Comments on: Mosiah 15 and D&C 93: Divine Investiture or Swedenborgian?

By: larryco_

larryco_ — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:53:27 +0000

Thanks for the clarification.

By: Bruce Nielson

Bruce Nielson — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:28:03 +0000

Larryco,

This post is sort of part of a series. I coined the term “representational modalism” in my last post. You’ll have to read the link.

But rest assured, it’s a term I made up myself (and say so in the post where I coined it.)

I lay out my argument in the post as to why I feel the the term “modalism” has been stretched by the scholars to the point where Divine Investiture must now be considered at least a form of modalism, albeit a very non-standard one. I do feel it would be inconsistent to call Swedenborian doctrines modalism and not call Divine Investiture modalism also.

This does leave a fair question as to whether or not we should pay any head to the scholars that use the term “serial modalism.” If you feel we should, then I think consistency demands understanding Divine Investiture as a form of modalism as well. But if you don’t agree with those scholars, then refering to divine investiture as “representational modalism” is not needed.

I care not for words themselves. I am just requiring consistency.

If the term works for you, feel free to use it. If it doesn’t, drop it and don’t worry about it. I personally found it useful.

By: larryco_

larryco_ — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:10:59 +0000

The term “representational modalism” is new to me. I know “monarchial modalism”, but when I googled representational modalism, it only came up with a few LDS references, such as this one. If you are using it as a synonym for divine investiture of authority, it seems to me to be a little bit fuzzy. As I read discussions of divine investiture – from Justin Martyr to LDS scholars – it deals with either Jesus, the Holy Ghost, angels or prophets speaking with the same voice, words, power and authority of The Father. This explanation helps us deal with the “who’s speaking” question in scriptures like Moses 1. Whereas, as I understand it, modalism – as used in Christian history – refers to One God taking upon Himself different modes to perform different functions, i.e. Christ to come to earth, the Holy Ghost to comfort and witness.

I actually like the term, but I’m confused by it’s usage.

By: Bruce Nielson

Bruce Nielson — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:30:07 +0000

Christine,

No, I found it on my own. I’ve never read Ostler. This is probably the hundreth time someone has quoted Ostler to me. He has apparently thought of everything I have already.

By: Geoff B.

Geoff B. — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 12:09:15 +0000

Clark, it’s funny, but the server is not slow for me, but apparently it is for most people. Brian D is looking into solutions.

By: Christine

Christine — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 04:21:54 +0000

Bruce: Did you get this from Ostler’s Exploring Mormon Thought: The Attributes of God p. 456 where he presents the same parallels?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:17:15 +0000

Whoops typo. Think Alma 34. I even did a post on this back in the wee early days of my blog. BTW - is it just me or is the server ridiculously slow?

By: Clark Goble

Clark Goble — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:05:02 +0000

The biggest problem with modalist readings of Mos 15 is that they ignore other passages in the book that are clearly non-modalist such as 3 Ne 11.

For more Swedenborish passages I always found Alma 42 far better a pick than Mos 15.

By: Geoff B

Geoff B — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 21:10:20 +0000

Bruce, I like how you link Mosiah 15 and D&C 93. I’ve never noticed that connection before, and your argument is extremely convincing. Thanks.