-God, indeed as the Evangelist is clear, "No one has at any time seen God". The only way for man to see God is in the Hypostasis of the Son who has become flesh and dwelt among us. The Father makes Himself known through His Son "whom He appointed heir of all things and by whom He made all ages". Indeed, "that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

This is precisely what the Father cannot be depicted directly in icons; and is instead recognized as being present in and through the Son. So that when we depict Christ we behold also the Father, for the Father is known by His Son, and because the Lord said, "If you have seen Me you have seen the Father"--and all else as previously said.

For God, invisible and who dwells in unapproachable light, cannot be seen.

"[God] the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no human being has seen, nor can see; to Him be honor and power everlasting. Amen." - 1 Timothy 6:15-16

To God all-wise, invisible, glorious, unfathomable, incomprehensible, and above all things be alone glory, praise, honor, and kingdom forever.

-CryptoLutheran
Sorry, but the scripture clearly has Stephen seeing Jesus, and someone or some thing standing on Jesus's left side. The scripture calls that thing God.

I do not think the scripture says that Stephen looked in the heaven and saw Jesus only. Doesn't it say Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God?

So I believe that for the most part, Jesus is the one whom the Father works through and God the Father stays in the background and is not seen. But there are certain times when He has been seen, only a few times in the history of the world. Very rare occasion when the 2 of them are seen together.

In the case of Stephen, God the Father wanted the early Christians to know that He and Jesus were not actually the same God, but that They were 2 separate and distinct Beings. That is why Stephen saw Jesus (1) standing on the right hand of God (2). It was a teaching moment that lasted for centuries, until the learned doctors of religion began to play with the nature of God and His Christ, and ignored the scriptures, and came up with their Nicene God, a God that could eventually fit everyone's agenda, and create unity in the Roman/Christian empire.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,340
26,780
Pacific Northwest
✟728,054.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Yes, Jesus was a man, and is still in the form of a man.

But is Jesus God?

Yes. But the question of whether one can see Jesus is answered by the fact that He's human, with a human body, flesh and bone which He received from His mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary.

-CryptoLUtheran
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Peter1000

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2015
7,876
488
71
✟124,865.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Luk 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

That, and its companion narratives in the other gospels which describe Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist, are the scriptures which decimate MODALISM -- the three PERSONS of the Trinity all appear independently doing something in same place at same time. Spirit descending like a dove, Father speaking, Jesus being baptized.
:
You are right, the story of the baptism of Christ does squash the idea that the Trinity is modalistic.

But the story of the baptism also brings up concerns for the Trinity. Let me explain:

You say that in the story of the baptism, "the 3 PERSONS of the Triity all apear independently doing something in the same place at the same time".

You are right about at the same "time", but you are not right about in the same "place".
For instance: Jesus was on the earth coming up out of the waters of the river Jordan(1), God the Father was in the heavens, telling everyone that "this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well please"(2), and the HS was in between the Father in the heavens and the Son on the earth, but eventually did fall upon Jesus on the earth, but there was a time when he had not fallen
upon him (3).
So you see, Jesus and God the Father and the HS, were indeed there at the same time, but they surely were not in the same place at the same time. The 3 were indeed independent, and were at different locations at the same time.
God the Father in heaven.
Jesus on earth.
HS in between God the Father and Jesus.

So the story of the baptism is tough on the Trinity concept, and vindicates JS.
 
Upvote 0