The Sermon at the Grove

[consiglieri]

Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove, which appears to be the unofficial name given to his last sermon on June 16, 1844, is the one where he talks about the plurality of the gods; and teaches that there are Gods above Heavenly Father (as well as below, one of whom he appointed to be "our God").

One of the interesting things I noted was that in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, when Joseph Fielding Smith edited the sermon, he put a comma in a particular sentence where it obviously does not belong.

Here is the passage:

My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the strong doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private." TPJS, p. 370.

The comma in the underlined portion above should not be there. It makes no sense. Without the comma, it reads as Joseph Smith likely taught it:

". . . there being a God above the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The entirety of the sermon seem to make it clear that the correct reading is without the comma.

Thomas Bullock was the only one who took good notes on this sermon, and it is his notes from which Joseph Fielding Smith was editing; the notes have very little in the way of punctuation, and so JFS was punctuating as he went. I have them in my copy of The Words of Joseph Smith.) Here is how it looks there, on page 378:

my object was to preach the Scrip--& preach the doctrine there being a God above the Far. of our Ld. J.C.--I am bold to declare I have taut. all the strong doctrines publicly--& always stronger that what I preach in private--

It was interesting to me that JFS put a comma here where it makes the sentence sound more like contemporary Mormon Doctrine.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. And yes, this sermon will of course comprise Gospel Doctrine class the week after general conference.

[Tsuzuki]

Does Joseph Smith say if this God also has a body, or is it more like the Tao?

[Joseph Antley]

I agree that the comma probably does not belong. Possibly Elder Smith misunderstood the statement when he edited it.

[Sevenbak]

Does Joseph Smith say if this God also has a body, or is it more like the Tao?

Yes.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man?s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.

[Sevenbak]

Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove, which appears to be the unofficial name given to his last sermon on June 16, 1844, is the one where he talks about the plurality of the gods; and teaches that there are Gods above Heavenly Father (as well as below, one of whom he appointed to be "our God").

One of the interesting things I noted was that in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, when Joseph Fielding Smith edited the sermon, he put a comma in a particular sentence where it obviously does not belong.

Here is the passage:

The comma in the underlined portion above should not be there. It makes no sense. Without the comma, it reads as Joseph Smith likely taught it:

The entirety of the sermon seem to make it clear that the correct reading is without the comma.

Thomas Bullock was the only one who took good notes on this sermon, and it is his notes from which Joseph Fielding Smith was editing; the notes have very little in the way of punctuation, and so JFS was punctuating as he went. I have them in my copy of The Words of Joseph Smith.) Here is how it looks there, on page 378:

It was interesting to me that JFS put a comma here where it makes the sentence sound more like contemporary Mormon Doctrine.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. And yes, this sermon will of course comprise Gospel Doctrine class the week after general conference.

I'm not so sure. I can see it both ways. There certainly is enough material there about the father of God, but it doctrinal with the comma too.

[Joseph Antley]

Yes.

Doctrine and Covenants 130:22

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man?s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.

Tsuzuki was referring to the father of God the Father (God the Grandfather?), I think, who isn't mentioned in D&C 130.

(Although reason leads us to believe that if the Father has a body, and the Son has a body, then the Father's father must have a body as well.)

[David T]

Hence, perhaps Joseph's original understanding of the Three Gods of Creation:

Elohim (Most High God)

Jehovah (God the Father; Father of Jesus Christ)

Michael (The son of Jehovah, Adam)

Jesus Christ being a completely separate personage....

...which led to Brigham Young's transposition of:

Elohim (Most High God)

Jehovah (The Father and God of Michael)

Michael (Adam, the Father with which we have to do)

[Sevenbak]

Tsuzuki was referring to the father of God the Father (God the Grandfather?), I think, who isn't mentioned in D&C 130.

(Although reason leads us to believe that if the Father has a body, and the Son has a body, then the Father's father must have a body as well.)

Yes, stands to reason. Isn't there some Orson Pratt sermon or something to that effect? He was always saying it like it is...

[Sevenbak]

Hence, perhaps Joseph's original understanding of the Three Gods of Creation:

Elohim (Most High God)

Jehovah (God the Father; Father of Jesus Christ)

Michael (The son of Jehovah, Adam)

Jesus Christ being a completely separate personage.

I've never heard Joseph of speaking of Jehovah and Christ as not being the same personage. There are many references to quite the opposite in fact.

[David T]

I've never heard Joseph of speaking of Jehovah and Christ as not being the same personage. There are many references to quite the opposite in fact.

I'd like to see these many references. Except for one possible reference that I'm aware of, he (and the majority of Church leaders up until 1916) appeared to use Jehovah as a general term for God - usually the Father.

It's also interesting doing a search in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals for 'Jehovah'. Up until the Joseph F. Smith one, there are no explicit associations of Jesus with Jehovah. This was the importance of Talmage and the 1916 'The Father and the Son' declaration.

[Joseph Antley]

Yes, stands to reason. Isn't there some Orson Pratt sermon or something to that effect? He was always saying it like it is...

I believe that Brigham Young and the First Presidency had some issue with Elder Pratt's "saying it like it is."

[Tsuzuki]

(Although reason leads us to believe that if the Father has a body, and the Son has a body, then the Father's father must have a body as well.)

Not necessarily. If Joseph Smith was familiar with Kabbalistic ideas through Neibaur, he could be referring to the Ain Soph Aur.

[Sevenbak]

I'd like to see these many references. Except for one possible reference that I'm aware of, he (and the majority of Church leaders up until 1916) appeared to use Jehovah as a general term for God - usually the Father.

It's also interesting doing a search in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church manuals for 'Jehovah'. Up until the Joseph F. Smith one, there are no explicit associations of Jesus with Jehovah. This was the importance of Talmage and the 1916 'The Father and the Son' declaration.

You should start with the scriptures.

Moroni 10:34 And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the eair, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.

Compare with:

2 Ne. 33:11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye?for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

And the language gets even clearer in the D&C:

D&C 110:

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

Further, if more clarification is needed, In 1916 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a doctrinal statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son: "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 since that period in His resurrected state" (MFP 5:31-32).

[Sevenbak]

I believe that Brigham Young and the First Presidency had some issue with Elder Pratt's "saying it like it is."

Probably the same way as some of us have problems with Brigham saying it like it is...

[Lightbearer]

Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove, which appears to be the unofficial name given to his last sermon on June 16, 1844, is the one where he talks about the plurality of the gods; and teaches that there are Gods above Heavenly Father (as well as below, one of whom he appointed to be "our God").

One of the interesting things I noted was that in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, when Joseph Fielding Smith edited the sermon, he put a comma in a particular sentence where it obviously does not belong.

Here is the passage:

The comma in the underlined portion above should not be there. It makes no sense. Without the comma, it reads as Joseph Smith likely taught it:

The entirety of the sermon seem to make it clear that the correct reading is without the comma.

Thomas Bullock was the only one who took good notes on this sermon, and it is his notes from which Joseph Fielding Smith was editing; the notes have very little in the way of punctuation, and so JFS was punctuating as he went. I have them in my copy of The Words of Joseph Smith.) Here is how it looks there, on page 378:

It was interesting to me that JFS put a comma here where it makes the sentence sound more like contemporary Mormon Doctrine.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. And yes, this sermon will of course comprise Gospel Doctrine class the week after general conference.

A comma? You are accusing JFS of "watering down" doctrine with a comma? Isn't this just a little ridiculous? Please it is a stretch of the imagination to think that his placing this comma here will entirely change the understanding of the entire section. Especially if you take the sermon in it's entire form:

(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Section Six 1843-44, p.370-376)

"Plurality of Gods

I will preach on the plurality of Gods. I have selected this text for that express purpose. I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preach on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years.

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?

Our text says, "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and His Father." The Apostles have discovered that there were Gods above, for John says God was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. My object was to preach the scriptures, and preach the doctrine they contain, there being a God above, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am bold to declare I have taught all the stronger doctrines publicly, and always teach stronger doctrines in public than in private.

John was one of the men, and apostles declare they were made kings and priests unto God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It reads just so in the Revelation, Hence the doctrine of a plurality of Gods is as prominent in the Bible as any other doctrine. It is all over the face of the Bible. It stands beyond the power of controversy. A wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err therein.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify him! Crucify him!"

Mankind verily say that the Scriptures are with them. Search the Scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you are. I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is an end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it.

Scriptural Interpretation

Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text. I will show from the Hebrew Bible that I am correct, and the first word shows a plurality of Gods; and I want the apostates and learned men to come here and prove to the contrary, if they can. An unlearned boy must give you a little Hebrew. Berosheit baurau Eloheim ait aushamayeen vehau auraits, rendered by King James' translators, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I want to analyze the word Berosheit. Rosh, the head; Sheit, a grammatical termination; the Baith was not originally put there when the inspired man wrote it, but it has been since added by an old Jew. Baurau signifies to bring forth; Eloheim is from the word Eloi, God, in the singular number; and by adding the word heim, it renders it Gods. It read first, "In the beginning he head of the Gods brought forth the Gods," or, as other have translated it, "The head of the Gods called the Gods together." I want to show a little learning as well as other fools. * * *

The head God organized the heavens and the earth. I defy all the world to refute me. In the beginning the heads of the Gods organized the heavens and the earth. Now the learned priests and the people rage, and the heathen imagine a vain thing. If we pursue the Hebrew text further, it reads, "The head one of the Gods said, Let us make a man in our own image," I once asked a learned Jew, "If the Hebrew language compels us to render all words ending in heim in the plural, why not render the first Eloheim plural?" He replied, "That is the rule with few exceptions; but in this case it would ruin the Bible." He acknowledged I was right. I came here to investigate these things precisely as I believe them. Hear and judge for yourselves; and if you go away satisfied, well and good.

In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us; and when you take [that] view of the subject, its sets one free to see all the beauty, holiness and perfection of the Gods. All I want is to get the simple, naked truth, and the whole truth.

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me." "Holy Father, keep through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God--he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you myself--"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father, I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, are with me, and I with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father. I want to reason a little on this subject. I learned it by translating the papyrus which is now in my house.

Abraham's Reasoning

I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven. "In order to do that," said he, "suppose we have two facts: that supposes another fact may exist--two men on the earth, one wiser than the other, would logically show that another who is wiser than the wisest may exist. Intelligences exist one above another, so that there is no end to them."

If Abraham reasoned thus--If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.

The Church Being Purged

I have reason to think that the Church is being purged. I saw Satan fall from heaven, and the way they ran was a caution. All these are wonders and marvels in our eyes in these last days. So long as men are under the law of God, they have no fears--they do not scare themselves.

I want to stick to my text, to show that when men open their lips against these truths they do not injure me, but injure themselves. To the law and to the testimony, for these principles are poured out all over the Scriptures. When things that are of the greatest importance are passed over by the weak-minded men without even a thought, I want to see truth in all its bearings and hug it to my bosom. I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.

They found fault with Jesus Christ because He said He was the Son of God, and made Himself equal with God. They say of me, like they did of the Apostles of old, that I must be put down. What did Jesus say? "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are Gods? If He called them Gods unto whom the word of God came, and the Scriptures cannot be broken, say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God?" It was through Him that they drank of the spiritual rock. Of course He would take the honor to Himself. Jesus, if they were called Gods unto whom the word of God came, why should it be thought blasphemy that I should say I am the Son of God?

Eternal Glories

Go and read the vision in the Book of Covenants. There is clearly illustrated glory upon glory--one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and a glory of the stars; and as one star differeth from another star in glory, even so do they of the telestial world differ in glory, and every man who reigns in celestial glory is a God to his dominions. By the apostates admitting the testimony of the Doctrine and Covenants they damn themselves. Paul, what do you say? They impeached Paul and all went and left him. Paul had seven churches, and they drove him off from among them; and yet they cannot do it by me. I rejoice in that. My testimony is good.

Paul says, "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead." They who obtain a glorious resurrection from the dead, are exalted far above principalities, powers, thrones, dominions and angels, and are expressly declared to be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, all having eternal power.

These Scriptures are a mixture of very strange doctrines to the Christian world, who are blindly led by the blind. I will refer to another Scripture. "Now," says God, when He visited Moses in the bush, (Moses was a stammering sort of a boy like me) God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto the children of Israel." God said, "Thou shalt be a God unto Aaron, and he shall be thy spokesman." I believe those Gods that God reveals as Gods to be sons of God, and all can cry, "Abba, Father!" Sons of God who exalt themselves to be Gods, even from before the foundation of the world, and are the only Gods I have a reverence for.

John said he was a king. "And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth. Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, and His Father; to him be glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen." Oh, Thou God who art King of kings and Lord of lords, the sectarian world, by their actions, declare, "We cannot believe Thee."

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? The character of the old churches have always been slandered by all apostates since the world began.

The Lord Will Not Acknowledge Traitors

I testify again, as the Lord lives, God never will acknowledge any traitors or apostates. Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you; and if he will betray me, he will betray you. All men are liars who say they are of the true Church without the revelations of Jesus Christ and the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which is after the order of the Son of God.

It is in the order of heavenly things that God should always send a new dispensation into the world when men have apostatized from the truth and lost the priesthood, but when men come out and build upon other men's foundations, they do it on their own responsibility, without authority from God; and when the floods come and the winds blow, their foundations will be found to be sand, and their whole fabric will crumble to dust.

Did I build on any other man's foundation? I have got all the truth which the Christian world possessed, and an independent revelation in the bargain, and God will bear me off triumphant. I will drop this subject. I wish I could speak for three or four hours; but it is not expedient on account of the rain; I would still go on, and show you proof upon proofs; all the Bible is equal in support of this doctrine, one part as another. (June 16, 1844.) DHC 6:473-479.

When taken in it's entire form as reproduced in this quote, it is difficult to imagine any "watering down" here. I do not understand what you are implying by the errant comma, perhaps I just do not understand grammar as I should because I have read this section in TPJS and have always understood the doctrine of Plurality of Gods and it is what the Church teaches today.

[David T]

You should start with the scriptures.

Moroni 10:34 And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the eair, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.

Compare with:

2 Ne. 33:11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye?for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

first of all, Joseph didn't compose the Book of Mormon. He was a mediator in the transmission of the text into our language.

Second, while do I believe that the Book of Mormon equates Jesus with Jehovah, I'm not convinced that Joseph incorporated that into his teaching.

And the language gets even clearer in the D&C:

D&C 110:

3 His eyes were as a flame of fire; the hair of his head was white like the pure snow; his countenance shone above the brightness of the sun; and his voice was as the sound of the rushing of great waters, even the voice of Jehovah, saying:

4 I am the first and the last; I am he who liveth, I am he who was slain; I am your advocate with the Father.

This was the 'Except for one possible reference that I'm aware of' I mentioned above.Are there any other quotes of Joseph where he, personally, equates Jehovah with Jesus?

Further, if more clarification is needed, In 1916 the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued a doctrinal statement on the relationship between the Father and the Son: "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 since that period in His resurrected state" (MFP 5:31-32).

I 'm well aware that this is the current doctrine and position of the Church, since 1916. What I haven't been able to determine is that Joseph Smith regularly taught it.

[Joseph Antley]

Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove, which appears to be the unofficial name given to his last sermon on June 16, 1844

Where is this sermon given the name "Sermon in the Grove"?

[robuchan]

I was just reviewing this and have a question.

Joseph in this sermon is basing his plurality of Gods concept solely on his misunderstanding of Hebrew grammar it appears. Does he ever make a case for plurality of Gods outside using this logic. i.e. does he ever say God revealed it to him? Or does he ever use a different source or argument or logic to make his case?

[robuchan]

I was just reviewing this and have a question.

Joseph in this sermon is basing his plurality of Gods concept solely on his misunderstanding of Hebrew grammar it appears. Does he ever make a case for plurality of Gods outside using this logic. i.e. does he ever say God revealed it to him? Or does he ever use a different source or argument or logic to make his case?

[Joseph Antley]

Probably the same way as some of us have problems with Brigham saying it like it is...

It's actually not the same way at all.

Not necessarily. If Joseph Smith was familiar with Kabbalistic ideas through Neibaur, he could be referring to the Ain Soph Aur.

Even if Joseph Smith were familiar with Kabbalah (which I do not believe he was), considering the context of his sermon as a whole as well as his audience, he clearly wasn't referring to the Ain Soph Aur.

[structurecop]

I 'm well aware that this is the current doctrine and position of the Church, since 1916. What I haven't been able to determine is that Joseph Smith regularly taught it.

The quote in my signature line supports your thesis.

[consiglieri]

A comma? You are accusing JFS of "watering down" doctrine with a comma? Isn't this just a little ridiculous? Please it is a stretch of the imagination to think that his placing this comma here will entirely change the understanding of the entire section. Especially if you take the sermon in it's entire form:When taken in it's entire form as reproduced in this quote, it is difficult to imagine any "watering down" here. I do not understand what you are implying by the errant comma, perhaps I just do not understand grammar as I should because I have read this section in TPJS and have always understood the doctrine of Plurality of Gods and it is what the Church teaches today.

Hi, Lightbearer!

It has not been my experience that the LDS Church teaches a plurality of Gods above the Father, as Joseph Smith did in his final discourse.

A single comma can be helpful in certain situations.

I am reminded of the JW Bible (I think it is Luke 23:23 or something close to that) where Jesus says to the penitent thief, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, today thou shalt be with me in paradise."

In the JW version, they moved the comma over one word so as not to have it conflict with their doctrine of soul-sleep, and it reads, "Truly, truly I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise."

(I don't know that I am quoting it precisely, but that is the basic gist.)

Anyway, this is essentially what TPJS does, by adding a comma; making it sound like the reference is to "God above, the Father of Jesus Christ," rather than "God above the Father of Jesus Christ."

One is God the Father.

The other is God above the Father.

Hopefully that explains it better.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you haven't already, check out Ostler's argument on this, it is interesting. His third vol. of Exploring Mormon Thought is the ticket to the thicket.

[robuchan]

If you haven't already, check out Ostler's argument on this, it is interesting. His third vol. of Exploring Mormon Thought is the ticket to the thicket.

Can you give us the gist?

[consiglieri]

Can you give us the gist?

Please do.

I only got the first volume and got bogged down within the first 100-pages.

My understanding of Ostler's view is that God the Father is the first; that there are no other Gods above him; and that he may have evolved on a previous planet or something.

Is that correct?

If so, it would seem to be a different view from that expressed by Joseph Smith in his last sermon.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

All the Best!

--Seinfeldieri