Jehovah speaking as the Father

[David T]

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

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

I ask, because if it is the case, then the argument of precedence would become moot. There would be no contradictions. It would follow with what is understood in First Visions of a Dispensation. The Father begins, introduces the concept of the Only Begotten, explains who it is, and then after this is known, then the Only Begotten takes over in later instruction and appearances.

If this becomes an undecided possibility with those who sternly believe it isn't the Father speaking, then at least they may not have to view others who understand it differently as being blind heretics who reject the prophets and are unfamiliar with their scriptures.

[Jeff K.]

I ask, because then the argument of precedence would become moot. It would follow with what is understood in First Visions of a Dispensation. The Father begins, introduces the concept of the Only Begotten, explains who it is, and then after this is known, then the Only Begotten takes over in later instruction and appearances.

This is the pattern I think would happen, a divine investiture.

[David T]

Do you think it's possible the Father could appear first, begin, present the Son, make clear that His words were to be as The Father's own, and then to turn over correspondence to the Son? Explain the investiture to the Prophet? Could this have happened with Moses?

In Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision, there is no reference to the Father appearing.

when I considered all these things and that <that> being seeketh such to worship him as worship him in spirit and in truth therefore I cried unto the Lord for mercy for there was none else to whom I could go and to obtain mercy and the Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in <the> attitude of calling upon the Lord <in the 16th year of my age> a piller of fire light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the <Lord> opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph <my son> thy sins are forgiven thee. go thy <way> walk in my statutes and keep my commandments behold I am the Lord of glory I was crucifyed for the world that all those who believe on my name may have Eternal life

Yet we learn from the 1838 account that the Father appeared, and introduced the Son. From that point on, the Son spoke both as Himself, and as His Father.

But Joseph's earliest account says just the Lord appeared to him. It's a composite. Which is what I believe is going on in Moses 1. A composite of Both, without the needless description of both which takes away from the message being conveyed.

[Brade]

This is the pattern I think would happen, a divine investiture.

I think you might be mistaken, but maybe I'm missing nackhadlow's point. I think what he's saying is that maybe it's possible that the Moses 1 account just is the burning bush account. And, that what we have in Moses 1 is Heavenly Father's introduction; although, a bit longer than what we're use to. And what we have in the burning bush account, as found in the Bible, is Jesus' subsequent instruction. nackhadlow, correct me if I'm wrong on this? To me, that's a better theory than divine investiture. My view, to lay my cards on the table, is that divine investiture is a completely unnecessary made up doctrine.

[David T]

I think you might be mistaken, but maybe I'm missing nackhadlow's point. I think what he's saying is that maybe it's possible that the Moses 1 account just is the burning bush account. And, that what we have in Moses 1 is Heavenly Father's introduction; although, a bit longer than what we're use to. And what we have in the burning bush account, as found in the Bible, is Jesus' subsequent instruction. nackhadlow, correct me if I'm wrong on this? To me, that's a better theory than divine investiture. My view, to lay my cards on the table, is that divine investiture is a completely unnecessary made up doctrine.

I think that's pretty close!

I think Divine Investiture has its merits, and there is certainly scriptural precedent for it, which The Father and the Son of 1916 lays out quite well. I just think it is sometimes overly applied in places where it doesn't need to be.

[Brade]

I think that's pretty close!

I think Divine Investiture has its merits, and there is certainly scriptural precedent for it, which The Father and the Son of 1916 lays out quite well. I just think it is sometimes applied in places where it doesn't need to be.

DI seems completely unnecessary to me because the scriptures already take into account that people can speak for and in behalf of other people. I mean, in a sense, that's just obvious and nobody should need a theory of DI to tell them that. In it's most diluted form, DI just says that people can be given authority from other people to do and say things (i.e. God gives Christ authority to say such and such, Moses is given authority to do thus and so). In it's most concentrated, and, in my view, absurd form, DI says that dieties and angels actually go around pretending to be other people. Why? It seems that a simple, "Hey, I have a message from" does the trick just fine.

[David T]

What's fascinating is that the non-LDS Margaret Barker speaks of a Name Theology in which the very concept of Divine Investiture is discussed in the context of Ancient Israelite Beliefs, related to the concept of Taking Upon the Divine Name. The example of the angel in Revelation has been brought up here ad nauseum.

As I said, I think the concept is true. Just over-applied.

[Brade]

What's fascinating is that the non-LDS Margaret Barker speaks of a Name Theology in which the very concept of Divine Investiture is discussed in the context of Ancient Israelite Beliefs, related to the concept of Taking Upon the Divine Name. The example of the angel in Revelation has been brought up ad nauseum.

As I said, I think the concept is true. Just over-applied.

Fair enough.

[cinepro]

The issue was briefly mentioned in our class on Sunday, then we moved on.

I personally find the idea that Jesus is talking to be absurd.

First, 800 years earlier, Jesus had appeared to the Brother of Jared. In this visitation, he was very clear about who he was, even using his name. Why would he need to treat Moses differently?

Second, there is no internal evidence for the theory of Divine Investiture. To put it another way, suppose the theory of Divine Investiture gave latitude for a single exception, and Moses 1 met the criteria for that exception, so it really was God the Father speaking. How would we know? We wouldn't, especially if we stick to what the text says. There is no way to know. Proponents of the theory have eliminated all possibilities for falsification. Someone could make a theory that sometimes God allows a giant goldfish to speak on his behalf, and Moses 1 is a record of a giant goldfish appearing to Moses as if it were God. There would be no way to prove that theory wrong either. But it's only slightly less absurd than the theory under consideration.

Third, it would be like me posting and saying "You guys are beneath me, so I will no longer be posting here as Cinepro. Instead, my son will start posting here. But he will post using my 'Cinepro' account, and his posts will sound exactly the same as if I were doing them. Everything he says will sound exactly like when I was posting as 'Cinepro', and you won't be able to tell the difference in the slightest. And my son will even occasionally start threads about himself, but he will still post as if he were me talking about 'my son', even though he's just talking about himself. He will also have his own account as SonOfCinepro, and he will also use that to post as well." It's a nonsensical, unfalsifiable proposition.

And (as intimated by Jeff K.), it's ultimately pointless. Members on this board would continue to interact with whoever was posting the same as had happened before if the posts were indistinguishable. Likewise, we should treat Moses 1 as if God the Father were talking because that's how we're supposed to treat it. If we weren't, Jesus wouldn't have pretended so.

When faced with unusual theories about the age of the Earth, or Noah's ark, where someone raises the possibility that God did it one way and then created evidence to make it look like something else, just as a test to see if we would believe Him or believe the scientific evidence, those theories are frequently dismissed because it doesn't fit our perception of what God would do.

I would suggest that a God who would send someone else to speak exactly as if it were Him, without giving any clues or indication that it wasn't really Him talking (including this third party referring to himself in the third person), and then expect His followers to believe, thousands of years later, that it really wasn't Him talking only because some of his latter day followers consider it somehow inconsistent, is the same kind of God who would create the Earth in six 24 hour periods and then make it look like it took millions of years just to see who would believe on faith, and who would believe the evidence placed in front of them.

[Brade]

Second, there is no internal evidence for the theory of Divine Investiture. To put it another way, suppose the theory of Divine Investiture gave latitude for a single exception, and Moses 1 met the criteria for that exception, so it really was God the Father speaking. How would we know? We wouldn't, especially if we stick to what the text says. There is no way to know. Proponents of the theory have eliminated all possibilities for falsification. Someone could make a theory that sometimes God allows a giant goldfish to speak on his behalf, and Moses 1 is a record of a giant goldfish appearing to Moses as if it were God. There would be no way to prove that theory wrong.

Third, it would be like me posting and saying "You guys are beneath me, so I will no longer be posting here as Cinepro. Instead, my son will start posting here. But he will post using my 'Cinepro' account, and his posts will sound exactly the same as if I were doing them. Everything he says will sound exactly like when I was posting as 'Cinepro', and you won't be able to tell the difference in the slightest. And my son will even occasionally start threads about himself, but he will still post as if he were me talking about 'my son', even though he's just talking about himself. He will also have his own account as SonOfCinepro, and he will also use that to post as well." It's a nonsensical, unfalsifiable proposition.

When faced with unusual theories about the age of the Earth, or Noah's ark, where someone raises the possibility that God did it one way and then created evidence to make it look like something else, just as a test to see if we would believe Him or believe the scientific evidence, those theories are frequently dismissed because it doesn't fit our perception of what God would do.

I would suggest that a God who would send someone else to speak exactly as if it were Him, without giving any clues or indication that it wasn't really Him talking (including this third party referring to himself in the third person), and then expect His followers to believe, thousands of years later, that it really wasn't Him talking only because a prophet and contradicting the record of that visit in the scriptures, is the same kind of God who would create the Earth in six 24 hour periods and then make it look like it took millions of years just to see who would believe on faith, and who would believe the evidence placed in front of them.

L O L!

Edit: I mean no disrespect to the topic or the participants. Cinepro's post just made me laugh, sorry.

[David T]

DI generally works in the cases where the Lord introduces the concept first to the audience. In most cases where the principal is occuring, this is what happens. Look at most of Joseph's D&C revelations: they are recorded in the first person, and rarely with a "thus Sayeth the Lord to me, saying:" - the concept was presented earlier, and the matter was understood by the intended audience.

[jkfrost]

The issue was briefly mentioned in our class on Sunday, then we moved on.

I personally find the idea that Jesus is talking to be absurd.

First, 800 years earlier, Jesus had appeared to the Brother of Jared. In this visitation, he was very clear about who he was, even using his name. Why would he need to treat Moses differently?

Second, there is no internal evidence for the theory of Divine Investiture. To put it another way, suppose the theory of Divine Investiture gave latitude for a single exception, and Moses 1 met the criteria for that exception, so it really was God the Father speaking. How would we know? We wouldn't, especially if we stick to what the text says. There is no way to know. Proponents of the theory have eliminated all possibilities for falsification. Someone could make a theory that sometimes God allows a giant goldfish to speak on his behalf, and Moses 1 is a record of a giant goldfish appearing to Moses as if it were God. There would be no way to prove that theory wrong either. But it's only slightly less absurd than the theory under consideration...

Maybe not goldfish but he has talked through donkeys...

[CV75]

The text seems pretty straightforward that our Heavenly father is speaking.

Some few pages subsequent to Moses 1, we find Moses 4. Verse 32 sattes, "(And these are the words which I spake unto my servant Moses, and they are true even as I will; and I have spoken them unto you. See thou show them unto no man, until I command you, except to them that believe. Amen.)" also indicates it is Christ speaking all along. All the "servants" report directly to Christ, not to Heavenly Father. Joseph Smith received his instructions on prophesying, seeing and revealing from Jesus Christ.