Godhead in the Book of Mormon

[Jason]

Would it be a problem if the BoM theology on Father and Son didn't exactly match what is taught in the Church today? Don't we believe that the prophet in our day has the ability to bring us greater light and knowledge concerning such things?

[LifeOnaPlate]

I guess I ought not be surprised that the OP merely thanked one participant whose views seem to agree with his own?

This is easy to answer, no.

I suggest taking the more difficult, more accurate way. "Easy answers" aren't always the best answers. As the links provided earlier in this thread show.

[Sevenbak]

Would it be a problem if the BoM theology on Father and Son didn't exactly match what is taught in the Church today? Don't we believe that the prophet in our day has the ability to bring us greater light and knowledge concerning such things?

But the thing is, it does. The BOM contains the fullness of the Gospel, and it was written after God the Father and His Son appeared to the prophet Joseph, clearing up that misconception had in the Nicene Creed.

The thing that is important to remember though, it that is was written to ancient peoples, much of which were under the law of Moses. But even then, they were clear as to the distinction. When Christ came to them personally, he made the doctrine of distinct personages plain. Those who seek to confuse the issue, do so on thin ice. The text is plain.

Here's just a few more examples.

1 Nephi 10:4 Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.

Mosiah 2:34 I say unto you, that there are not any among you, except it be your little children that have not been taught concerning these things, but what knoweth that ye are eternally indebted to your heavenly Father, to render to him all that you have and are.

Jacob 4:5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

Alma 33:10, 12-16

10 And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me, therefore I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me, because of thy Son.

12 And now Alma said unto them: Do ye believe those scriptures which have been written by them of old?

13 Behold, if ye do, ye must believe what Zenos said; for, behold he said: Thou hast turned away thy judgments because of thy Son.

14 Now behold, my brethren, I would ask if ye have read the scriptures? If ye have, how can ye disbelieve on the Son of God?

15 For it is not written that Zenos alone spake of these things, but Zenock also spake of these things.

16 For behold, he said: Thou art angry, O Lord, with this people, because they will not understand thy mercies which thou hast bestowed upon them because of thy Son.

[mysteryman]

mysteryman, this has been covered over and over on this site, in numerous threads.

Without reinventing the wheel, he's a decent response to your accusations. I hope you will read it. The numerous references to both Christ and His Father, used in obvious ways are many. Please take the time to read this topic straight from the BOM references.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/g...lett_nature.htm

Millet doesn't really address any of my supposed "accusations." What he does is what many Mormons do, approach the Book of Mormon and impose current Mormon doctrine on it. He continually mentions distinctions of Jehovah and Elohim, the concept of Elohim being the Father and Jehovah being Jesus had not yet been developed. Look at some early LDS hymns, one says, "The prophet led the holy Lamb, / And there did him baptize: / Jehovah saw his darling Son, / And was well pleasâ??d in what heâ??d done.â? The hymn than goes on to say that this â??is my Son, Jehovah criesâ? (1835, hymn #56). Multiple songs mention that Jesus is the son of Jehovah. In 1838 one song stated that â??Jehovahâ??s anointed will shortly appear" (David W. Rogers, Sacred Hymns, 1838, hymn #27). However the issue of who Jehovah is becomes muddled in a hymn in 1841. The song begins by saying, â??Jehovah, God the Father, bless, / And thy own work defend.â? A few lines down it says, â??Jehovah, God the Son, reveal / The brightness of thy faceâ?¦Shine forth with all the Deity, / Which dwells in thee alone.â? Then finally the song says, â??Jehovah, God the Spirit, shine, / Father and Son to show.â? Also see Doctrine and Covenants 109; Times and Seasons 3:578; Millennial Star 2:1, 184 which indicate Jehovah is the father. In other words, the current development had not occurred and therefore it is silly to push this into the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, look at the following from Millet:

"With these ideas in mind then, let's turn to Mosiah 15:1-3. This scripture, perhaps one of the more difficult passages in all the Book of Mormon, makes a little more sense in this light. (It is ironic to me that Abinadi is teaching these deep doctrines of condescension and divine investiture of authority to known apostates, Noah and his priests!

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 having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son

The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son.

That's simple enough, isn't it? Because Christ dwells in flesh (meaning he takes a physical body like every other daughter and son of God), he'll be called a son of God, the Son of God. But because he will inherit from his Father the powers and the attributes of God, his Father, he will be known as the Father. Abinadi is playing on the relationships between the dichotomies flesh/Spirit, man/God, and son/Father."

The passage from Mosiah says nothing about Christ becoming the Father because he inherits the attributes of the Father, he is imposing this on what the text says. The text says that God will come down, not the son of God or God the son, it says God will come down and because he dwells in the flesh he shall be called the Son of God, not because he is literally Gods son (he is God according to the passage). It was a nice try by Millet, but no cigar.

My point is simply that the nature of God in the Book of Mormon is ambiguous, and it is easy to see how someone can walk away thinking it is modalistic. My other point is that current LDS understanding of God cam by way of development, not sure how that can even be disputed.

[mysteryman]

But the thing is, it does. The BOM contains the fullness of the Gospel, and it was written after God the Father and His Son appeared to the prophet Joseph, clearing up that misconception had in the Nicene Creed.

The thing that is important to remember though, it that is was written to ancient peoples, much of which were under the law of Moses. But even then, they were clear as to the distinction. When Christ came to them personally, he made the doctrine of distinct personages plain. Those who seek to confuse the issue, do so on thin ice. The text is plain.

Here's just a few more examples.

1 Nephi 10:4 Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.

Mosiah 2:34 I say unto you, that there are not any among you, except it be your little children that have not been taught concerning these things, but what knoweth that ye are eternally indebted to your heavenly Father, to render to him all that you have and are.

Jacob 4:5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

Alma 33:10, 12-16

10 And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me, therefore I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me, because of thy Son.

12 And now Alma said unto them: Do ye believe those scriptures which have been written by them of old?

13 Behold, if ye do, ye must believe what Zenos said; for, behold he said: Thou hast turned away thy judgments because of thy Son.

14 Now behold, my brethren, I would ask if ye have read the scriptures? If ye have, how can ye disbelieve on the Son of God?

15 For it is not written that Zenos alone spake of these things, but Zenock also spake of these things.

16 For behold, he said: Thou art angry, O Lord, with this people, because they will not understand thy mercies which thou hast bestowed upon them because of thy Son.

Not sure how these New Testament like scriptures clear anything up. The verses I quoted are clear that Jesus is both the father and the son. It doesn't say is the father in some odd modern LDS sense, but says he is the Father and Eternal God. Furthermore, it is clear there is only one God, not one God to us, simply one god. It is ambiguous, and using the First Vision doesn't help since the 1832 version only mentions one personage. And since 1832 is the first reference to the First Vision, you can't be certain that the vision cleared the confusion up before the Book of Mormon was written.

[AndyOne]

But the thing is, it does. The BOM contains the fullness of the Gospel, and it was written after God the Father and His Son appeared to the prophet Joseph, clearing up that misconception had in the Nicene Creed.

The thing that is important to remember though, it that is was written to ancient peoples, much of which were under the law of Moses. But even then, they were clear as to the distinction. When Christ came to them personally, he made the doctrine of distinct personages plain. Those who seek to confuse the issue, do so on thin ice. The text is plain.

Here's just a few more examples.

1 Nephi 10:4 Yea, even six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem, a prophet would the Lord God raise up among the Jews even a Messiah, or, in other words, a Savior of the world.

Mosiah 2:34 I say unto you, that there are not any among you, except it be your little children that have not been taught concerning these things, but what knoweth that ye are eternally indebted to your heavenly Father, to render to him all that you have and are.

Jacob 4:5 Behold, they believed in Christ and worshiped the Father in his name, and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

Alma 33:10, 12-16

10 And thou didst hear me because of mine afflictions and my sincerity; and it is because of thy Son that thou hast been thus merciful unto me, therefore I will cry unto thee in all mine afflictions, for in thee is my joy; for thou hast turned thy judgments away from me, because of thy Son.

12 And now Alma said unto them: Do ye believe those scriptures which have been written by them of old?

13 Behold, if ye do, ye must believe what Zenos said; for, behold he said: Thou hast turned away thy judgments because of thy Son.

14 Now behold, my brethren, I would ask if ye have read the scriptures? If ye have, how can ye disbelieve on the Son of God?

15 For it is not written that Zenos alone spake of these things, but Zenock also spake of these things.

16 For behold, he said: Thou art angry, O Lord, with this people, because they will not understand thy mercies which thou hast bestowed upon them because of thy Son.

Keep in mind that any mention of Father and Son appearing to JS was well after the BoM was published.

[Jason]

But the thing is, it does.

So? Whether it does or not is not relevent to whether the current Church doctrine is correct, isn't it? Don't we believe the Book of Mormon is only the keystone, not the entirity, of our religion?

[Lightbearer]

Some things can only be understood by the spirit and through revelation. I remember when I first read the Book of Mormon it was often unclear who is being referred to and how it all fit together, but as I have grown in the spirit of the Lord I have had things revealed to my mind that were mysterious to me for a long time. I especially did not understand the following:

(Mosiah 15:1-9) "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 having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Sonâ?? The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Sonâ?? 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 disowned by his people. And after all this, after working many mighty miracles among the children of men, he shall be led, yea, even as Isaiah said, as a sheep before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father. And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of menâ?? Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice."

This has always been hard for me to understand although I had read much of the explanations and I also knew the Church's understanding (that Jesus and His Father are separate individual and one in purpose) was correct. But I never really comprehended it until one day I was reading the passage while waiting in the chapel of the Temple and then it became so clear that my discomfort with this passage was completely cleared away and it has not bothered me since. I cannot now explain it, and perhaps that is why the Lord felt it necessary to reveal the following:

(D&C 130:22) "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as manâ??s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us."

The Church's understanding of the Gospel was revealed line upon line and precept upon precept. Some things were gradually understood, some things are yet to be revealed. It never ceases to amaze me that so many desire to put the church "in a canonical straight-jacket" much like traditional christians like to put God into so that the Bible is all there is... it seems they want to say because the Book of Mormon does not have every doctrine explained fully then it must be wrong or the church went wrong after getting the Book of Mormon, or that Joseph just made it up as he went along. This is because they have no real understanding of how revelation is received and understood. I believe all four standard works were given for a reason, each contains principles that without each other there would be something vital missing in our understanding. Also without the gift of the Holy Ghost the members of the Church would not understand the revelations of God any better than our traditional christian friends. When we understand that the purpose of Christ (and by extension each of us) is to become as the Father is, then it starts to fall into place. Christ is the Son of God, the firstborn of all the spirits who are the children of God, He is given God the Son, the redeemer who makes the plan of the Father for all of us possible. That is why it says God Himself atones for the sins of the world, He cleanses us from all unrighteousness and makes us holy as He is holy and thus makes exaltation possible. That we might become one as He (the Son) is one with (the Father) and that we might all do His work and glory which is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

In any event, the Prophet Joseph saw two personages, both the Father and the Son... just like I am separate from my earthly father, so Christ is the Son of God Our heavenly Father. Those who enjoy twisting the texts of the scriptures and trying to make something out of nothing miss the point, God can reveal these things not just to Prophets and Apostles but anyone who searches and asks Him to reveal it to them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Millet doesn't really address any of my supposed "accusations." What he does is what many Mormons do, approach the Book of Mormon and impose current Mormon doctrine on it.

If only you would pay attention to the links I have suggested.

[mysteryman]

If only you would pay attention to the links I have suggested.

If only you would pay attention to the writings of Dan Vogel in "Joseph Smith: the Making of a Prophet" and his article in "Line Upon Line." He addresses all these issues. Ok, I read your stuff, now if you havn't read mine, read it. Then maybe we can place our favorite articles aside. Perhaps you could break from what you typically do by saying "this has been addressed, read this," perhaps you can actually engage the discussion by responding to me directly without referring me to an article for once.

[Sevenbak]

I think you are picking at gnats.

Let's make this really easy for you, here's all the differences between all the known versions of the First Vision.

Now, do you hold Paul to the same standard as you hold Joseph Smith? The account of his vision was written at least a decade after it happened. Both versions were different and inconsistent... they were given to different audiences for different reasons.

The 1832 account has many things in it, with only a small paragraph about the first vision. He wasn't giving a complete telling by any means.

[Sevenbak]

Also, and I'm sure the Tanner's site didn't mention this, but in Feb. 1832, Joseph and Sidney saw both the Father and the Son in vision. (D&C 76:20)

How does this jive with the supposed idea of changing theology in the 1832 FV account?

Why is JS teaching the Son on the right hand of the Father in early 1832 if he didn't really mean it?

[mysteryman]

Not sure if you were referring to me, but I will answer just in case.

I think you are picking at gnats.

Let's make this really easy for you, here's all the differences between all the known versions of the First Vision.

Nice graph, but it doesn't address the part that is directly contradicting. In 1832 Joseph Smith decides are churches are false by reading the scriptures, but he is concerned about his sins, so he prays. Of course he doesn't ask which church to join because he has already decided there all false in this version. In 1838 he says the reason he is praying is because he wants to know which church is true due to a religious excitement and asks. This is the most direct contradiction in the accounts and no manner of mental gymnastics is going to change this blatant contradiction. Of course this was not the point of bringing it up. My point was that you can't with certainty say that Joseph knew the nature of god before the Book of Mormon was written. One being the fact that 1832 is the earliest telling we know of which is after the Book of Mormon was published. Next reason is you can't use the first vision to argue your point since he doesn't mention two personages in the earliest account. That was my point, I really didn't want to argue the contradictions in the accounts.

Now, do you hold Paul to the same standard as you hold Joseph Smith? The account of his vision was written at least a decade after it happened. Both versions were different and inconsistent... they were given to different audiences for different reasons.

Paul's vision and Smith's is very different. The versions of Smith's vision come from Smith himself, either him writing or a scribe. I assume you are referring to the different accounts in the Book of Acts, which was written by the same person as Luke, not by Paul. Most scholars I have seen date the Book of Luke and Acts sometime between 90 and 110, which is more than a decade after the supposed vision. But both accounts come from Luke, not Paul. So how you can say Paul is writing to different audiences for different reasons is beyond me. So tell me what the different audiences are and what the different reasons are for Paul's conflicting accounts. What always annoys me about overzealous defenders of the faith is when they make things up to explain something.

The 1832 account has many things in it, with only a small paragraph about the first vision. He wasn't giving a complete telling by any means.

I don't know if Joseph meant this portion of his 1832 history to be complete or not, and I don't think you do either.

[mysteryman]

Also, and I'm sure the Tanner's site didn't mention this, but in Feb. 1832, Joseph and Sidney saw both the Father and the Son in vision. (D&C 76:20)

How does this jive with the supposed idea of changing theology in the 1832 FV account?

Why is JS teaching the Son on the right hand of the Father in early 1832 if he didn't really mean it?

Not sure what the Tanner's site says on this, but you are probably correct. Read my long post above, I talke about Section 76 as evidence that Joseph had determined the separatness of Jesus and the Father very early on.

[Sevenbak]

You are basing your whole premise on a single paragraph out of a larger work that talks more about the coming forth of the two priesthood's than it does about the fist vision.

The differences between these versions is like the difference between reading the newspaper and TV guide.

If you agree that Joseph early on held such views of both the Father and Son, why then do you keep insisting that the 1832 account is not that view? I guess I'm not following your logic.

[mysteryman]

You are basing your whole premise on a single paragraph out of a larger work that talks more about the coming forth of the two priesthood's than it does about the fist vision.

I am basing it on what is said in the single paragraph. The length has nothing to do with the contradiction.

The differences between these versions is like the difference between reading the newspaper and TV guide.

Sure, if the same writer contradicts their story between what they said in the newspaper and the TV guide.

If you agree that Joseph early on held such views of both the Father and Son, why then do you keep insisting that the 1832 account is not that view? I guess I'm not following your logic.

I only know that the 1832 account only mentions one personage, whether or not Joseph believed God and Jesus were the same person or not at the time he wrote it I don't know. What I do know, is that the First Vision should not be used with certainty that Joseph knew that God and Jesus were separate before the Book of Mormon, which is what say above, because the earliest account comes after the Book of Mormon and the 1832 account only mentions one personage, that is the one and only reason I brought it up.

You do now see there really is no parallel between Paul's differing account and Joseph's right? I am also still interested in how you could say Paul was talking to different audiences for different reasons when the accounts are both from Luke. Were you just making this statement up?

[randy]

When discussing this issue...I have always found this Ensign article on the "The Father and the Son" particularly helpful. I think #4 is especially helpful.

â??The Father and the Son,â? Ensign, Apr 2002, 13

A Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

In the early 1900s, some discussion arose among Church members about the roles of God the Father and Jesus Christ. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued the following in 1916 to clarify the meaning of certain scriptures where Jesus Christ, or Jehovah, is designated as the Father. It is thought that a printing of this statement will be helpful to members as they study the Old Testament this year.

The scriptures plainly and repeatedly affirm that God is the Creator of the earth and the heavens and all things that in them are. In the sense so expressed, the Creator is an Organizer. God created the earth as an organized sphere; but He certainly did not create, in the sense of bringing into primal existence, the ultimate elements of the materials of which the earth consists, for â??the elements are eternalâ? (D&C 93:33).

So also life is eternal, and not created; but life, or the vital force, may be infused into organized matter, though the details of the process have not been revealed unto man. (For illustrative instances see Gen. 2:7; Moses 3:7; Abr. 5:7.) Each of these scriptures states that God breathed into the body of man the breath of life. See further Moses 3:19 for the statement that God breathed the breath of life into the bodies of the beasts and birds. God showed unto Abraham â??the intelligences that were organized before the world wasâ?; and by â??intelligencesâ? we are to understand personal â??spiritsâ? (see Abr. 3:22â??23); nevertheless, we are expressly told that â??Intelligence,â? that is, â??the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can beâ? (D&C 93:29).

The term â??Fatherâ? as applied to Deity occurs in sacred writ with plainly different meanings. Each of the four significations specified in the following treatment should be carefully segregated.

1. â??Fatherâ? as Literal Parent

Scriptures embodying the ordinary significationâ??literally that of Parentâ??are too numerous and specific to require citation. The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title â??Elohim,â? is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and of the spirits of the human race. Elohim is the Father in every sense in which Jesus Christ is so designated, and distinctively He is the Father of spirits. Thus we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews: â??Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?â? (Heb. 12:9). In view of this fact we are taught by Jesus Christ to pray: â??Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy nameâ? (Matt. 6:9).

Jesus Christ applies to Himself both titles, â??Sonâ? and â??Father.â? Indeed, He specifically said to the brother of Jared: â??Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Sonâ? (Ether 3:14). Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior. No extended explanation of the title â??Son of Godâ? as applied to Jesus Christ appears necessary.

2. â??Fatherâ? as Creator

A second scriptural meaning of â??Fatherâ? is that of Creator; e.g., in passages referring to any one of the Godhead as â??the Father of the heavens and of the earth, and all things that in them areâ? (Ether 4:7; see also Alma 11:38â??39; Mosiah 15:4).

God is not the Father of the earth as one of the worlds in space, nor of the heavenly bodies in whole or in part, not of the inanimate objects and the plants and the animals upon the earth, in the literal sense in which He is the Father of the spirits of mankind. Therefore, scriptures that refer to God in any way as the Father of the heavens and the earth are to be understood as signifying that God is the Maker, the Organizer, the Creator of the heavens and the earth.

With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah, who is Jesus Christ the Son of Elohim, is called â??the Father,â? and even â??the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earthâ? (see passages before cited and also Mosiah 16:15). With analogous meaning Jesus Christ is called â??The Everlasting Fatherâ? (Isa. 9:6; compare 2 Ne. 19:6). The descriptive titles â??Everlastingâ? and â??Eternalâ? in the foregoing texts are synonymous.

That Jesus Christ, whom we also know as Jehovah, was the executive of the Father, Elohim, in the work of creation is set forth in the book Jesus the Christ, chapter 4 [by James E. Talmage]. Jesus Christ, being the Creator, is consistently called the Father of heaven and earth in the sense explained above; and since His creations are of eternal quality He is very properly called the Eternal Father of heaven and earth.

3. Jesus Christ the â??Fatherâ? of Those Who Abide in His Gospel

A third sense in which Jesus Christ is regarded as the â??Fatherâ? has reference to the relationship between Him and those who accept His gospel and thereby become heirs of eternal life. Following are a few of the scriptures illustrating this meaning.

In fervent prayer offered just prior to His entrance into Gethsemane, Jesus Christ supplicated His Father in behalf of those whom the Father had given unto Him, specifically the Apostles, and, more generally, all who would accept and abide in the gospel through the ministry of the Apostles. Read in our Lordâ??s own words the solemn affirmation that those for whom He particularly prayed were His own, and that His Father had given them unto Him:

â??I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.

â??Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.

â??For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.

â??I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

â??And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.

â??And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

â??While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilledâ? (John 17:6â??12).

And further:

â??Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

â??That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

â??And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

â??I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

â??Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the worldâ? (John 17:20â??24).

To His faithful servants in the present dispensation the Lord has said, â??Fear not, little children, for you are mine, and I have overcome the world, and you are of them that my Father hath given meâ? (D&C 50:41).

Salvation is attainable only through compliance with the laws and ordinances of the gospel; and all who are thus saved become sons and daughters unto God in a distinctive sense. In a revelation given through Joseph the Prophet to Emma Smith, the Lord Jesus addressed the woman as â??my daughterâ? and said, â??For verily I say unto you, all those who receive my gospel are sons and daughters in my kingdomâ? (D&C 25:1). In many instances the Lord had addressed men as His sons (e.g., D&C 9:1; D&C 34:3; D&C 121:7).

That by obedience to the gospel men may become sons of God, both as sons of Jesus Christ, and, through Him, as sons of His Father, is set forth in many revelations given in the current dispensation. Thus we read in an utterance of the Lord Jesus Christ to Hyrum Smith in 1829:

â??Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I am the life and the light of the world.

â??I am the same who came unto mine own and mine own received me not;

â??But verily, verily, I say unto you, that as many as receive me, to them will I give power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on my name. Amenâ? (D&C 11:28â??30).

To Orson Pratt the Lord spoke through Joseph the seer, in 1830:

â??My son Orson, hearken and hear and behold what I, the Lord God, shall say unto you, even Jesus Christ your Redeemer;

â??The light and the life of the world, a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not;

â??Who so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God. Wherefore you are my sonâ? (D&C 34:1â??3).

In 1830 the Lord thus addressed Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon:

â??Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday, and forever.

â??I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be oneâ? (D&C 35:1â??2).

Consider also the following given in 1831:

â??Hearken and listen to the voice of him who is from all eternity to all eternity, the Great I Am, even Jesus Christâ??

â??The light and the life of the world; a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not;

â??The same which came in the meridian of time unto mine own, and mine own received me not;

â??But to as many as received me, gave I power to become my sons; and even so will I give unto as many as will receive me, power to become my sonsâ? (D&C 39:1â??4).

In a revelation given through Joseph Smith in March 1831 we read:

â??For verily I say unto you that I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the light and the life of the worldâ??a light that shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not.

â??I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not; but unto as many as received me gave I power to do many miracles, and to become the sons of God; and even unto them that believed on my name gave I power to obtain eternal lifeâ? (D&C 45:7â??.

A forceful exposition of this relationship between Jesus Christ as the Father and those who comply with the requirements of the gospel as His children was given by Abinadi, centuries before our Lordâ??s birth in the flesh:

â??And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?

â??Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lordâ??I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.

â??For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

â??Yea, and are not the prophets, every one that has opened his mouth to prophesy, that has not fallen into transgression, I mean all the holy prophets ever since the world began? I say unto you that they are his seedâ? (Mosiah 15:10â??13).

In tragic contrast with the blessed state of those who become children of God through obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ is that of the unregenerate, who are specifically called the children of the devil. Note the words of Christ, while in the flesh, to certain wicked Jews who boasted of their Abrahamic lineage: â??If ye were Abrahamâ??s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. â?¦ Ye do the deeds of your father. â?¦ If God were your Father, ye would love me. â?¦ Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will doâ? (John 8:39, 41â??42, 44). Thus Satan is designated as the father of the wicked, though we cannot assume any personal relationship of parent and children as existing between him and them. A combined illustration showing that the righteous are the children of God and the wicked the children of the devil appears in the parable of the tares: â??The good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked oneâ? (Matt. 13:38).

Men may become children of Jesus Christ by being born anewâ??born of God, as the inspired word states:

â??He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

â??Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

â??In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brotherâ? (1 Jn. 3:8â??10).

Those who have been born unto God through obedience to the gospel may by valiant devotion to righteousness obtain exaltation and even reach the status of godhood. Of such we read: â??Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of Godâ? (D&C 76:58; compare D&C 132:20, and contrast D&C 132:17 in same section; see also D&C 132:37). Yet though they be gods, they are still subject to Jesus Christ as their Father in this exalted relationship; and so we read in the paragraph following the above quotation: â??And they are Christâ??s, and Christ is Godâ??sâ? (D&C 76:59).

By the new birthâ??that of water and the Spiritâ??mankind may become children of Jesus Christ, being through the means by Him provided â??begotten sons and daughters unto Godâ? (D&C 76:24). This solemn truth is further emphasized in the words of the Lord Jesus Christ given through Joseph Smith in 1833:

â??And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;

â??And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstbornâ? (D&C 93:21â??22).

For such figurative use of the term â??begottenâ? in application to those who are born unto God, see Paulâ??s explanation: â??For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospelâ? (1 Cor. 4:15). An analogous instance of sonship attained by righteous service is found in the revelation relating to the order and functions of priesthood, given in 1832:

â??For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies:

â??They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of Godâ? (D&C 84:33â??34).

If it be proper to speak of those who accept and abide in the gospel as Christâ??s sons and daughtersâ??and upon this matter the scriptures are explicit and cannot be gainsaid nor deniedâ??it is consistently proper to speak of Jesus Christ as the Father of the righteous, they having become His children and He having been made their Father through the second birthâ??the baptismal regeneration.

4. Jesus Christ the â??Fatherâ? by Divine Investiture of Authority

A fourth reason for applying the title â??Fatherâ? to Jesus Christ is found in the fact that in all His dealings with the human family Jesus the Son has represented and yet represents Elohim His Father in power and authority. This is true of Christ in His preexistent, antemortal, or unembodied state, in the which He was known as Jehovah; also during His embodiment in the flesh; and during His labors as a disembodied spirit in the realm of the dead; and since that period in His resurrected state. To the Jews He said, â??I and my Father are oneâ? (John 10:30; see also John 17:11, 22); yet He declared, â??My Father is greater than Iâ? (John 14:28), and further, â??I am come in my Fatherâ??s nameâ? (John 5:43; see also John 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Ne. 20:35; 3 Ne. 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (D&C 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Fatherâ??s name; and so far as power, authority, and godship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father.

We read, by way of analogy, that God placed His name upon or in the angel who was assigned to special ministry unto the people of Israel during the exodus. Of that angel the Lord said, â??Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in himâ? (Ex. 23:21).

The ancient Apostle John was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read, â??The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant Johnâ? (Rev. 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden:

â??And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.

â??Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not; for I am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship Godâ? (Rev. 22:8â??9).

And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself:

â??And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

â??I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the lastâ? (Rev. 22:12â??13).

The resurrected Lord, Jesus Christ, who had been exalted to the right hand of God His Father, had placed His name upon the angel sent to John, and the angel spoke in the first person, saying, â??I come quickly,â? â??I am Alpha and Omega,â? though he meant that Jesus Christ would come and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.

None of these considerations, however, can change in the least degree the solemn fact of the literal relationship of Father and Son between Elohim and Jesus Christ. Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors. Following are affirmative scriptures bearing upon this great truth. Paul, writing to the Colossians, says of Jesus Christ:

â??Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

â??For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

â??And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

â??And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

â??For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwellâ? (Col. 1:15â??19).

From this scripture we learn that Jesus Christ was â??the firstborn of every creature,â? and it is evident that the seniority here expressed must be with respect to antemortal existence, for Christ was not the senior of all mortals in the flesh. He is further designated as â??the firstborn from the dead,â? this having reference to Him as the first to be resurrected from the dead, or as elsewhere written â??the firstfruits of them that sleptâ? (1 Cor. 15:20; see also 1 Cor. 15:23); and â??the first begotten of the deadâ? (Rev. 1:5; compare Acts 26:23). The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms the status of Jesus Christ as the firstborn of the spirit children of His Father and extols the preeminence of the Christ when tabernacled in flesh: â??And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship himâ? (Heb. 1:6; read the preceding verses). That the spirits who were juniors to Christ were predestined to be born in the image of their Elder Brother is thus attested by Paul:

â??And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

â??For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethrenâ? (Rom. 8:28â??29).

John the Revelator was commanded to write to the head of the Laodicean church, as the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: â??These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Godâ? (Rev. 3:14). In the course of a revelation given through Joseph Smith in May 1833, the Lord Jesus Christ said, as before cited, â??And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstbornâ? (D&C 93:21). A later verse makes plain the fact that human beings generally were similarly existent in spirit state prior to their embodiment in the flesh: â??Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truthâ? (D&C 93:23).

There is no impropriety, therefore, in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest of humankind. That He is by spiritual birth Brother to the rest of us is indicated in Hebrews: â??Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the peopleâ? (Heb. 2:17). Let it not be forgotten, however, that He is essentially greater than any or all others, by reason (1) of His seniority as the oldest or firstborn; (2) of His unique status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother and of an immortal, or resurrected and glorified, Father; (3) of His selection and foreordination as the one and only Redeemer and Savior of the race; and (4) of His transcendent sinlessness.

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim. So far as the stages of eternal progression and attainment have been made known through divine revelation, we are to understand that only resurrected and glorified beings can become parents of spirit offspring. Only such exalted souls have reached maturity in the appointed course of eternal life; and the spirits born to them in the eternal worlds will pass in due sequence through the several stages or estates by which the glorified parents have attained exaltation.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Salt Lake City, Utah, 30 June 1916

[LifeOnaPlate]

If only you would pay attention to the writings of Dan Vogel in "Joseph Smith: the Making of a Prophet" and his article in "Line Upon Line." He addresses all these issues. Ok, I read your stuff, now if you havn't read mine, read it. Then maybe we can place our favorite articles aside. Perhaps you could break from what you typically do by saying "this has been addressed, read this," perhaps you can actually engage the discussion by responding to me directly without referring me to an article for once.

You assume I haven't read Vogel. You assume incorrectly. When the answer of "this has been addressed, read this" is the quickest and most detailed and accurate answer I will continue to employ it. Perhaps sometime you'll engage in some actual research and read what I advise.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Interestingly enough, Mosiah 16:15 still reads:

[15] Teach them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very Eternal Father. Amen.

Why was this verse not corrected as the verses in 1st Nephi were?

Because in this context he is...

Mosiah 5: 7

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why was this verse not corrected as the verses in 1st Nephi were?

Because in this context he is...

Mosiah 5: 7

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

What an excelent follow up verse. Well done.

[mysteryman]

You assume I haven't read Vogel. You assume incorrectly. When the answer of "this has been addressed, read this" is the quickest and most detailed and accurate answer I will continue to employ it. Perhaps sometime you'll engage in some actual research and read what I advise.

You assumed I have never read Poulsen, you assume incorrectly. Make sure you read the Tanner's, Ed Decker, and others who address it too. Wow, great, now that were done with "this has been addressed, read this," can you actually respond to what I have said? You never do. Generally when people say "read this" it is because they are incapable of addressing the issues themselves. Why not try it this one time.

[Tanyan]

I believe that there are Papers by Barry Bickmore that address this issue.

.

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You assumed I have never read Poulsen, you assume incorrectly. Make sure you read the Tanner's, Ed Decker, and others who address it too. Wow, great, now that were done with "this has been addressed, read this," can you actually respond to what I have said? You never do. Generally when people say "read this" it is because they are incapable of addressing the issues themselves. Why not try it this one time.

I recommended a source. You told me I hadn't read Vogel. There is a difference. I used "assume" to soften what you actually did, which was accuse. I assumed and offered. You accused and insulted. There's a difference. (It's Paulsen, not "Poulsen" by the way.)

My basic response is this:

The "Godhead" as we tend to call it today, was not always understood in the same way by everyone. The Godhead views in the Book of Mormon, for example, reflect an interesting pre-exilic element translated into KJV vernacular. Pointing to statements in Mosiah and assuming that they represent Joseph Smith's own thoughts constitutes an a priori assumption of the text rather than an in-depth analysis of thought on Deity in the Book of Mormon generally. You need to consider those passages in tandem with later passages such as those found after the resurrection of Christ. You have quoted a few BoM scriptures, a few JS statements, and tried to re-craft them into something of an "emerging" view of deity. As others have aptly demonstrated, such a view can be argued against quite easily when one tries to take the scriptures and statements in their context, analyzing, and then comparing them to see what sort of picture emerges. Your picture (apparently borrowed from or similar to) Dan Vogel's is, I believe, short-sighted and faulty for that reason compared to that of Paulsen, Brant Gardner, Kevin Christensen, and others. I don;t have time to recapitulate their interesting work on the subject, and I hope you don;t take offense at my providing sources where people can read more information from people who have spent much more time than I am able or willing to at the present.

[Sevenbak]

I am basing it on what is said in the single paragraph. The length has nothing to do with the contradiction.

Sure, if the same writer contradicts their story between what they said in the newspaper and the TV guide.

I only know that the 1832 account only mentions one personage, whether or not Joseph believed God and Jesus were the same person or not at the time he wrote it I don't know. What I do know, is that the First Vision should not be used with certainty that Joseph knew that God and Jesus were separate before the Book of Mormon, which is what say above, because the earliest account comes after the Book of Mormon and the 1832 account only mentions one personage, that is the one and only reason I brought it up.

You do now see there really is no parallel between Paul's differing account and Joseph's right? I am also still interested in how you could say Paul was talking to different audiences for different reasons when the accounts are both from Luke. Were you just making this statement up?

There is no contradiction, there is an omission, given in a much shorter telling. Big difference.

Again, it's clear based on early 1832 accounts recorded in the D&C that Joseph was teaching separate personages. The accusation that he switched back and forth and then back again in his theology is hard to swallow.

The difference you point out in Paul's discrepancies proves my point even more. If Paul were telling these version years apart in different books of scripture, he's be given more leeway. But the fact they are both in Acts illustrated the issue even more. If you can gloss over that, and not various tellings of the FV, then I don't know where that leave us.

[mysteryman]

I recommended a source. You told me I hadn't read Vogel. There is a difference. I used "assume" to soften what you actually did, which was accuse. I assumed and offered. You accused and insulted. There's a difference. (It's Paulsen, not "Poulsen" by the way.)

I didn't accuse anything, I was simply playing your game of "this has been addressed, read this" tactic. I was simply demonstrating how silly it is to think if someone has addressed an issue that it is somehow settled which is the impression you often give me. My problem is that you rarely actually respond to anything, for example, when we went back and forth over the Gordon B. Hinckley issue (I am using this only as an example, I do not wish to open this can of worms) you simply said "read this" on the Fair website and never addressed what I was saying. I then proved the fair response was inaccurate and you said nothing. I am just trying to get you to actually engage in a discussion.

My basic response is this:

The "Godhead" as we tend to call it today, was not always understood in the same way by everyone. The Godhead views in the Book of Mormon, for example, reflect an interesting pre-exilic element translated into KJV vernacular. Pointing to statements in Mosiah and assuming that they represent Joseph Smith's own thoughts constitutes an a priori assumption of the text rather than an in-depth analysis of thought on Deity in the Book of Mormon generally. You need to consider those passages in tandem with later passages such as those found after the resurrection of Christ.

You obviously didn't read my long post, I understand, it was long and I many times skip long posts as well. But I did address the later passages after the resurrection of Christ. I have said many times that the nature of God as contained in the Book of Mormon is ambiguous. I do not entirely agree with Vogel who simply thinks that Modalism is what is in the Book of Mormon. But he does make a good case that when you isolate the passages that are clearly not lifted from the New Testament, it is a modalist like view that is presented. Vogel says that the New Testament type versus cannot be used to argue against the modalist view of the BOM since modalists held that view despite such verses. This is a good point, but I am not entirely certain that is the case, I therefore believe the BOM is ambiguous, but what I am certain of is the Book of Mormon does not clearly teach Joseph Smith's later beliefs about the Godhead. And yes I do assume the Book of Mormon presents Joseph Smith's ideas, the book came from his mouth so I have no reason to think otherwise.

You have quoted a few BoM scriptures, a few JS statements, and tried to re-craft them into something of an "emerging" view of deity.

Actually, you don't need the Book of Mormon to demonstrate that the current view of the Godhead came by way of development. But since it is Mormonism's and Joseph Smith's earliest document, why not use it.

As others have aptly demonstrated, such a view can be argued against quite easily when one tries to take the scriptures and statements in their context, analyzing, and then comparing them to see what sort of picture emerges.

Well then it should be easy for you to show me the error of my ways. Do it please.

Your picture (apparently borrowed from or similar to) Dan Vogel's is, I believe, short-sighted and faulty for that reason compared to that of Paulsen, Brant Gardner, Kevin Christensen, and others.

I believe that Gardner, Christensen, and Paulsen are short-sighted and faulty when compared to that of Vogel, Michael Marquardt, and Van Hale. See how silly it is to argue from the stand point of "read this"? Truthfully, whether I agree or not I do like most of what Paulsen writes. But address what I say specifically and show me where I am wrong, you said it was easy above.

I don;t have time to recapitulate their interesting work on the subject, and I hope you don;t take offense at my providing sources where people can read more information from people who have spent much more time than I am able or willing to at the present.

You don't need to, just address what I have said directly.