-2

From the BoM at Alma 11:38-40,

  1. Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God THE VERY ETERNAL FATHER?

  2. And Amulek said to him; Yea, he is the VERY ETERNAL FATHER of heaven and of earth, and all things which is in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last:

  3. 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 shall have eternal life, and salvation cometh to none else.

Let me say first of all I am familiar with another thread here: Why is the Son of God called the Eternal Father in the book of Alma?

that ask a similar question? The answers given attribute the word "father" to Jesus Christ as a title. At Alma 11 there is a footnote quoting Isaiah 9:6 where Jesus is given the title, "Eternal Father."

What I am asking is where in the Bible does it teach that Jesus Christ is actually the person of God the Father? The Bible teaches and is clear that there is only ONE being of God and this one God chose to manifest Himself as three distinct persons. This means that the Son of God is not God the Father nor is the Son of God the person of the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity.

So again, from the LDS perspective please reconcile or please explain from the Bible how can Jesus Christ be the person of God the Father and the person of God the Son at the same time?

depperm
  • 9,271
  • 1
  • 29
  • 43
Mr. Bond
  • 5,138
  • 1
  • 7
  • 26
  • 1
    The LDS do not believe in the trinity as many Christians do, instead they believe in 3 distinct beings forming a godhead. Much of your wording is not very clear as LDS do not teach: Jesus Christ [is a] person of God the Father and the person of God the Son at the same time the linked question clarifies this – depperm Jan 26 '24 at 15:55
  • I know you don't believe in the Trinity and this thread is NOT about the Trinity. LDS believe in 3 distinct beings as you said. Alma 11:39, And he said, "Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth etc. "The BoM is one of your standard works, and so is the Bible. Yet the Bible teaches there is only one being of God, period, Deuteronomy 6:4. How do you reconcile 3 distinct beings, where one of them Jesus is also the being of God the Father as well as the Son? Please show us all here your exegesis of Alma 11:39 that demonstrates how you can deny the obvious of what it says? – Mr. Bond Jan 26 '24 at 21:32
  • 1
    @MrBond see https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/57432/what-is-the-biblical-basis-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-consisting-of-differe/57434#57434 doctrine of different personages can be found in the bible – depperm Jan 27 '24 at 02:20
  • 3
    There is no verse in the Bible that says this one God chose to manifest Himself as three distinct persons - this is an interpretation of what is taught in the Bible. One of the things this site manifests extraordinarily well is that it is possible for different people to interpret the same Biblical passage very differently. See JSH 1:12 for some of the consequences that follow from this. – Hold To The Rod Jan 27 '24 at 16:00

2 Answers2

2

where in the Bible does it teach that Jesus Christ is actually the person of God the Father?

It doesn't, in the sense that the Son of God isn't His own Father.

There are more Fathers than one.

The seeming quandary arises because we use an insufficiently qualified term.

"Father" is a relationship specifier. Father to whom? Whose Father? If we do not answer this question accurately based on our knowledge and experience with our God-given families here in this life, we will not be able to grasp our relationship to our Heavenly Father, or even comprehend that He has a Son who is also a Father. All that God gives us points us to our relationship to Him and to Christ.

The fact that you have an earthly father does not mean there is only one father in the whole Earth. There are fathers many. Every father is also a son, and worthy sons have the potential to become fathers to their own families.

In context in Apostle Gerrit W. Gong's talk "Temple Mirrors of Eternity: A Testimony of Family", he says:

I saw myself as father, grandfather, great-grandfather. I could see my wife, Susan, as daughter, granddaughter, great-granddaughter and, in the other direction, as mother, grandmother, great-grandmother.

In temple mirrors of eternity, I began to understand my wife and myself as children of our parents and parents to our children, as grandchildren of our grandparents and grandparents to our grandchildren. Mortality’s great lessons distill upon our souls as we learn and teach in eternal roles, including child and parent, parent and child.

Scripture describes our Savior as “the Father and the Son.”

In short, we already understand that father and son are not mutually exclusive titles or roles. God placed us here on Earth in families deliberately to teach us about our relationship to Him, and our potential in eternity.

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,). But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

The analogy here is exact. We have one Father of our spirits. Just as "to us there is but one earthly father", or in other words, I have exactly one biological father of my flesh, "to us there is but one Heavenly Father", or exactly one literal Father of my spirit.

pygosceles
  • 2,009
  • 6
  • 15
1

The OP has misunderstood the teachings of the Book of Mormon - neither the Book of Mormon, nor any other scripture of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claim that Jesus is the same person as God the Father of our spirits.

As already noted by @pygosceles, the key to understanding Amulek's statement is to ask, "the father of what?"

I am a father too, but in saying this I am definitively NOT claiming to be God the Father of our spirits. I am the father of some individual, mortal children.

When Amulek responds to Zeezrom, he answers this question and helpfully qualifies what he means by father, indicating that the Son of God is the very eternal father of heaven and of earth. Jesus is a Father and He is a Son. Ether 4:7 is even more explicit in how this can be:

then will I manifest unto them the things which the brother of Jared saw, even to the unfolding unto them all my revelations, saith Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them are.

  • That God is our Father is taught in the Bible (e.g. Acts 17:29, Romans 8:16, Hebrews 12:9). Latter-day Saints frequently refer to God the Father of our spirits as "Heavenly Father", disambiguating Him both from Jesus and from any other father. He is regularly referred to by Jesus as "Father" (e.g. over and over in John 17)
  • That Jesus is the Creator is taught in the Bible (e.g. Hebrews 1:1-2)
  • That Jesus is the Son of God is taught in the Bible (e.g. Mark 1:1)

Disclaimer: these thoughts are products of my own study and do not constitute official statements by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Hold To The Rod
  • 12,999
  • 1
  • 12
  • 48
  • Let me first say that the Trinity is "NOT" the issue here, it's about the clear statement in the BoM, (a standard work) that says "Yes, he/Jesus is the very "Eternal Father." You also made this statement, "As already noted by @pygosceles, the key to understanding Amulek's statement is to ask, "the father of what?" Alma himself tells us "what" at vs39, "Yea, he is the very "Eternal Father" "OF" of what? OF heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last." One of the places where the OF is described is at John 1:3, continued – Mr. Bond Jan 27 '24 at 16:32
  • John 1:3, "All things came into being by Him/Jesus Christ, and apart, (or without Him) nothing came into being that has come into being." Colossians 1:16 backs this up. "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created by Him and for Him." Disclaimer: these words and thoughts are the product of two Mormon standard works, the Bible and the BoM. they are not my opinion but fact based. – Mr. Bond Jan 27 '24 at 16:37
  • 1
    @Mr.Bond We both believe John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16 - I don't see any issue here. – Hold To The Rod Jan 27 '24 at 16:50
  • 1
    @Mr.Bond since we are on a site about Christianity, may I appeal to you to stop mocking my disclaimer? It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing Jesus would do. I include a disclaimer because I do not speak for the church. – Hold To The Rod Jan 27 '24 at 16:52
  • You're missing the point. Yes we both believe John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16, that's not the problem. The BoM says Jesus is God the Father and the verses I quoted identify the Son as the creator who is Not God the Father as the LDS faith teaches. – Mr. Bond Jan 27 '24 at 18:18
  • @Mr.Bond now you are just trolling. You have 2 answers that have already responded to precisely the point you are making. – Hold To The Rod Jan 27 '24 at 19:36
  • I learned many years a go in the early 1970's that the Scriptures do not contradict themselves. When there is disagreement your view may not be correct; mine may not be correct. In fact, both of us can be wrong, but both cannot be right at the same time and in the same place. There may be thousands of applications of a given text, BUT there is only one correct meaning. 1 Corinthians 11:19, "For there must also be differences of opinion/factions among you, in order that it may be clear which of you really have God's approval." Your wrong because the BoM contradicts the Bible verses presented. – Mr. Bond Jan 27 '24 at 19:56
  • @Mr.Bond I'm being a little lazy here as moderator, but do you think that your comments are abiding the comment policy. Not everyone wants to engage with you on defending the tenets of their religion (you could have the debate endlessly) and they shouldn't be forced into an argument on this site when they're just trying to present a point of view. – Peter Turner Jan 28 '24 at 04:11