Jump to content

Jehovah speaking as the Father


Lamanite

Recommended Posts

So the teacher brought up the "fact", that Jehovah is the voice of Moses 1.

I kindly raised my hand and said:

"I have a small problem with the manual's definitive statement that Jehovah was the voice of Moses 1. The text seems pretty straightforward that our Heavenly father is speaking. In fact, the reference the manual gives for this comes from Talmage. However, I found an equally authoritative statement by Alvin R. Dyer in his book Meaning of Truth pg 12 that it was both the Father and the Son were on the mount and that both voices could easily be discerned. I found this in Jeffrey Bradshaws new book "image of God."

To which our teacher replied, "That's interesting. So anyway we know that it was Jehovah speaking..."

Anyone else more successful in exploring this concept?

Big UP!

Lamanite

P.S. Also of note, several members considered Moses' Mountain experience to be a vision. Not seen with physical eyes. I didn't comment.

Link to comment

Pseudo-socratic? How insulting. They are clearly faux-aristotelian jiu-jitsu.

"faux-aristotelian jiu-jitsu"

absolutely brilliant! For once someone other than Steuss took a joke and sent one back without getting offended. I'm sure someone will delete this thread shortly...

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

The way I look at it, Jehovah speaking for His Father, is not much different from me giving someone a Priesthood blessing (or a Patriarch administering someone's patriarchal blessing).

When I worthily give someone such a blessing, by inspiration and Priesthood power, I am speaking to that person as though it were God Himself. With the authority I hold to do so, it is as though I were Him, that I am speaking for Him, and in His behalf directly to the person receiving that blessing, imo.

That is one way I've viewed the idea/practice of speaking on His behalf when you have direct authority and commission to do so. Just a thought. :P

Link to comment

The way I look at it, Jehovah speaking for His Father, is not much different from me giving someone a Priesthood blessing (or a Patriarch administering someone's patriarchal blessing).

When I worthily give someone such a blessing, by inspiration and Priesthood power, I am speaking to that person as though it were God Himself. With the authority I hold to do so, it is as though I were Him, that I am speaking for Him, and in His behalf directly to the person receiving that blessing, imo.

That is one way I've viewed the idea/practice of speaking on His behalf when you have direct authority and commission to do so. Just a thought. :P

I think divine investiture is plausible. I also think the idea that both the Father and the Son were present is equally plausible.

I choose to believe in the latter. What I can't understand is people who think there is an "official" doctrine regarding this matter, and who subsequently can't conceive that others may believe differently.

I don't see how either view contradicts a core doctrine of the Church or is in anyway harmful to the Church.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

Yes, Gillebre, but you don't refer to yourself as in... My only begotten Son... who shall be the Savior... etc.

There's another thread about this where one poster pointed out a similar situation in the book of Revelation where the Lord sends an angel to speak to John and the angel speaks in the first person of the Lord, and when John starts to fall to the ground and worship the angel, the angel stops him, saying, do not worship me for I am not the Lord... (I'll have to go back, find the reference and look it up in Revelations). But if that's the case, I feel better about this situation in Moses 1.

Actually, I like what Lamanite said about both the Father and the Son being present and addressing Moses... any more info on that concept?

GG

Link to comment

I thought it was settled "doctrine"--to the extent that Mormonism has any settled "doctrines"--that every time God speaks in the old Testament, it's Jehovah's voice you're hearing. (Jehovah, AKA Jesus Christ, AKA The Son of God, AKA Jesu Christo). Whatever logical or narrative inconsistencies such a doctrine produces are really beside the point; once a doctrine is settled, all you can do to alleviate any resulting mental dissonance is twist those inconsistencies around so they confirm with the doctrine.

If you really want to "explore" the possibility that God in the old testament was God the Father (AKA Elohim, AKA the Big Cheese), you're sailing in heretical waters. You're only going to get puzzled or angry looks if you try to pursue this issue with mainstream Mormons.

Link to comment

Yes, Gillebre, but you don't refer to yourself as in... My only begotten Son... who shall be the Savior... etc.

There's another thread about this where one poster pointed out a similar situation in the book of Revelation where the Lord sends an angel to speak to John and the angel speaks in the first person of the Lord, and when John starts to fall to the ground and worship the angel, the angel stops him, saying, do not worship me for I am not the Lord... (I'll have to go back, find the reference and look it up in Revelations). But if that's the case, I feel better about this situation in Moses 1.

Actually, I like what Lamanite said about both the Father and the Son being present and addressing Moses... any more info on that concept?

GG

I grifted the Alvin Dyer quote from Jeffrey Bradshaw's new book "In God's Image." I'm trying to find a copy of the complete text from Dyer's book. So, I don't have anything from GA's who support the God and Jesus appearance to Moses. However I think the Joseph Smith and Moses experience's provide a context and precedent for the God/Jesus appearance theory.

Ultimately, since my conduit to God is just as good as Talmage's or Dyer's I think I will take note of their well considered opinion(s) and then fashion one of my own.

I'm a little like Kathleen Flake in that I appreciate when people can't or don't tell me how to interpret or worship.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

I thought it was settled "doctrine"--to the extent that Mormonism has any settled "doctrines"--that every time God speaks in the old Testament, it's Jehovah's voice you're hearing. (Jehovah, AKA Jesus Christ, AKA The Son of God, AKA Jesu Christo). Whatever logical or narrative inconsistencies such a doctrine produces are really beside the point; once a doctrine is settled, all you can do to alleviate any resulting mental dissonance is twist those inconsistencies around so they confirm with the doctrine.

If you really want to "explore" the possibility that God in the old testament was God the Father (AKA Elohim, AKA the Big Cheese), you're sailing in heretical waters. You're only going to get puzzled or angry looks if you try to pursue this issue with mainstream Mormons.

There are those whom you would call heretic that I would call Saint.

Let's start with the CFR's for the "settled doctrine." I think we know there is none, and that is why it is so wonderfully liberating to be Mormon. We actually get to pray to God directly and walk through life and the Church accordingly.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

I grifted the Alvin Dyer quote from Jeffrey Bradshaw's new book "In God's Image." I'm trying to find a copy of the complete text from Dyer's book. So, I don't have anything from GA's who support the God and Jesus appearance to Moses. However I think the Joseph Smith and Moses experience's provide a context and precedent for the God/Jesus appearance theory.

It's available on GospelLink. Here's the quote I found that I think you're referencing from Dyer's book, "Meaning of Truth":

When Moses stood in the presence of God the Father and his Son, for both were present on Mount Sinai, [14] he was told among other things that the worlds without number had been created to bring to pass his holy purposes in the redemption of man, and that they were created through the Son.

which links to the footnote:

The Old Testament not fully translated states that God only was there, but latter-day revelation gives us the fuller account and meaning of what actually took place on the Mount. In this respect it is apparent from the revelations that what occurred there is similar to that which was experienced by Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, wherein God the Father appeared and announced his Son who stood by him, by stating, "This is my Beloved Son."

Dyer has some interesting interpretations, such as the following:

We are told that as Lucifer tried to overpower and destroy Moses, Michael or Adam, our first father in the flesh, who had been associated with God the Father and his Son in the creation of the earth, appeared to contend with and dispel Lucifer from the presence of Moses. Otherwise he might have come under the control of the evil one. The scriptures give this account of that incident:

"Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee".

And thus by the power of the priesthood Lucifer was dispelled, permitting Moses to be divinely interceded for, as given in the scriptural account of God speaking to Moses out of the burning bush.

Link to comment

It's available on GospelLink. Here's the quote I found that I think you're referencing from Dyer's book, "Meaning of Truth":

which links to the footnote:

Thanks. I think I expected something more earth shattering to surround that text. alas,....

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

The way I look at it, Jehovah speaking for His Father, is not much different from me giving someone a Priesthood blessing (or a Patriarch administering someone's patriarchal blessing).

When I worthily give someone such a blessing, by inspiration and Priesthood power, I am speaking to that person as though it were God Himself. With the authority I hold to do so, it is as though I were Him, that I am speaking for Him, and in His behalf directly to the person receiving that blessing, imo.

That is one way I've viewed the idea/practice of speaking on His behalf when you have direct authority and commission to do so. Just a thought. :P

Unless you're giving blessings in which you actually speak as though you are God, the Moses case seems quite different. I doubt you've said anything like this in a blessing:

"So and so, I am your Heavenly Father, and I, God, bless you with such and such"

Sure, blessings can be given with the understanding that the content of blessings is such that it's as if God were giving the blessing. But, that can be accomplished quite simply without strange pronoun confusion. Quite frankly, the idea that Christ spoke, say, what is in Moses 1 verse 6 to Moses is, I think, absurd.

Link to comment

I would say the preponderance of the evidence is against you in this Lamanite.

And one can call anyone a saint, including Judas Iscariot, other than a rhetorical flair, it doesn't mean much.

Just a quick cut and paste

John 8:58

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, aBefore Abraham was, bI am.

John 8:18

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the aFather that sent me beareth bwitness of me.

John 8:28

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do anothing of myself; but as my bFather hath ctaught me, I dspeak these things.

Ex 3:6

6 Moreover he said, 6 Moreover he said, aI am the bGod of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was cafraid to dlook upon God.

Ex. 3:11,14

11 And Moses said unto God, aWho am I, that I should go unto bPharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?

Link to comment

I would say the preponderance of the evidence is against you in this Lamanite.

And one can call anyone a saint, including Judas Iscariot, other than a rhetorical flair, it doesn't mean much.

Just a quick cut and paste

I would also recommend to those who are able, a trip to the temple to more fully understand the relationship.

Thanks for the shotgun blast. I didn't read any of it. I'm not sure what various quotes from Church leaders have to do with my personal interpretation of scripture. Did they by any chance submit their opinions or commentaries as doctrinal positions or have them accepted and sustained by the body of the Church? Are they (the Brethren) unanimous in their opinion's? Is their precedent or tradition? Blah blah blah.

Have you read "Approaching Mormon Doctrine" on the Church's website.

Who curelom calls a heretic....I usually call a Saint. I'm not sure what your comment meant.

Big UP!

Lamanite

PS I just read this post and it sounds more critical than it's meant to be. I'm just to lazy to retype and reword it. Sorry man...Very Big UP!

PSS I work at the veil once a week. And if I remember correctly, no one was there to interpret the presentation of the endowment or offer suggestions on symbolic meanings. I especially appreciated the autonomy afforded me at the Temple.

Link to comment
I would also recommend to those who are able, a trip to the temple to more fully understand the relationship.

It's worth noting that not once in the Temple experience is there an instance of Jesus speaking on behalf of his father by speaking as if he is his father. There's nothing wrong with the idea that Christ can speak on behalf of God. What's questionable, and on my view just simply absurd, is the view that Christ is the utterer of the following statement (and other statements like it):

And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

To the extent that anyone believes that, Prophet or not, I just disagree.

Link to comment

Copied from elsewhere:

John 8:58

58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, aBefore Abraham was, bI am.

John 8:18

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the aFather that sent me beareth bwitness of me.

John 8:28

28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do anothing of myself; but as my bFather hath ctaught me, I dspeak these things.

Ex 3:6

6 Moreover he said, 6 Moreover he said, aI am the bGod of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was cafraid to dlook upon God.

Ex. 3:11,14

11 And Moses said unto God, aWho am I, that I should go unto bPharaoh, and that I should bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?

Link to comment

James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, vol. 5, 23-34.

The Father and the Son, June 30, 1916

1916-June 30-Original pamphlet. Church Historian's Library, Salt

Lake City, Utah; Improvement Era 19:934-942, August, 1916; Liahona,

the Elders' Journal 21:380-384, March 25, 1924; Jesus the Christ,

Twelfth edition, February 1, 1924, pp. 465-473.

According to Dr. James E. Talmage, in the Tenth edition of his Articles of Faith (February, 1917), this Doctrinal Exposition appeared first in pamphlet form and then in the Improvement Era for August, 1916.

Dr. Talmage further wrote:

"That Jesus Christ or Jehovah is designated in certain scriptures as the Father in no wise justifies an assumption of identity between Him and His Father, Elohim. This matter has been explained in a publication dated June 30, 1916, entitled 'The Father and The Son; A Doctrinal Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve.'" (Articles of Faith, Eleventh edition, p. 53.)

This note by Dr. Talmage provides insight into the possible reason or rationale for the issuance of the Exposition, yet leaves the reader to ponder as to how such confusion could have arisen calling forth this official exposition on the use of the term Father in the scriptures.

So far as the writer of these notes has discovered, no official explanatory notes as to the occasion or circumstances surrounding the issuance of the Exposition have been recorded or published.

B. H. Roberts does not mention its issuance in the Comprehensive History of the Church.

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., does not mention its issuance in his biography of his father, President Joseph F. Smith.

The official clerk and recorder for the General Conferences of the Church and secretary to later First Presidencies indicated that he knew of no statement in the minutes of the presiding councils of the Church for 1916 that specifically mentions or elaborates on the issuance of this Exposition.

Some suggestions can be made towards a solution of the historical background of the issuance of this Exposition and some references given for related reading. However, these suggestions are in no way to be regarded as authoritative or final.

The writer of these notes believes that the content of the Exposition is sufficiently clear and concise as to need no further explanation.

It is always dangerous to try to "second guess" circumstances in the absence of direct evidence. The few notes and statements that follow are not an attempt to justify the issuance of the Exposition. Revelation from God is not established or justified by human reason, but explanation of possible circumstances is sometimes helpful in understanding it.

The brief notes following are a condensation of thirty-seven pages of research notes on this Exposition.

(1) There was misunderstanding in some quarters within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and attacks from outside the Church on the "Mormon" doctrine of deity all during the period from April 8, 1897, when the Presbytery of Utah issued their pamphlet entitled "Ten Reasons Why Christians cannot fellowship the Mormon Church," through the first quarter of the Twentieth century. These misunderstandings arose over a lack of clarity on the part of some as to the distinctive roles and personages of Elohim, or God the Eternal Father; of Jehovah, or Jesus the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh; and the person and role of Michael or Adam as the Patriarch of the human race.

(2) That the matter had not come to rest as late as 1912-1916 is evidenced by the following Messages reproduced in Volume 4 of this series: "Pre-existent States," 4:264-265; Letter to Samuel O. Bennion, 4:265-267; "Only One God to Worship," 4:269-271; Box Elder Conference Address, 4:327-332; Official Announcement-Jesus the Christ, 4:339-340.

(3) The General Conference addresses of President Joseph F. Smith and his counselor, President Charles W. Penrose, in the April 1916 Conference, indicate that the First Presidency was aware of some confusion on the subject treated by the Exposition and wished to have it clarified in the minds of Church members and non-members alike. President Penrose said on April 6, 1916:

"There still remains, I can tell by the letters I have alluded to, [i.e. those coming to the First Presidency] an idea among some of the people that Adam was and is the Almighty and Eternal God . . . the notion has taken hold of some of our brethren that Adam is the being that we should worship

Link to comment
4. Jesus Christ the "Father" By Divine Investiture of Authority

A fourth reason for applying the title "Father" 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: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30; see also 17:11, 22); yet He declared "My Father is greater than I" (John 14:28); and further, "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43; see also 10:25). The same truth was declared by Christ Himself to the Nephites (see 3 Nephi 20:35 and 28:10), and has been reaffirmed by revelation in the present dispensation (Doc. & Gov. 50:43). Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father'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: "Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him" (Exodus 23:21).

The ancient apostle, John, was visited by an angel who ministered and spoke in the name of Jesus Christ. As we read: "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 John" (Revelation 1:1). John was about to worship the angelic being who spoke in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but was forbidden: "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 showed me these things. 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 God" (Rev. 22:8, 9). And then the angel continued to speak as though he were the Lord Himself: "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last" (verses 12, 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 "I come quickly," "I am Alpha and Omega," though he meant that Jesus Christ would come, and that Jesus Christ was Alpha and Omega.

THE FATHER AND THE SON

Link to comment

I would also recommend to those who are able, a trip to the temple to more fully understand the relationship.

Interesting enough, in the early days of the Temple in this dispensation, many understood Jehovah to be the Father, and Elohim as the Head God in authority over the Father (as is also intimated by Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove). It was understood as a patriarchal order from Grandfather, to Father, to Son. (Jesus is never identified with Jehovah in this account - we're just used to reading that into it). Of course, Brigham Young later had a different interpretation, and it wasn't until 1916 that the identification of the names became standardized.

Jeff K, would you at least be willing to accept that, Modern understandings aside, at least when the passage was written, the recorder of it, the Prophet Joseph, didn't clearly differentiate, and most likely have even associated the speaker in Moses 1 with the Father?

Link to comment

If one understands that the Father has given NO revelations to any man ...

Yes he did; he did to Moses.

He never appeared to Moses,...Joseph Smith.

I believe God the Father appeared to both.

Now, are you going to continue to be silly and try to disprove my belief. I will kindly allow you to believe one way. Why can't you allow me my beliefs. The Church has absolutely NO DOCTRINAL stance! If you insist that they do then you can read "approaching Mormon doctrine" or Mormon Doctrine/FAIR Wiki

I can't see how either belief is of such a significant doctrinal value so as to engender this level or resistance.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Link to comment

I think the differentiation was obvious to him, but not obvious to some of us. The environment points, with the preponderance of the evidence, in a clear direction.

Interesting enough, in the early days of the Temple in this dispensation, many understood Jehovah to be the Father, and Elohim as the Head God in authority over the Father (as is also intimated by Joseph Smith's Sermon in the Grove). It was understood as a patriarchal order from Grandfather, to Father, to Son. (Jesus is never identified with Jehovah in this account - we're just used to reading that into it). Of course, Brigham Young later had a different interpretation, and it wasn't until 1916 that the identification of the names became standardized.

By many, do you mean as a standard understanding? Is there a debate we can reflect on to show the confusion between the distinct camps of "many" (on both sides of the issue of course)? That would be of interest to read upon.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...