Jehovah speaking as the Father

[Brade]

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

Nope.

[David T]

First, I think this is a good quote to keep in mind:

Before I sit down I want to say a word to the Elders of Israel on another subject .... Cease troubling yourselves about who God is; who Adam is, who Christ is, who Jehovah is. For heaven

[Brade]

First, I think this is a good quote to keep in mind:

Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. He's the Great I AM. We know this. We recognize this. I don't think a single person has called this into question.

Who is speaking in Joseph Smith's Moses Revelation? The text says "God". Plain and simple. Not something we need to be insulting people and calling their testimonies and loyalties into question about. Moving along.

I think the text says a bit more than just that God is the speaker, it implies that Jesus is not the speaker. But, I agree with your tone here. There's no reason to get mean about the issue.

[Skylla]

Keep the focus on the subject, not the posters.

Skylla

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 05 January 2010 - 07:42 AM, said:

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

Nope.

So Jehovah appears first to Moses correct, burning bush and so on...? And then Heavenly Father has to step in later?

[Mark Beesley]

First, I think this is a good quote to keep in mind:

Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. He's the Great I AM. We know this. We recognize this. I don't think a single person has called this into question.

Who is speaking in Joseph Smith's Moses Revelation? The text says "God". Plain and simple. Not something we need to be insulting people and calling their testimonies and loyalties into question about. Moving along.

Careful, or some lady will pop in an accuse you of being a Board Nanny.

[consiglieri]

Keep the focus on the subject, not the posters.

I accept full responsibility.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Brade]

So Jehovah appears first to Moses correct, burning bush and so on...? And then Heavenly Father has to step in later?

It's unclear to me why you insist on saying that, on my view, Heavenly Father had to step in, as if my position entails that I think Jesus couldn't do it. I don't have anything to say about whether Heavenly Father had to step in. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But, apparently according to the text, he did step in, whether he had to or not.

[David T]

These appear to be the thoughts repeated in this thread:

The God who addresses Moses and refers to the Only Begotten is:

1. Jesus/Jehovah, speaking the Words of the Father (Talmage's Divine Investiture)

2. The Father/Elohim (Speaking his own words)

3. Both the Father and the Son (Each speaking at different times, without differentiation in the text)

4. God. (A literary composite, associated with Joseph's developing understanding of the nature of God)

Did I miss any?

And also, is there anyone that disagrees with the idea that, even though it may be a different personage literally on the scene delivering the message, The words are the words of the Father? This is what appears to be the common strain throughout each and every one of those views. There seems to be agreement on whose message was delivered, just not who showed up to deliver it.

I personally don't think it matters (hence my selection of #4).

[Jeff K.]

It's unclear to me why you insist on saying that, on my view, Heavenly Father had to step in, as if my position entails that I think Jesus couldn't do it. I don't have anything to say about whether Heavenly Father had to step in. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But, apparently according to the text, he did step in, whether he had to or not.

OK, I can see how it might be misinterpreted. But why do something you don't need to do?

Is there a time after an introduction to Jehovah, where Heavenly Father has decided that he should now do the revelation? Where is the precedence that would allow for it to happen? Or is this the only time, and if so why just once?

[David T]

Are we sure this isn't an alternate version/extension of Moses' First Vision/Burning Bush episode? (Verse 17 could allow for it)

[consiglieri]

Are we sure this isn't an alternate version/extension of Moses' First Vision/Burning Bush episode?

I think it references the burning bush as having happened prior to the vision in Moses 1.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jeff K.]

There probably are other texts that we are not aware of, just as there are texts prior to the abridgement of the Book of Mormon

[jkfrost]

It appears that both the Gospel Doctrine OT manual and the

Pearl of Great Price Student Manual - Religion 327 tell us who spoke to Moses

they tell us it was Jesus the Christ:

here is the Student Manual:

Moses 1:1 - 11 - God Revealed Himself to Moses

Moses 1:3

[David T]

I think it references the burning bush as having happened prior to the vision in Moses 1.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It's one way to interpret verse 17. But the command he said was given at the Burning Bush was just given above in the current revelation. The text also alludes to it being before the Red Sea incident. There isn't much additional room in the framework of the moses/exodus narrative for when this would have taken place - hence my suggestion of this being a literary composite.

We have multiple versions of Joseph's First Vision. Why not with Moses, too?

Joseph's earliest versions of his vision said 'The Lord' spoke to him. It wasn't until several years later that the detail was presented that it was the Father and the Son. If Joseph used the singular 'The Lord' when referring to his own experience, why not use the same singular in Moses, before the full doctrine of the physical separation of personages was to be made clear and taught publicly?

[Brade]

These appear to be the thoughts repeated in this thread:

The God who addresses Moses and refers to the Only Begotten is:

1. Jesus/Jehovah, speaking the Words of the Father (Talmage's Divine Investiture)

2. The Father/Elohim (Speaking his own words)

3. Both the Father and the Son (Each speaking at different times, without differentiation in the text)

4. God. (A literary composite, associated with Joseph's developing understanding of the nature of God)

Did I miss any?

And also, is there anyone that disagrees with the idea that, even though it may be a different personage literally on the scene delivering the message, The words are the words of the Father? This is what appears to be the common strain throughout each and every one of those views. There seems to be agreement on whose message was delivered, just not who showed up to deliver it.

I personally don't think it matters (hence my selection of #4).

I think that sums it up nicely. And, yes, I think you're right that everyone agrees that those words are the words of the Father. Also, although I'm sort of acting as the voice for number 2, I'm not unsympathetic to number 4.

OK, I can see how it might be misinterpreted. But why do something you don't need to do?

Well, do you need to participate in a Mormon internet forum? There are all sorts of reasons to do things you don't need to do.

Is there a time after an introduction to Jehovah, where Heavenly Father has decided that he should now do the revelation? Where is the precedence that would allow for it to happen?

Is there a compelling reason why anyone should think that God ought only do things for which there's a precedent? I'm inclined to think that, ultimately, God can do what he wants, precedent or not.

[Jeff K.]

Well, do you need to participate in a Mormon internet forum? There are all sorts of reasons to do things you don't need to do.

If I had greater responsibilities that took up time, then no, I would not participate in Mormon internet forums. It is entertainment for the most part. I don't think Heavenly Father sees us as entertainment, nor do I believe him to be idle.

[Brade]

I don't think Heavenly Father sees us as entertainment, nor do I believe him to be idle.

Me either.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

Is there a time after an introduction to Jehovah, where Heavenly Father has decided that he should now do the revelation? Where is the precedence that would allow for it to happen?

Is there a compelling reason why anyone should think that God ought only do things for which there's a precedent? I'm inclined to think that, ultimately, God can do what he wants, precedent or not.

If a question arises, and the Lord follows a certain pattern each time, then we know that the preponderance of precedence helps us reason what the Lord would probably do. Now if Heavenly Father from time to time has indeed appeared rather Jesus Christ. We know there is a reasonablness to the position. If not, then we have to assume for some reason this one time thing occurred after Jehovah had already appeared and begun the revelations and training necessary for a prophet. Kind of leaves the position it was Heavenly Father speaking to Moses as a most questionable proposition.

Given the evidence and writings of prophets and lack of precedence for it having occurred.

[David T]

I think we should also compare this with Enoch's visions, given a few months later as part of the Revision of the Scriptures:

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

33 And unto thy brethren have I said, and also given commandment, that they should love one another, and that they should choose me, their Father; but behold, they are without affection, and they hate their own blood;

34 And the fire of mine indignation is kindled against them; and in my hot displeasure will I send in the floods upon them, for my fierce anger is kindled against them.

35 Behold, I am God; Man of Holiness is my name; Man of Counsel is my name; and Endless and Eternal is my name, also.

Again, very clearly the voice of the Father, who in another place in Enoch's visions also refers to the Only Begotten in the third person, but then later refers to himself as the Messiah. I say it's the same literary trappings...or is the debate going to be opened up again in another week or so when the Enoch chapters are covered?

[David T]

Anyone else think it might be a possibility that Moses 1 may be intended as a parallel to the Burning Bush/ First Vision of Moses, as suggested above?

[Brade]

Kind of leaves the position it was Heavenly Father speaking to Moses as a most questionable proposition.

Again, I don't understand why that is and I have yet to see a good argument for the view that this is such a questionable proposition.

[Jeff K.]

Actually several good arguments have been made.

1-A prophet has said it did not occur as Heavenly Father speaking rather than Christ. (Do you have perhaps something from a prophet stating it did occur?)

2-There is no precedence (certainly not scriptorially) for Heavenly Father stepping in after Jehovah has begun presenting revelations. (Or do you have an additional example that counters that view?

3-We have the First Presidency stating as much in their 1917 missive (do we have a missive countering that point?)

4-Scriptures have been shown that identify Christ under the same names and speaking in third person.

The counter argument seems to be "it could happen".

And you talk about not seeing a good argument.

[David T]

2-There is no precedence (certainly not scriptorially) for Heavenly Father stepping in after Jehovah has begun presenting revelations. (Or do you have an additional example that counters that view?

The counter argument seems to be "it could happen".

Jeff, what do you think of the combined First Vision proposal?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff, what do you think of the combined First Vision proposal?

I honestly can't say for sure in regards to the issue.