However, while the Lecture [of Faith #5] describes the Son as a personage of flesh, it nevertheless fails to define the son as a "person" distinct from the Father, and therefore, it may only be a variation of Modalism, albeit one that would allow for the simultaneous appearance of the Father and Son. (source)
Also, this is prime material for the theological candidate for Dunning Kruger Effect 2017.
Speaking of the Tapir, two commentators on New World animals wrote the following:
This strange beast is one of the Hoofed Animals, as we can tell at once if we glance at its feet; and although it looks like a gigantic pig, the Tapir is more nearly related to the Horse and the Rhinoceros. (F.M. and L.T. Duncan, Animal Life in the New World [London: Oxford University Press, 1939], 36, emphasis added)
Furthermore, commenting on the peccary (perhaps the “swine” of Ether 9:18), the same author wrote:
Another pig-like animal living in the depths of the forests is the Peccary. It is not a great bulky creature like the Tapir, but is about the size of a small hog. It has a long snout, slender legs, no tail, and is clothed with stiff bristly hairs which form a regular mane behind its head.
Peccaries really do belong to the pig family. They are the little wild pigs of South America. (Ibid., 37, emphasis added)
Such reminded me of the concept of “loanshifting,” something that has most recently been discussed by Neal Rappleye in his 2017 FairMormon Conference paper “Put Away Childish Things”: Learning to Read the Book of Mormon Using Mature Historical Thought
To dispel the comments by Broussard on this verse and its alleged relationship to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, it should be enough to quote from Ludwig Ott when he discusses the purported biblical proof of the dogma:
α) Gn. 3:15 (Protoevangelium): Inimicitas ponam inter te et mulierem et semen tuum et semen illius; ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius. The translation of these words, according to the original text, is: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. He (the seed of the woman) shall crush thy head, and thou shalt crush his heel.”
The literal sense of the passage is possibly the following: Between Satan and his followers on the one hand, and Eve and her posterity on the other hand, there is to be constant moral warfare. The posterity of Eve will achieve a complete and final victory over Satan and his followers, even if it is wounded in the struggle. The posterity of Eve includes the Messias, in whose power humanity will win a victory over Satan. Thus the passage is indirectly messianic. Cf. D 2123.
The seed of the woman was understood as referring to the Redeemer (the αὐτός of the Septuagint), and thus the Mother of the Redeemer came to be seen in the woman. Since the second century this direct messianic-marian interpretation has been expounded by individual Fathers, for example, St. Irenaeus, St. Epiphanius, Isidor of Pelusium, St. Cyprian, the author of the Epistola ad amicum aegrotum, St. Leo the Great. However, it is not found in the writings of the majority of the Fathers, among them the great teachers of the East and West. According to this interpretation, Mary stands with Christ in a perfect and victorious enmity towards Satan and his following. Many of the later scholastics and a great many modern theologians argue, in the light of this interpretation of the Proloevangelium that: Mary’s victory over Satan would not have been perfect, if she had ever been under his dominion. Consequently she must have entered this world without the stain of original sin.
The Bull “Ineffabilis” approves of this messianic-marianic interpretation. It draws from it the inference that Mary, in consequence of her intimate association with Christ, “with Him and through Him had eternal enmity towards the poisonous serpent, triumphed in the most complete fashion over him, and crushed its head with her immaculate foot.” The Bull does not give any authentic explanation of the passage. It must also be observed that the infallibility of the Papal doctrinal decision extends only to the dogma as such and not to the reasons given as leading up to the dogma. (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 200)
"Woman" being applied to Mary
Firstly, it should be noted that Mary is not the only person called "woman" (γυνη) in the Gospel of John. The woman of Samaria is also called by this term in John 4:21:
Jesus saith unto her, Woman (γυναι), believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Using the strained interpretation (eisegesis, really) of Broussard and other Catholic apologists, this “proves” that the Samaritan woman is the “New Eve” just like Mary.
Why did Jesus refer to Mary as “woman” in John 2:4 and 19:26? As with episodes in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is establishing an eschatological family, one based, not on biological but spiritual ties with one another (cf. Matt 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21; 11:27-28). As Eric Svendsen noted:
In the case of women with who he is particularly close, he sometimes uses the woman’s proper name. In Luke 10:41 he refers to “Martha” (cf. John 11:5 which tells us that “Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus”). In John 20:16 he refers to Mary Magdalene by name. In other words, when there is a special relationship between Jesus and a woman who is a known disciple, he often uses more personal address. The title “woman,” by contrast, seems to be used to establish distance between Jesus and the other party. One might expect, then, that had Jesus intended to convey and intimate relationship with his mother—one that was unencumbered by distance—he would have chosen “mother” or “Mary” or the like. Instead, he uses an address that is polite but distancing. Indeed, the fact that Jesus never once in all the gospels calls Mary by the title “mother” indicates not only that there is no special emphasis on Mary's physical motherhood, but may also indicate something much more significant; namely, that Mary’s physical motherhood is quite intentionally downplayed. (Eric D. Svendsen, Who is My Mother? The Role and Status of the Mother of Jesus in the New Testament and Roman Catholicism [Amityville, N.Y.: Calvary Press, 2001], 183)
In an endnote for the above (p. 317 n. 58), Svendsen noted the following on the use of personal names and “woman”:
In the case of John 20:15-16, Jesus first calls Mary Magdalene “woman” (v. 15); then “Mary” (v. 16). The first address (“woman”) seems to be said with the intent of preventing Mary from recognizing him immediately (c. Luke 24:16; “they were kept from recognizing him”), and to give the impression that she is speaking with a stranger (viz., the gardener). The second address (“Mary”) is clearly intended to close the distance and reestablish the intimacy that Mary once enjoyed with Jesus.
Luke 1:28 and κεχαριτωμενη
While Broussard did not raise this verse, it is the most popular text Catholic apologists cite in support of the Immaculate Conception. For a full discussion, see:
Finally, this is not the first time Catholic Answers has done a weak job at attempting to provide support for this dogma. Broussard’s mentor and fellow apologist at Catholic Answers, Tim Staples, embarrassed himself on the topic in his 2015 book, Behold your Mother: A Biblical and Historical Defense of the Marian Doctrines. See my article:
As you know (or should know!) this weekend is General Conference weekend, which means I will be "live tweeting" most of the sessions (except for the Priesthood due to time difference [I live in Ireland]) with serious and not so serious comments. My twitter feed can be found here.
The original reading of 1 Nephi 12:18 reads as follows:
And the large and spacious building which thy father saw is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God and Jesus Christ, which is the Lamb of God. [1]
In this passage, there is a numerical distinction between “the Eternal God” (i.e., God the Father) and Jesus Christ, showing them to be two persons, contrary to Modalism and other like-theologies. This provides further proof that the earliest Latter-day Saint Christology was not that of a variation of Modalism, contra Vogel, Charles, and other critics unless they wish to violate one of the most basic principles of logic, The Identity of Indiscernibles
This is just the kind of apologia that is harmfull for the Church. You take one thing and make the wanted conclution of it. The Author should also have analysed these:1. It says on teh first page of BoM that JC is the everlasting God "And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God..."2. After Alma 11:44 all members of godhead are one eternal God. "Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God".when looking at these 2 truths the conclution of the author seems totally unundersstandable.
As I wrote in response:
There is no problem with Jesus having the title "Eternal God" as such a title can be applied to more than one person, as with other divine titles and names, such as YHWH. However, 1 Nephi 12:18 differentiates between the Eternal God and Jesus, so the charge of Modalism is a non sequitur.
Alma 11:44 does not teach that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the one person--when read in context, Alma 11 distinguishes the persons of the Godhead. I have a few articles on this and other topics, including:
Gregory of Nazianzus (329-390) wrote the following:
Thus brought up and trained, as even now those should be who are to preside over the people, and take the direction of the mighty body of Christ, according to the will and foreknowledge of God, which lays long before the foundations of great deeds, he was invested with this important ministry, and made one of those who draw near to the God Who draws near to us, and deemed worthy of the holy office and rank, and, after passing through the entire series of orders, he was (to make my story short) entrusted with the chief rule over the people, in other words, the charge of the whole world: nor can I say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of virtue, or to be the fountain and life of the Church. For she, like Ishmael, fainting from her thirst for the truth, needed to be given to drink, or, like Elijah, to be refreshed from the brook, when the land was parched by drought; and, when but faintly breathing, to be restored to life and left as a seed to Israel, that we might not become like Sodom and Gomorrah, whose destruction by the rain of fire and brimstone is only more notorious than their wickedness. Therefore, when we were cast down, a horn of salvation was raised up for us, and a chief corner stone, knitting us to itself and to one another, was laid in due season, or a fire to purify our base and evil matter, or a farmer's fan to winnow the light from the weighty in doctrine, or a sword to cut out the roots of wickedness; and so the Word finds him as his own ally, and the Spirit takes possession of one who will breathe on His behalf. (Oration xxi § 7)
Such are very high words of praise aimed at the individual Gregory is praising. If Gregory was speaking of a bishop of Rome, a modern Roman Catholic apologist would focus on such lofty terms, including this person “entrusted with the chief rule over the people,” as proof of the primacy, not just of the Church of Rome, but the singular bishop thereof (see modern works such as Steve Ray, Upon This Rock and Scott Butler et al., Jesus, Peter, and the Keys for the standard proof-texting of Church Fathers on this and related topics). However, Gregory was not speaking of Peter and/or a bishop of Rome; instead, he was speaking of Athanasius of Alexandria. Such does show that one has to be very careful when examining any text, whether the Bible, the patristic literature, etc (and yes, one should be cautious when it comes to LDS uses thereof, too, as I have seen many [sincere, but errant] LDS [unintentionally] abuse ancient texts to support our beliefs).
On the topic of purported patristic evidence supporting the later dogmatic teachings about the papacy, see:
Jesus said to them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am (John 8:58)
John 8:58 is a strong witness to the personal pre-existence of Jesus. On the phrase πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμι (“Before Abraham was, I am”) the Greek grammar necessitates that Jesus personally, not merely notionally, pre-existed. As one grammarian wrote:
Extension from Past. When used with an expression of either past time or extent of time with past implications (but not in past narrative), the present tense signals an activity begun in the past and continuing to present time: Lu 13:7 ιδου τρια ετη αφ ου ερχομαι ζητων καρπον . . . και ουχ ευρισκω, it is now three years since I have been coming looking for fruit . . .and not finding it; Lu 15:29 τοσαυτα ετη δουλευω σοι, I have been slaving for you all these years; Jn 14:9 τοσουτον χρονον μεθ υμων ειμι . . .; have I been with you so long . . .?; Ac 27:33 τεσσαρεσκαιδεκατην σημερον ημεραν προσδοκωντες ασιτοι διατελειτε, today is the fourteenth day you have been continuing on the alert without food; Jn 8:58 πριν Αβρααμ γενεσθαι εγω ειμι, I have been in existence since before Abraham was born. This is a form of the continuation realisation of the imperfective aspect, and similar uses are found with the imperfect tense and with imperfective participles. (K.L. McKay, A New Syntax of the Verb in New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach [Studies in Biblical Greek; New York: Peter Lang, 1994], 41-42, emphasis in bold added.)
Gary Michuta offered the following which, if correct, further supports the thesis that this verse supports the personal pre-existence of Jesus:
At first glance, it would have been Jesus' use of "I AM." As you know, God told Moses that His name is "I AM WHO AM." Is Jesus applying the divine name to himself? It seems so. However, that doesn't make sense in the context of the conversation. Jesus says Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." The Jews responded that He is not even 50 years old. Jesus responds, "Before Abraham came to be . . ." the divine name. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Moreover, how is it that Abraham rejoiced to see Jesus' day? There's more going on than meets the eye.
One possible answer might be found in Abraham's mysterious visit in Genesis 18. One day, three men came to Abraham, who shows hospitability and pays them reverence. One of the mysterious visitors says, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah will have a son" (Genesis 18:10). Sarah, Abraham's wife, laughs because they are too old. The visitor answers, "Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time . . . next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son" (Genesis 18:14). One year later, Sarah gave birth to Isaac, which means "laughter." The Scripture says, "The LORD took note of Sarah as he had said he would; he did for her as he had promised. Sarah . . . bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time that God had stated" (Genesis 21:1-2). Was this the day, the birth of his son "laughter," that Abraham rejoiced?
What's curious is that the text is not at all clear who or what was this mysterious visitor. The chapter begins by saying the Lord [Yahweh] appeared to Abraham, and looking up he saw three men (Genesis 18:1). After overhearing one of the visitors say that she will give birth, Sarah laughed. In response, the text says, "But the LORD [Yahweh] said to Abraham: 'Why did Sarah laugh . . . Is anything too marvelous for the LORD to do? At the appointed time, about this time next year, I will return to you, and Sarah will have a son" (Genesis 18:13-14). Also, Genesis 18:22 saying, "Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord [Yahweh]." But there were three "men" who visited Abraham (Genesis 18:2) and only two angels came to Sodom (Genesis 19:1). Where was the third "man"? Apparently, the third "man" was the one still talking to Abraham, the Lord (Genesis 18:22). Our English translations say "Lord" in Genesis 18, but the Hebrew text gives the divine name YHWH ("I AM WHO AM").
Let's rewind back to our original passage in John 8. Jesus said Abraham "rejoiced to see my day." If this is the day of the miraculous birth of Isaac, then "my day" means the day of the mysterious visitor's return to Abraham and Sarah, who is YHWH ("I AM WHO AM"). If Abraham's visitation was a theophany (an appearance by God) then Jesus' application of the divine name fits perfectly with the whole discussion on Abraham. He visited Abraham. He is "I AM." It also explains why the Jews wanted to stone Jesus. (Gary Michuta, Behind the Bible: What The Bible Assumes You Already Know [Livona, Mich.: Nikaria Press, 2017], 169-71)
