Click here for the reading schedule for 2024 to see today’s reading, with links to the text. To see my past posts on today’s reading or anything else, see the right-hand margin or click here.
Alma 11 is well-known for being the chapter that talks about the Nephite monetary system (see my other posts on this chapter for more about that), but it also contains a most interesting exchange between the righteous Amulek and the wicked Zeezrom, and this discussion is prefaced by the quote in the title, with Amulek saying in v22, “I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord“, with him saying in this same verse that he has “the Spirit of the Lord” “in me”.
What makes it interesting is that Amulek says things that the modern LDS Church denies or at least doesn’t accept, yet the BOM says he “shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord.” This puts the modern LDS on the horns of a dilemma — either Amulek has the Spirit of the Lord or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t then he’s lying and can’t be trusted and we must even identify him as a false prophet and reject him (note, for example, what Jer. 23 has to say about those who claim to be speaking for God when they aren’t). If, however, he does have the Spirit of the Lord in him, then everything he says must be in line with that Spirit, and must then be the truth. Here are some things Amulek affirms as being “not contrary to the Spirit of the Lord”, but which modern LDSs may have a problem with:
- V28-29 says there is one and only one God
- v38-39 identifies “the Son of God” as “the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth”
- V44 uses the singular verb “is” when speaking of “Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit”
Now, I will grant that modern LDSs would probably affirm most of these in certain contexts (such as if they’re aware this is from the BOM), but otherwise they argue against them and act like they’re not true. Even when they do affirm them, they typically have to creatively reinterpret them, so to do. For instance, they’ll often say that “there is one God in purpose“, and will usually use the word “Godhead”, and picture some sort of divine counsel of multiple Gods who are so unified that they can be considered to have “one mind and one way of thinking”. But note that neither here, nor anywhere else in the BOM or the Bible, does it limit “one God” to “one in purpose only“. Similarly, they can’t deny that the BOM identifies Jesus as “the very Eternal Father”, but they don’t think he’s “Heavenly Father” so they have to differentiate between the two, even though the BOM never does. And finally, the use of “is” in v44 requires that the Father, Son, and Spirit all be one Person, which the LDS Church denies. Again, they’d probably claim that this is some sort of “oneness of purpose”, but that destroys the English language.
In short, Amulek here describes God in a Modalistic way. Such a thing could be stretched or massaged to fit Trinitarianism, but it can’t fit the modern LDS view of three (or more) Gods in one Godhead — especially since the BOM clearly and consistently identifies Jesus as “God” in the OT.
TOYBOM: The One Year Book of Mormon 