Jehovah speaking as the Father

[Lamanite]

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.

First of all, the teacher brought up the topic for discussion. I raised my hand and politely shared my thoughts. He thanked me for my thoughts and then brushed me off. I didn't pursue it any farther.

No need to infer negative motives.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

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

Thanks nack, I did miss your post and article.

Scripture bashing isn't the issue so much as scriptural context. Most of our writings, across the cultural and chronological spectrum reflect the position I believe correct. I do not believe you can simply say that Moses is unconnected, anymore than you can say that the Book of Mormon is unconnected. Moses was placed on paper and in most themes, including those held by apostles and prophets in this dispensation, reflect that he was speaking with Jehovah.

Now the author of the paper you cited believes the main issue was harmony, not doctrine. I would say harmony was required, but also that the doctrine was harmonious when understood by all and presented by those in authority. People can give many surmised reasons for what they believe, but their reflections are in the minority with those in authority, those we presume to be closest to the point of authority, and the united stance of teh First Presidency in that regard, which by itself trumps pretty much everything else. Or am I wrong in presuming a unanimous statement issued on this position by the first presidency is one of the strongest endorsements one can have for the position.

What exactly is being offered to counter these positions?

[David T]

What exactly is being offered to counter these positions?

The fact that until 86 years after it was written, there was not a common official consensus amongst the Prophets and other General Authorities of the Church who and of what nature exactly the deity in Moses 1 represented.

I hold my opinion above: the figure presented in Moses 1 is a literary composite, and is not exclusively the Son or the Father. (Another way of saying that is also true: It is both the Son and the Father). It's only when you need to interpret this as an exactly detailed historical reporting of a specific event that the exact identity needs to be nailed down. I find this unnecessary, and out of character with a majority of the JST emendations.

Stating that it's the Father speaking through the son is one way to express it, though not the only accurate way, methinks.

[mrmendoza]

Yesterday, in SS, I, having seen the thread started on this subject a couple of days before, raised my hand and said something to the effect that " It was my understanding, that Jesus was speaking in the Fathers name in those passages". The teacher who had not brought the subject up yet, agreed with me and a couple of others in the class said that that was their understanding too. No one disputed it. I think though, that by saying that it is our "understanding" as opposed to stating it as "fact" alows for those who don't see it that way to not feel that they have to make an issue of it! After all, how important is it to our salvation?

Mike

[Lamanite]

The fact that until 86 years after it was written, there was not a common official consensus amongst the Prophets and other General Authorities of the Church who and of what nature exactly the deity in Moses 1 represented.

I hold my opinion above: the figure presented in Moses 1 is a literary composite, and is not exclusively the Son or the Father. (Another way of saying that is also true: It is both the Son and the Father). It's only when you need to interpret this as an exactly detailed historical reporting of a specific event that the exact identity needs to be nailed down. I find this unnecessary.

Well said

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Jeff K.]

The fact that until 86 years after it was written, there was not a common official consensus amongst the Prophets and other General Authorities of the Church who and of what nature exactly the deity in Moses 1 represented.

I hold my opinion above: the figure presented in Moses 1 is a literary composite, and is not exclusively the Son or the Father. (Another way of saying that is also true: It is both the Son and the Father). It's only when you need to interpret this as an exactly detailed historical reporting of a specific event that the exact identity needs to be nailed down. I find this unnecessary, and out of character with a majority of the JST emmendations.

Simply because the clarity was not presented during the prior 86 years, does not mean that the clarification was not determined as stated.

I disagree with your position, but I also think that your position is not unreasonable.

[David T]

I disagree with your position, but I also think that your position is not unreasonable.

Thank you. That's all I'm asking for

[consiglieri]

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.

I think the argument is even weaker than that, ba81.

No authority has said that "the dialogue in Moses 1 was between Jesus and Moses."

Rather, a First Presidency from almost 100-years ago says that Jesus can be termed the Father by "divine investiture of authority" as he speaks as if he were the Father on some occasions.

It requires a further leap, I think, to interpose that explanation on Moses 1 specifically.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Brade]

I think the argument is even weaker than that, ba81.

No authority has said that "the dialogue in Moses 1 was between Jesus and Moses."

Rather, a First Presidency from almost 100-years ago says that Jesus can be termed the Father by "divine investiture of authority" as he speaks as if he were the Father on some occasions.

It requires a further leap, I think, to interpose that explanation on Moses 1 specifically.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I agree completely. I just don't see how scriptures about "I am" and the First Presidency message entail that the speaker in Moses 1 is Jesus. I look forward to some argument that connects all those premises...

[Jeff K.]

Divine Investure carries with it implications that people may not realize.

[Jeff K.]

I still maintain the preponderance of the evidence is there supporting my position. Consig doesn't speak to the evidence, he isn't trained to understand it (at least based on his lack of response on his posts here).

The preponderance of evidence still resides on the side of Jehovah BA. It is that which I am looking at versus other positions.

[Jeff K.]

What makes Moses unique in terms of scripture to other scriptures, other than the mehtod of it coming forth that perhaps it should be given a distinct viewing from other scriptures more clear on the subject matter?

[David T]

Frankly, I think the project that it was part of, which is part of the method of its coming forth, is at the very heart of why it may be different that ancient texts. I actually think it fits in more with the Revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants, in which the same thing happens: Joseph dictates as if he's speaking the words of God in first person, which in turn switch back and forth between being from a Father perspective, and a Son perspective, using Joseph's language appropriate to current understanding (which wording was often later edited or revised by Sidney Rigdon - doing a very in depth study of the revelations now from the Book of Commandments and Revelations Manuscripts, thanks to the Joseph Smith Papers project! Fascinating to see the strikeouts and editing, and development of these documents. Clearly they felt the original versions weren't word for word infallible dictations from deity).

The Joseph Smith Translation does not claim to be essentially a restoration of an ancient document. It is mainly a tutoring device for Joseph and the Saints, presenting applicable doctrines in a familiar setting. It is an inspired revelatory product of Joseph's developing understanding in 1830, and a was a springboard for asking questions which resulted in major doctrinal revelations. God revealed things one step at a time - the full implications of His Nature came later.

All scripture is a product of its time - which is a key reason for the JST - it attempted to 'update' the work to make it more relevant to the 19th Century Saints.

[consiglieri]

Divine Investure carries with it implications that people may not realize.

As well as implications that may be overbroadly construed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

No, they cannot be overbroadly construed, in truth such an act places the onus upon those who claim it was not Jehovah speaking to Moses, since divine investure clearly allocates the responsibility to the son in all things. Divine investure is also reflected in many prior and subsequent acts carried out upon the earth.

But then, once again you have shown you can give no real example other than your typical "it's not"..... This is a form of scholarship I am not aware of, but it does make me feel better about my position.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Jehovah speaking as the Father how it went over in Sunday School

It went over great, we just mentioned the divine investure and that settled it. It really is a simple concept.

[consiglieri]

It went over great, we just mentioned the devine investure nad that settled it. It really is a simple concept.

And, as is said of charity, covers a multitude of sins.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And, as is said of charity, covers a multitude of sins.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

And a whole lot of cheese on pizza is really good.

[handys003]

And, as is said of charity, covers a multitude of sins.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Do you sustain Jesus Christ and the Prophet Joseph Smith who is revelator and prophet of this church?

If so, then you must adhere and sustain D&C 29:1

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

[Tsjoeva]

I think it is a very interesting discussion about Jesus and YHWH. Because I do not know the doctrine of the Father and Jesus. It is for me quite new.

If I read the Bible. I am reading first the Shema. Shema Yisrael, YHWH(Adonai) Elohim, YHWH(Adonai) Echad. The word Adonai is literally YHWH. For me it said: There is one God.

So for me the Old Testament, said; There is one Elohiem, and His personal name is YHWH. That is the name what the Lord revealed to Moses.

So I will look at this topic what the arguments are. So I got some understanding.

But I agree, with Jesus is the YHWH in the Flesh. Because of that, you can read the Septuaginta.

There are a lot of evidence (I think, that we can see, Jesus is YHWH too)

[handys003]

I think it is a very interesting discussion about Jesus and YAHWEH. Because I do not know the doctrine of the Father and Jesus. It is for me quite new.

If I read the Bible. I am reading first the Shema. Shema Israel, YAHWEH(Adonai) Elohim, YAHWEH(Adonai) Echad. The word Adonai is literally YAHWEH. For me it said: There is one God.

So for me the Old Testament, said; There is one Elohiem, and His personal name is YAHWEH. That is the name what the Lord revealed to Moses.

So I will look at this topic what the arguments are. So I got some understanding.

But I agree, with Jesus is the YAHWEH in the Flesh. Because of that, you can read the Septuaginta.

There are a lot of evidence (I think, that we can see, Jesus is YAHWEH too)

I'm not sure if you understand LDS doctrine. However it is that we believe Elohim (Heavenly Father), Jehovah (Jesus also known as YAHWEH) and the Holy Ghost (Spirit, comforter used interchangeably) are all three separate individuals in what we call the Godhead. All act in unison under the direction of Heavenly Father (God, Elohim) used interchangeably.

[Tsjoeva]

I'm not sure if you understand LDS doctrine. However it is that we believe Elohim (Heavenly Father), Jehovah (Jesus also known as YAHWEH) and the Holy Ghost (Spirit, comforter used interchangeably) are all three separate individuals in what we call the Godhead. All act in unison under the direction of Heavenly Father (God, Elohim) used interchangeably.

Thank you very much handys,

Do I understand you right, if you mean: There are three separate Gods Father, Son, Holy Gost, who work in unity (the Godhead)

Or 3 Persons who are 1 God. (Like a human is spirit, soule and body)

[Brade]

Do you sustain Jesus Christ and the Prophet Joseph Smith who is revelator and prophet of this church?

If so, then you must adhere and sustain D&C 29:1

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

[David T]

God of the burning bush who spoke to Moses was Jesus himself period. It is backed by the authority of your master Jesus Christ, and if you sustain the prophet it is backed by his assertion as stated in D&C 29! It is simplistic in the scriptural references, and there is no latitude for what if, or possibly, or maybe. It is stated, and to not support any assertion that Jesus is the one who did not speak to Moses is not sustaining the prophet Joseph Smith and Jesus himself.

Anything else that anyone teaches contrary is teaching counter to these scriptures which are stated and is heresy. Even if it's is todays or past other General Authorities.

Do you even read any of the responses here?

[Jeff K.]

Right, so Jesus is the great I Am. I agree. And, Jesus, I Am, Jehovah, spoke to Moses on the occasion of the burning bush. But, Moses chapter 1 does not describe the occasion of the burning bush. Additionally, the names "I Am" and "Jehovah" are never used in Moses. Let's look at the beginning of the chapter.

Are you aware of a time when Jehovah initiated the revelations and later Heavenly Father had to take over?