I disagree with the idea that the Book of Mormon teaches “Modalism,” even though it obviously doesn’t have Joseph Smith’s full-blown later theology in it. For an explanation of why I think this is untenable, see
this essay.
I read your essay. First, it shows a clear lack of understanding the Trinity. It refutes passages that are very trinitarian in nature as not being modalistic, yeah, they are trinitarian. Like this one:
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 hav-
ing subjected the flesh to the will of the Father,
being the Father and the Son—The Father, be-
cause he was conceived by the power of God;
and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becom-
ing the Father and Son—And they are one God,
yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of
earth. 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 dis-
owned by his people.
And then the answer to this is that the original Nephite author left some ‘things’ out.
Ohhhhhhh.
And then compares that to the
Discipline of the Secret. Which, has nothing to do with anything, as the Discipline of the Secret never kept anything hidden forever, as if there were something that God was afraid to tell anyone. Catechumens were taught EVERYTHING before being baptized. Pagans who were spies were not.
The rest reads like a paraphrasing of Bible passages.
Priceless!!!
