Jehovah speaking as the Father

[Lizarian]

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.

In our GD class someone suggested that perhaps it was kind of like the First Vision of JS. God the Father introduced Jesus(Jehovah) and he took it from there. I have always had a problem wrapping my head around Jesus/Jehovah saying he is MY Father, because God the Father is the Father of our Spirits while my Earthly father is the same for my physical body. So I started viewing Jesus in the Father sense like a Pastor, or how the Bishop is the 'Father' of the Ward, and it made more sense to me. So Jesus would be like the 'Father' of the Earth since he physically created it, but he is literally our 'spirit' brother.

[Lamanite]

...I have always had a problem wrapping my head around Jesus/Jehovah saying he is MY Father, because God the Father is the Father of our Spirits while my Earthly father is the same for my physical body. So I started viewing Jesus in the Father sense like a Pastor, or how the Bishop is the 'Father' of the Ward, and it made more sense to me. So Jesus would be like the 'Father' of the Earth since he physically created it, but he is literally our 'spirit' brother.

Wonderful insights.

While considering Jesus' role as "Father", perhaps you could consider it within this context:

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. Mosiah 5:7

If that interests you I would suggest reading these two talks by Elder Oaks.

Have you been saved?

The Challenge to Become

Big UP!

Lamanite

[handys003]

Lamanite - I am curious as to your interpretation of this scripture?

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?

[handys003]

The prophet has spoken!

DC 29

(Doctrine and Covenants Section 29)

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, in the presence of six elders, at Fayette, New York, September 1830. HC 1:111

[Lamanite]

The prophet has spoken!

DC 29

(Doctrine and Covenants Section 29)

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, in the presence of six elders, at Fayette, New York, September 1830. HC 1:111

[Glenn101]

I think Jesus is the great I AM. The previous statement does not preclude the presence of God the Father. I believe there were three distinct and separate people on the Mount. Who did what talking is up for debate. I am not going to offer anything more concrete that an, "I believe" statement.

I just don't know with a certainty. I'm curious as to why that statement is so difficult for others to embrace. Unless you do have a testifying witness of the Holy Ghost, and then I would be extremely interested in your testimony and account of receiving a witness from one of the Godhead regarding who was present and their relative speaking roles.

Big UP!

Lamanite

While I believe pretty much that it was Jesus Christ who appeared to Moses, it gives me no heart burn for others to believe that it was God the Father who uttered those words. It really does not make any difference who said them. It is pretty well summed up by this verse from the Doctrine and Covenants:

"D&C 1:38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

I think that I am saying that it is the message that is important not so much who is the messenger (as long as said messenger is sent by God).

Glenn

[Calm]

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.

Though some would say that all this does is demonstrate the belief that God the Father only appears to introduce or bear witness of His Son (as in at the baptism of Christ, Christ's visit to the Nephites and the scripture reference of JS's first vision (can't remember if elsewhere has the Father saying more).

add-on: looks like someone did. I however do not see why that witness cannot include something more than "This is my beloved Son, hear him", something along the lines of "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."

[Zakuska]

Though some would say that all this does is demonstrate the belief that God the Father only appears to introduce or bear witness of His Son (as in at the baptism of Christ, Christ's visit to the Nephites and the scripture reference of JS's first vision (can't remember if elsewhere has the Father saying more).

Mt. of Transfiguration perhaps?

[Maya]

I saw the "problem" but decided to bite my tongue and was quiet all the lesson.

No need to point out things, that maybe no one else has noticed or that will anyway be swept away as nuicanse when there is no time for it anyway.

[scooby]

How much did Moses know at the time? Was it more fitting, at that stage in Moses' development, that Jesus/Jehovah talk about himself in the voice of the Father? As if to reveal to Moses, in some future episode, that "I am he."

[Eric Blob]

I saw the "problem" but decided to bite my tongue and was quiet all the lesson.

No need to point out things, that maybe no one else has noticed or that will anyway be swept away as nuicanse when there is no time for it anyway.

Well, I sort of did the same, but we didn't even read any scriptures in my lesson! We just discussed the contents of the lesson, if that makes sense, which was a shame. It was a good lesson in general though.

However, I do think it's important to correct mistakes (although doing it so not to offend anyone can be difficult). Like once, I heard in a lesson that gay marriages used to be done by the church, until Wilford Woodruff stopped the practice. I realized that this was not quite correct, so I explained the Law of Adoption briefly.

Next week, however, could be a bit of a disaster for some people. The lesson is on Abraham 3, Moses 4 and D&C 138.

We've got the whole BoA issue, Jesus and Satan being brothers (and also the fact that the New Testement says Jesus created Satan), how there was pre-existance when the BoM says we didn't exist before, the multiple vs. single creator "contradiction" with the BoM, The Philosophy of a Future State, Jesus being a god before he was born, whether the original sin was intended to happen and infinite regression which could come up in Abraham 3! Also, there's that facsimile right in the middle of the chapter, so someone could as a question about that, and there's the Sun getting it's light from Kolob mentioned in there too.

In Moses 4, there's not so much. Jesus and Satan being brothers could come up again, whether the fall was definitely supposed to happen could also be asked again, also, it may need to be explained again that Jesus passed the obedience test before mortality, allowing him to become a deity as of the 0ld Testement, even though he was born in the New Testement.

While we know the responses to all those issues (and a lot of them are very easy), we have to appreciate not everybody does. I think it's important that there's at least someone who can answer the questions properly (preferably the teacher), or else we'll get things like this happening:

Class member : Why do Abraham and Moses say that Jesus and Satan are brothers, when John and Colossians say that Jesus created everything, including Satan.

Teacher : I don't know...

*The whole class is awkwardly silent for 40 seconds*

Teacher : I'd like to end the lesson by bearing my testimony that I know the church is true...

Chances are, none of the issues above will be mentioned in the lessons, but it's best to be prepared in my opinion.

[Flyonthewall]

I view it this way: in days of old, when a king wanted to send a message to all in the kingdom, he had a scribe write his words down, then sent out heralds to each town, that read the words of the king aloud. The herald spoke the words of the king, as the king had them written down, so they would be in the first person, as if the king, not the herald was speaking them.

It is enough for me to understand that Jesus was speaking with divine investure, the words of the Father. However, if someone wants to believe that the Father was there also, I don't think that will change the message any.

[Jeff K.]

It seems those claiming that it was God the father are saying "Look we know that Christ is the great "I Am", but it could be.....

That isn't a very convincing argument given the preponderance of the evidence and the indications from the First Presidency. You boys seem to be swimming against gospel knowledge on this one.

[Lachoneus]

I'm trying to find a copy of the complete text from Dyer's book.

The Presence of Light and Its Relationship to Fire

TheLight which appeared with such power that it made the bush or shrubs appear as if they were on fire, explained by Moses as a burning bush, was no doubt produced by a condition of light which surrounds God the Father and his Son in their appearances. Moses, out of this phenomena, heard the voice of God speaking as out of the burning bush but actually out of the light that surrounded and encompassed the bush, which was burning but not consumed. fn It was not burning in the sense of physical fire. It is a light in which holy personages must be encompassed to appear unto mortal man upon the earth. We have an indication of this manifestation of light in the appearance of God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ to the Prophet Joseph Smith who relates that suddenly a pillar of light appeared until it rested upon him, which light was brighter than noonday sun.

The very appearance of this light dispelled the power of evil that threatened his life. In the light he saw two Personages, who were God the Father and his Son. Thus it would seem that whenever divine and holy beings appear to others in mortality they do so in the envelopment of this light which apparently is a complete protection against anything that is earthly or carnal.

There are other evidences of this. When Moroni appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith, a light was discovered appearing in his room. He describes further that while the room became exceedingly bright, that it was even brighter around the immediate person of the heavenly visitor. What it is that permits these personages from the presence of God or God himself to come and go and to move at tremendous speeds through space in the element of this light is one of the mysteries of Godliness. It was in evidence when the Lord appeared to Saul in the Syrian desert.fn

(Alvin R. Dyer, The Meaning of Truth 12 (1973))

[David T]

JefK said:

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.

Attached is an article that provides a context and references.

These excerpts are of interest:

While not all General Authorities contemporary with and succeeding Brigham Young agreed with his teachings concerning Michael, many of them did speak of Jehovah as the Father. John Taylor consistently did so in numerous sermons,

as well as in his book, The Mediation and Atonement, which he wrote as President of the Church. The following hymn, written by President Taylor, clearly identifies Jehovah as the Father:

As in the heavens they all agree

The record

jehovah-doctrine.pdf

[consiglieri]

Has anyone mentioned the goal of the lesson yet?

To help class members understand that:

(1) we are children of God,

(2) we can resist Satan

[consiglieri]

The environment points, with the preponderance of the evidence, in a clear direction.

If the preponderance of the evidence so clearly pointed in your direction, Jeff, it is unlikely so many would disagree.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Brade]

It seems those claiming that it was God the father are saying "Look we know that Christ is the great "I Am", but it could be.....

That isn't a very convincing argument given the preponderance of the evidence and the indications from the First Presidency. You boys seem to be swimming against gospel knowledge on this one.

What's the argument on the other side? So far, all I've seen on the it-was-Jesus side is essentially the following:

Premise 1: [insert Authority Figure] says that the dialogue in Moses 1 was between Jesus and Moses.

Premise 2: [insert Authority Figure] is authoritative.

Conclusion: Therefore, the dialogue in Moses 1 was between Jesus and Moses.

[jkfrost]

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.

With divine investiture Jesus spoke as if he was the Father in behalf of His Father:

1Cr 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink:

for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

Exd 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said,

Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

Moses saw the Christ walk before him in Ex 33.

[Mark Beesley]

I kindly raised my hand and said:

I resisted the urge to raise my hand and deflect the lesson from its purpose and disturb the otherwise good spirit that we were sharing. Silly me.

[Eric Blob]

I resisted the urge to raise my hand and deflect the lesson from its purpose and disturb the otherwise good spirit that we were sharing. Silly me.

Well, that's fine, if there's a good spirit and the lesson doesn't touch on the subject, but if they're teaching it wrong, then it would be silly to not do something. i.e. If the teacher says is God speaking, when it's actually Jesus.

[Jeff K.]

If the preponderance of the evidence so clearly pointed in your direction, Jeff, it is unlikely so many would disagree.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yes I am sure you are legion.

I like the way people avoid seeing the preponderance of the evidence. Heck I haven't seen any of the supposed scholars of church history review or refute the preponderance. I have seen a few, very few who ignored that evidence (one wonders if that is what they teach you in law school).

So no, it is not unlikely that a few will choose what the preponderance of the evidence points to. They have their own agenda which tacitly ignores the preponderance of the evidence.

[Jeff K.]

What's the argument on the other side? So far, all I've seen on the it-was-Jesus side is essentially the following:

Premise 1: [insert Authority Figure] says that the dialogue in Moses 1 was between Jesus and Moses.

Premise 2: [insert Authority Figure] is authoritative.

Conclusion: Therefore, the dialogue in Moses 1 was between Jesus and Moses.

Your characterization is flawed.

The scriptures represent the preponderance of the evidence. The statements by the first presidency represents the preponderance of the evidence. Now granted, you may consider prophets, scriptures to be irrelevant, but most Mormons do not. I am sure there are a few saints who ignore scripture, prophets, those given the task, and assert their view by virtue of their training (or lack thereof), their singular interpretation (ignoring the many others that contradict them), their authority (what authority?), their education (not really as educated as they like to think themselves) supercedes the preponderance of the evidence.

You have to hand it to those psuedo intellectuals who claim to know church history and scripture, when indeed they haven't provided anything near the level of evidence beyond their own flawed interpretation.

[Brade]

Your characterization is flawed.

The scriptures represent the preponderance of the evidence. The statements by the first presidency represents the preponderance of the evidence. Now granted, you may consider prophets, scriptures to be irrelevant, but most Mormons do not. I am sure there are a few saints who ignore scripture, prophets, those given the task, and assert their view by virtue of their training (or lack thereof), their singular interpretation (ignoring the many others that contradict them), their authority (what authority?), their education (not really as educated as they like to think themselves) supercedes the preponderance of the evidence.

You have to hand it to those psuedo intellectuals who claim to know church history and scripture, when indeed they haven't provided anything near the level of evidence beyond their own flawed interpretation.

I just want to make sure I'm clear here. It's your view that the official view of the Church is that Jesus said the following:

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.

[David T]

The scriptures represent the preponderance of the evidence. The statements by the first presidency represents the preponderance of the evidence. Now granted, you may consider prophets, scriptures to be irrelevant, but most Mormons do not. I am sure there are a few saints who ignore scripture, prophets, those given the task, and assert their view by virtue of their training (or lack thereof), their singular interpretation (ignoring the many others that contradict them), their authority (what authority?), their education (not really as educated as they like to think themselves) supercedes the preponderance of the evidence.

You have to hand it to those psuedo intellectuals who claim to know church history and scripture, when indeed they haven't provided anything near the level of evidence beyond their own flawed interpretation.

Jeff K: Have you read my last post and attached article yet? I highly suggest doing that before making any more judgment statements.