Yahweh as "species-unique"

[Zemah]

Could you please provide the biblical references that justifies Heiserâ??s uncontroversial conclusions regarding the following two of the five themes?

(3) Yahweh has the power to strip the other elohim of their immortality.

(4) Yahweh alone is referred to in the Bible as ha-elohim.

Zemah

Since Michael H. has not replied, could anyone else provide me the references that result in the conclusions he made (see above).

Thanks,

Zemah

[The_Monk]

Since Michael H. has not replied, could anyone else provide me the references that result in the conclusions he made (see above).

Thanks,

Zemah

Go read the article. FARMS.byu.edu, look for Heiser or Bokovoy. They're in the same issue. Heiser first, then Bokovoy, then Heiser again.

[mfbukowski]

I think they were so viewed. Among others, check out Ezekiel 1:26-28.

The more I read about it, the more I think Greek mythology is the Biblical tale told by apostates and nonbelievers who celebrated the victory of the serpent (Athena, Zeus/Adam) worshipping Hercules over the sons of Noah (Shem and his descendents) and viewed the preFlood Yahweh worshipping people (Centaurs, Giants) with fear. The same story but with a different twist on what went right and what went wrong.

I have wondered about similar things. Have you studied Zoroastrianism and present day Parsis? Dang, if those folks were not once "LDS" a zillion years ago --- major connections with "The sun of righteousness with healing in his wings"

[Bill Hamblin]

Since Michael H. has not replied, could anyone else provide me the references that result in the conclusions he made (see above).

Thanks,

Zemah

I think #3 is based on Ps 82 (which, actually, never mentions YHWH).

[Zemah]

Go read the article. FARMS.byu.edu, look for Heiser or Bokovoy. They're in the same issue. Heiser first, then Bokovoy, then Heiser again.

I found this article (http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=645) but I donâ??t want to expend the mental energy required to unravel his thought processes as it intertwines with the ideals of others.

This is my concern: In the OP it is stated that â??Yahweh has the power to strip the other elohim of their immortalityâ?. I understand Elohim as being representative of the Priesthood in as much as a priesthood holder on earth has the possibility of becoming as God is, an eternal Father in glory. I find it hard to believe that once glorified a priest could fall out of the Priesthood to some lower state. In other words, this would mean that God made a mistake in making that priest a part of Him. I find this an unacceptable interpretation of the nature of God to which Yahweh is a part, namely, our LORD God.

To me, Elohim is a part of God that cannot be fallible to the point where Yahweh would be justified in removing a member from this union of priests and returning him to mortality. I don't see immortality as a gift that could be given and then taken away. If you are truly made immortal, you must remain immortal.

I could understand the need for a glorified priest to leave Godâ??s glory in order to fulfill a calling to some lower level of servitude in the Godhead. This would not involve â??strippingâ? the priest of his glory, but rather would be a voluntary act of submission to the calling.

Zemah

[David Bokovoy]

I think #3 is based on Ps 82 (which, actually, never mentions YHWH).

I think that Psalm 82 did originally describe Yahweh standing in the council of El, but that the name was changed by the editor of the Elohisitc Psalter. This was Simon Parker's argument and I recently heard Peter Machinist from the Harvard Divinity School express the same view.

[Bill Hamblin]

I think that Psalm 82 did originally describe Yahweh standing in the council of El, but that the name was changed by the editor of the Elohisitc Psalter. This was Simon Parker's argument and I recently heard Peter Machinist from the Harvard Divinity School express the same view.

What?!? Are you telling me that biblical scholars are offering emendations to the text to make it match their theories?!?!?!?

[William the Conqueror]

I don't think there's any way to glean with certainty whether Yahweh was "species-unique" from the OT. Both sides are arguing using a pre-existing religious bias.

Obviously, because of my own religious bias, I agree with Bokovoy.

Obviously, because of my own religious bias, I agree with Heiser.

[maklelan]

Mark Smith's The Origins of Biblical Monotheism has something to say about this, if I recall.

[Sargon]

I found this article (http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=645) but I donâ??t want to expend the mental energy required to unravel his thought processes as it intertwines with the ideals of others.

This is my concern: In the OP it is stated that â??Yahweh has the power to strip the other elohim of their immortalityâ?. I understand Elohim as being representative of the Priesthood in as much as a priesthood holder on earth has the possibility of becoming as God is, an eternal Father in glory. I find it hard to believe that once glorified a priest could fall out of the Priesthood to some lower state. In other words, this would mean that God made a mistake in making that priest a part of Him. I find this an unacceptable interpretation of the nature of God to which Yahweh is a part, namely, our LORD God.

To me, Elohim is a part of God that cannot be fallible to the point where Yahweh would be justified in removing a member from this union of priests and returning him to mortality. I don't see immortality as a gift that could be given and then taken away. If you are truly made immortal, you must remain immortal.

I could understand the need for a glorified priest to leave Godâ??s glory in order to fulfill a calling to some lower level of servitude in the Godhead. This would not involve â??strippingâ? the priest of his glory, but rather would be a voluntary act of submission to the calling.

Zemah

I think you are bringing a whole load of theological assumptions to the text that simply should be set aside as we read it. Psalm 82 describes El stripping the elohim of their immortality. The author of this psalm was an ancient Israelite, not a 21st century Mormon. While you view an elohim as "being a representative of the priesthood", or as a "glorified priest", the author of Psalm 82 (and likely all OT authors) regarded elohim as just being "sons of god", divine individuals who were both autonomous and completely subject to Yahweh/El's rule. These "sons of god" were not necessarily righteous, they could rebel and do wrong things. They had never before dwelt as mortals on the earth. They are similar to wicked pre-mortal spirits. They are considered divine, or elohim, not because they are righteous and exalted, but simply by virtue of who they are.....the sons of God.

You are trying to force psalm 82 into modern LDS theology. I just don't think that can be done. However, that being said, Psalm 82 fits with modern LDS theology better than with any other modern Judaeo-Christian tradition, in my opinion.

[Ron Beron]

I think you are bringing a whole load of theological assumptions to the text that simply should be set aside as we read it. Psalm 82 describes El stripping the elohim of their immortality. The author of this psalm was an ancient Israelite, not a 21st century Mormon. While you view an elohim as "being a representative of the priesthood", or as a "glorified priest", the author of Psalm 82 (and likely all OT authors) regarded elohim as just being "sons of god", divine individuals who were both autonomous and completely subject to Yahweh/El's rule. These "sons of god" were not necessarily righteous, they could rebel and do wrong things. They had never before dwelt as mortals on the earth. They are similar to wicked pre-mortal spirits. They are considered divine, or elohim, not because they are righteous and exalted, but simply by virtue of who they are.....the sons of God.

You are trying to force psalm 82 into modern LDS theology. I just don't think that can be done. However, that being said, Psalm 82 fits with modern LDS theology better than with any other modern Judaeo-Christian tradition, in my opinion.

I agree. Without placing a lot of quotes ancient gods were limited in both their capacities and longevities. They existed as part of a greater (excuse the word) pantheon with a superior being in charge. This again does not apply to modern understanding of how God, the Father operates, but rather to the understandings of ancients.

[David Bokovoy]

What?!? Are you telling me that biblical scholars are offering emendations to the text to make it match their theories?!?!?!?

Of course! Somebody's got to make a living!

And the crazy thing is, every once in while, the scholarly emendation is actually proven correct (see Deuteronomy 32:8, etc.).

[David Bokovoy]

You are trying to force psalm 82 into modern LDS theology. I just don't think that can be done. However, that being said, Psalm 82 fits with modern LDS theology better than with any other modern Judaeo-Christian tradition, in my opinion.

In mine too. The expression "god" is a title that has to be read in context. It would be incorrect to assume that the way the word is used in D&C 132, for example, reflects the exact same meaning of texts such as Psalm 82, etc.

[Zemah]

I think you are bringing a whole load of theological assumptions to the text that simply should be set aside as we read it. Psalm 82 describes El stripping the elohim of their immortality. The author of this psalm was an ancient Israelite, not a 21st century Mormon. While you view an elohim as "being a representative of the priesthood", or as a "glorified priest", the author of Psalm 82 (and likely all OT authors) regarded elohim as just being "sons of god", divine individuals who were both autonomous and completely subject to Yahweh/El's rule. These "sons of god" were not necessarily righteous, they could rebel and do wrong things. They had never before dwelt as mortals on the earth. They are similar to wicked pre-mortal spirits. They are considered divine, or elohim, not because they are righteous and exalted, but simply by virtue of who they are.....the sons of God.

You are trying to force psalm 82 into modern LDS theology. I just don't think that can be done. However, that being said, Psalm 82 fits with modern LDS theology better than with any other modern Judaeo-Christian tradition, in my opinion.

As I read Psalm 82 from the Jerusalem Bible, I donâ??t see God stripping the gods (Elohim) of their immortality. I see God dispensing justice upon His creation on earth as the other gods watch. The Psalm is divided into four parts: 1) sets the scene, 2) the plea of the gods, 3) Godâ??s appraisal of His creation, and 4) a united call to action.

â??God stands in the divine assembly,

among the gods he dispenses justice:

â??No more mockery of justice,

no more favoring the wicked!

Let the weak and the orphan have justice,

Be fair to the wretched and destitute;

Rescue the weak and the needy,

Save them from the clutches of the wicked!â??

Ignorant and senseless, they carry on blindly,

undermining the very basis of earthly society.

I once said, â??You too are gods,

sons of the Most High, all of youâ??.

but all the same, you shall die like other men;

as one man, princes, you shall fall.

Rise, God, dispense justice throughout the world,

since no nation is excluded from your ownership.â?

The Psalm references the â??earthâ? and the â??worldâ? as the place where justice will be served (not the divine assembly). It references the â??sons of the Most Highâ? in mortality living on earth as those upon whom His justice will come.

It makes no sense to â??dispense justiceâ? upon a â??divine assemblyâ?. I donâ??t believe LDS scripture brings in â??a whole load of theological assumptions to the textâ?. I believe that what a prophet of God (Joseph Smith) saw, namely, that Elohim represents the plurality of Godliness, represents a view point whereby the text of Psalm 82 can be correctly understood.

I do not believe the Psalm is talking about stripping gods in the Priesthood (Elohim) from their exalted, Celestial, and divine state. It speaks of ending the terrestrial state of His earthly creation, whereby those who were given the promise of Godhood as sons of the Most High, who continued to wreak havoc and act as disobedient children, will be stripped of the promise and face His justice as fallen princes; they â??shall dieâ?.

Zemah

[Sargon]

The Psalm references the â??earthâ? and the â??worldâ? as the place where justice will be served (not the divine assembly).

You are missing the parallelism that helps us to interpret the first phrase of the psalm:

A God stands

B in the divine assembly,

B among the gods

A he dispenses justice:

This is a simple chaistic structure. The first and last lines parallel each other, and the two middle lines parallel each other. In other words, the "divine assembly" is identified as "the gods". El is standing in the midst of the divine assembly of gods dispensing justice among the gods in the divine assembly.

You are welcome to disagree with that interpretation, but just know that you are fighting the universal opinion of OT scholars, including LDS ones.

It references the â??sons of the Most Highâ? in mortality living on earth as those upon whom His justice will come.

The key phrase is "ye shall die like men". It doesnt' say, "ye shall die because ye are men". The word like strongly suggests that they are not men, at least not men who could "die" under normal circumstances. Men already do die, mortality is an unavoidable fact for mortal men, so it really isn't a punishment.

You are also ignoring an entire basic Israelite concept with which the OT should be interpreted. This psalm is but one small example of the place that the divine assembly had in their theology. There are many, many other reasons why we know that Israel beleived in a divine council of gods. Psalm 82 fits that context beautifully.

It makes no sense to â??dispense justiceâ? upon a â??divine assemblyâ?.

Surely, as a believing LDS, you can imagine a situation in which God dispenses justice among his divine assembly (think War in Heaven).

I donâ??t believe LDS scripture brings in â??a whole load of theological assumptions to the textâ?.

It isn't that LDS scriptures are doing it, it is that you are doing it.

I believe that what a prophet of God (Joseph Smith) saw, namely, that Elohim represents the plurality of Godliness, represents a view point whereby the text of Psalm 82 can be correctly understood.

Do we not believe in continuing revelation? Can you not see a situation in which Joseph learned more about the concept of the divine council than the ancient author of psalm 82 knew? Psalm 82 simply does not neatly fit into Joseph's theology, but we can definitely see that they both have roots in the same basic ideas.

I do not believe the Psalm is talking about stripping gods in the Priesthood (Elohim) from their exalted, Celestial, and divine state. It speaks of ending the terrestrial state of His earthly creation, whereby those who were given the promise of Godhood as sons of the Most High, who continued to wreak havoc and act as disobedient children, will be stripped of the promise and face His justice as fallen princes; they â??shall dieâ?.

Zemah

OK. Believe as you will.

[Zemah]

You are missing the parallelism that helps us to interpret the first phrase of the psalm:

This is a simple chaistic structure. The first and last lines parallel each other, and the two middle lines parallel each other. In other words, the "divine assembly" is identified as "the gods". El is standing in the midst of the divine assembly of gods dispensing justice among the gods in the divine assembly.

You are welcome to disagree with that interpretation, but just know that you are fighting the universal opinion of OT scholars, including LDS ones.

The key phrase is "ye shall die like men". It doesnt' say, "ye shall die because ye are men". The word like strongly suggests that they are not men, at least not men who could "die" under normal circumstances. Men already do die, mortality is an unavoidable fact for mortal men, so it really isn't a punishment.

You are also ignoring an entire basic Israelite concept with which the OT should be interpreted. This psalm is but one small example of the place that the divine assembly had in their theology. There are many, many other reasons why we know that Israel beleived in a divine council of gods. Psalm 82 fits that context beautifully.

Surely, as a believing LDS, you can imagine a situation in which God dispenses justice among his divine assembly (think War in Heaven).

It isn't that LDS scriptures are doing it, it is that you are doing it.

Do we not believe in continuing revelation? Can you not see a situation in which Joseph learned more about the concept of the divine council than the ancient author of psalm 82 knew? Psalm 82 simply does not neatly fit into Joseph's theology, but we can definitely see that they both have roots in the same basic ideas.

OK. Believe as you will.

The four parts of the Psalm (as I presented from the Jerusalem Bible) as a whole maintains the same â??ABBAâ? chiastic structure. The partition of the first verse which you say is accepted universally by scholars still does not justify the interpretation that God is stripping Elohim or any part of His plurality into lesser beings subject again to mortality.

My contention is not with the ABBA chiastic structure of the first verse. It is with the idea that God â??strips the gods (Elohim) of their immortalityâ?. This is contrary to LDS teaching that as Gods we will never again be subject to the flesh. This does not contradict with the LDS teaching that God had a divine assembly of spirits (Lucifer included) before the inhabitation of earth where He spoke of the Plan of Salvation, when Lucifer rebelled (and so was denied a body of flesh), and the remaining two thirds followed Adam and Eve into this mortal world.

Psalm 82 speaks of dispensing justice upon the results of this prior event which established the world as we know it. It foretells of a time when the divine assembly of gods (Elohim) will plead the end of our terrestrial existence in which we as the sons of God fell as princes to the promise of Kingship, a royal priesthood in God and Christ.

The execution of this plea will no doubt be administered at the hand of Yahweh, by His Holy Melchizedek Priesthood as recorded in Psalms 110.

If biblical scholars have to rethink their analysis of scripture it will only be toward an understanding that benefits from modern scripture and Godâ??s prophets on earth.

Zemah

[Sargon]

Zemah,

You are reading Psalm 82 through the lens of modern LDS theology. You are of course welcome to do that, because we all do it sometimes. I just think you are doing the author of the psalm a diservice. It is similar to reading something out of the Koran and interpreting it in light of modern Catholic theology. It simply isn't fair to the original meaning and worldview of the ancient author.

In other words, the author of psalm 82 was not a Latter-day Saint. He was an ancient Hebrew, one very much influenced (for better or worse) by Canaanite lore. He didn't have the information or worldview that we do as Mormons in 2009. When we demand that his poem be read through a 21st century Mormon lens, we are not doing fair exegesis.

I'll be fair and grant you that many, many LDS (including LDS leaders) have engaged in the same exact method of interpreting the scriptures as you are. Just this weekend my stake president referred to the audience in Ezekiel as the "members", as if they were "members" of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints.

[Zemah]

Zemah,

You are reading Psalm 82 through the lens of modern LDS theology. You are of course welcome to do that, because we all do it sometimes. I just think you are doing the author of the psalm a diservice. It is similar to reading something out of the Koran and interpreting it in light of modern Catholic theology. It simply isn't fair to the original meaning and worldview of the ancient author.

In other words, the author of psalm 82 was not a Latter-day Saint. He was an ancient Hebrew, one very much influenced (for better or worse) by Canaanite lore. He didn't have the information or worldview that we do as Mormons in 2009. When we demand that his poem be read through a 21st century Mormon lens, we are not doing fair exegesis.

I'll be fair and grant you that many, many LDS (including LDS leaders) have engaged in the same exact method of interpreting the scriptures as you are. Just this weekend my stake president referred to the audience in Ezekiel as the "members", as if they were "members" of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Former-day Saints.

I thought the Psalms carry with them the Spirit of God in David; not â??an ancient Hebrew â?¦influenced (for better or worse) by Canaanite lore.â?

It is true that the Koran should not be interpreted by Catholic theology, since the Koran came after the apostasy of the Catholic church. How can an apostate church judge its own indictment?

I donâ??t understand why it is more valuable to believe the scholarâ??s interpretations over those that come with the congruency of latter-day scripture. If you want to convince me to your point of view, you would best spend your time in disproving my interpretation by quoting LDS scripture or doctrine that refutes it. For until then I cannot hold to anotherâ??s view point which contradicts the LDS vision.

Using the lens of LDS vision (modern revelation) is exactly the way we should look at all previous scripture. Binding the old to the new is precisely the way we come to know the meaning of things.

Zemah

[e=mc2]

I thought the Psalms carry with them the Spirit of God in David; not â??an ancient Hebrew â?¦influenced (for better or worse) by Canaanite lore.â?

It is true that the Koran should not be interpreted by Catholic theology, since the Koran came after the apostasy of the Catholic church. How can an apostate church judge its own indictment?

I donâ??t understand why it is more valuable to believe the scholarâ??s interpretations over those that come with the congruency of latter-day scripture. If you want to convince me to your point of view, you would best spend your time in disproving my interpretation by quoting LDS scripture or doctrine that refutes it. For until then I cannot hold to anotherâ??s view point which contradicts the LDS vision.

Using the lens of LDS vision (modern revelation) is exactly the way we should look at all previous scripture. Binding the old to the new is precisely the way we come to know the meaning of things.

Zemah

Well, no matter how hard we try to, the ancient Nephites were simply not Mormons, nor did they understand *our* theology. Louis Midgley demonstrated this powerfully in his FARMS review about the McConkie Millet Doctrinal BofM series. Also, I seriously, and I mean *seriously* suggest we can in no wise Mormonize the ancient Jews of the Old Testament and then turn around and think we understand *their culture and their theology.* It is simply, by no stretch of the imagination, Mormonism. That is not to say there is nothing in the Bible that we can't profit from, but to read our theology into the ancient texts just doesn't work that well, even though a lot of us do this...... We must be careful.

[Sargon]

I thought the Psalms carry with them the Spirit of God in David; not â??an ancient Hebrew â?¦influenced (for better or worse) by Canaanite lore.â?

It is true that the Koran should not be interpreted by Catholic theology, since the Koran came after the apostasy of the Catholic church. How can an apostate church judge its own indictment?

I donâ??t understand why it is more valuable to believe the scholarâ??s interpretations over those that come with the congruency of latter-day scripture. If you want to convince me to your point of view, you would best spend your time in disproving my interpretation by quoting LDS scripture or doctrine that refutes it. For until then I cannot hold to anotherâ??s view point which contradicts the LDS vision.

Using the lens of LDS vision (modern revelation) is exactly the way we should look at all previous scripture. Binding the old to the new is precisely the way we come to know the meaning of things.

Zemah

One of my favorite things about Mormonism is that it allows for a great diversity of viewpoints. God bless you brother.

James

[Ron Beron]

Well, no matter how hard we try to, the ancient Nephites were simply not Mormons, nor did they understand *our* theology. Louis Midgley demonstrated this powerfully in his FARMS review about the McConkie Millet Doctrinal BofM series. Also, I seriously, and I mean *seriously* suggest we can in no wise Mormonize the ancient Jews of the Old Testament and then turn around and think we understand *their culture and their theology.* It is simply, by no stretch of the imagination, Mormonism. That is not to say there is nothing in the Bible that we can't profit from, but to read our theology into the ancient texts just doesn't work that well, even though a lot of us do this...... We must be careful.

I have been interested with those who say there isn't an evolutionary trend to theological issues. If we presume that ancient Hebrew theology is simply a reflection of modern LDS revelation then we are doing injustice to the natural evolutionary trends we have seen and will continue to see. Indeed, we must be careful.

[maklelan]

I have been interested with those who say there isn't an evolutionary trend to theological issues. If we presume that ancient Hebrew theology is simply a reflection of modern LDS revelation then we are doing injustice to the natural evolutionary trends we have seen and will continue to see. Indeed, we must be careful.

I'm a little cautious of the idea that each generation has an increasingly firm grasp than the previous on any intellectual discipline.

[Sargon]

I'm a little cautious of the idea that each generation has an increasingly firm grasp than the previous on any intellectual discipline.

I can understand that cautiousness. I think the larger issue in this thread is that Zemah, and I think many LDS, are reluctant to believe that former generations of prophets did not enjoy all the light and knowledge that we are afforded now in the "fulness of times".

Those things which never have been revealed from the foundation of the world, but have been kept hid from the wise and prudent, shall be revealed unto babes and sucklings in this, the dispensation of the fulness of times" (D&C 128:18)

[mfbukowski]

I'm a little cautious of the idea that each generation has an increasingly firm grasp than the previous on any intellectual discipline.

Sounds like you are saying that successive generations do NOT necessarily have a firmer grasp on these matters than previous -- in other words that previous generations were possibly as "advanced" as we are.

I can understand that cautiousness. I think the larger issue in this thread is that Zemah, and I think many LDS, are reluctant to believe that former generations of prophets did not enjoy all the light and knowledge that we are afforded now in the "fulness of times".

And this sounds like you are saying that previous generations were not as "advanced" as we are.

In all these topics it is so very difficult to bridge the cultural gap between early agrarian middle eastern cultures and modern western internet culture, that I wonder at what point modern LDS can justifiably identify any of the older beliefs as their own. At what point are the critics who say "you polytheists are no different than the early pagan Greeks", correct? It is an issue I struggle with. Earlier in this thread I half joking said that the Zoroastrians and Parsis were "LDS a zillion years ago" or something to that effect, (I honestly think that somehow there was another dispensation in there somewhere) which is I think true in the sense I meant it, but at what point does this research justify us in saying "hooray for our side!"?

To restate it more succinctly, at what point do we identify with these vastly different cultures and at what point do we distinguish ourselves from them?

[Zemah]

Well, no matter how hard we try to, the ancient Nephites were simply not Mormons, nor did they understand *our* theology. Louis Midgley demonstrated this powerfully in his FARMS review about the McConkie Millet Doctrinal BofM series. Also, I seriously, and I mean *seriously* suggest we can in no wise Mormonize the ancient Jews of the Old Testament and then turn around and think we understand *their culture and their theology.* It is simply, by no stretch of the imagination, Mormonism. That is not to say there is nothing in the Bible that we can't profit from, but to read our theology into the ancient texts just doesn't work that well, even though a lot of us do this...... We must be careful.

I would never pretend to understand the Jewish people by placing my interpretations upon past scripture in the light of LDS revelations and the gift of the Holy Ghost available to me. Neither am I trying to change Jewish (or Christian) theology into Mormon dogma. My goal is to show how God has fulfilled the old in the new.

In so doing I become blameless for the mental or spiritual block that the Jew or Christian suffers from by their lack of faith in the living word of God. This may seem harsh but who would argue that the mind blocks the heart and the heart blocks the Spirit access to delivering the testimony.

As a priest of God and Christ in the Melchizedek priesthood I have been called of God to profess His word and His glory, which glory is the fulfillment of His word. The promise God and Christ made to all faiths is that His word would not fall void, it would be fulfilled. By proclaiming this fulfillment, by delineating the choices, I become clean of the blood of these generations.

I would never presume to be able to make Jews or Christians or Muslims into latter-day saints; they need to make that choice themselves. The only way they can make the choice is to investigate the Word in order to become closer to God. As they become closer to the Word they become subject to communication by the Spirit of God. Only if the Spirit moves them are they converted.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all viable choices in obtaining a portion of the glory of God. But to obtain the fullness of Godliness, to become as God is, even an eternal Father in heavenâ?¦well that promise only comes through Christ by way of His prophets in the LDS Church.

Please donâ??t think that I am careless in proclaiming the Word as I see it. My faith has brought me to a hopefulness that fulfillment will bring us closer to His coming.

Better to be careless in hope, than cautious in truth; for God can make hope a reality.

Zemah

P.S. â?? When I was converted, when the Spirit spoke to me, I chose to write the impressions of my heart. Should I be careful for fear of possible contradictions with biblical scholarship, or should I publish the visions in hope?

Written some time after becoming a priest in late 2001:

Why do men hate anotherâ??s ideas in faith? What does it matter to you if I believe these things and I am ready to face my God with my testimony of them? It is my condemnation and mine alone that I bring about by my deeds or by my laziness of deeds. I am the one that must choose to exercise my faith in the word of God or to rest in the shade of the laurels. I choose to write my testimony as witness to Christ for you to evaluate, not to prejudice your own beliefs that bring you to your God in personal knowledge, in faith, or in fear, but to share with you the God of my visions.

My God has no hate in Him. All His actions have been in love for us His children. His is a creation in love, a lesson in life, a forgiveness in mercy, a judgment in compassion, and a punishment in pity. And for our part we do as we will for, or against, ourselves.

My God is not a needy God. He does not need me to defend His word or His land or His people. He does not need me to be saved or exalted or committed to Him. He has everyone in their place; He has put everyone in his place. It is for us to move out of our place, out of our self-consumed minds, away from our acts of disobedience, away from our comfortable conceptions of an easygoing God, and toward our God in righteous behavior. A god in need is a selfish invention of man and so is no god at all but is a false god of man.

My God is not in need of anything other than the one thing He has specified to by His own words, â??a donkey and her coltâ?. For now, oh daughters of Zion, He comes quickly upon the four legs of His Church built upon Adam and Noah and Abraham and Israel. And His grace labors in the prophets, be them Moses or Jesus or Muhammad or Joseph Smith; we all shoulder a rod under the Mercy Seat upon which the Anointed is enthroned.

Be you Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or Mormon you answer to our one God, the same God, the God of Abraham, the God of a merciful brotherhood, the God of Family.

As I read the OT stories of the Ark of the Covenant, I came to realize that the Jewish people are not the only caretakers of the Word of God or supporters of the Mercy Seat of God. The Ark was taken from them and the box that held the tablets of Moses had more room in it for addition scripture.

In speaking the word of God then or now, I live under one precept: â??For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.â? (Moroni 7:16)

My invitation to all is to explore the Word of God and to find your place of hope within it. His glory is not limited to the Jewish perceptive or the Christian interpretation. Neither is it corralled by the Islamic version or lassoed by Mormon visions. God is Spirit and the word of God continues to fill the open heart and the seeking mind; it persuades you to believe in Christ, the Living God of Holy Scripture. And He will not stop; His word will continue in fulfillment of all righteous hope.

My hope is for a Fatherhood in God and Christ.