Moses 1: A Technical Approach to the Elusive Speaker

[Scott Lloyd]

Does anyone know if a "Doctrinal Exposition" is to be considered as strong as a "Doctrinal Proclamation" or "Doctrinal Declaration"?

"Exposition" sounds more like a thought exercise to me, and there would still be room for doubt or debate. In this article, it's referred to as an "extended discussion" on the subject. And from searching the Church website, it appears this is the only time the phrase "Doctrinal Exposition" is used in reference to something like this.

Here's what the late Robert Matthews had to say on the subject:

In performance of their calling as apostles, prophets, seers, revelators, and spokesmen for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have from time to time issued formal written proclamations, declarations, letters, and various public announcements. These have been addressed sometimes to the members of the Church (as a type of general epistle) and sometimes to the public at large. All such declarations have been solemn and sacred in nature and were issued with the intent to bring forth, build up, and regulate the affairs of the Church as the kingdom of God on the earth. Subject matter has included instruction on doctrine, faith, and history; warnings of judgments to come; invitations to assist in the work; and statements of Church growth and progress.

Only a few of the many formal declarations have been labeled "Proclamations." Others have been characterized "Official Declarations," "Doctrinal Expositions," or "Epistles." Some have the signature of the First Presidency, some of the First Presidency and the Twelve, and some of the Twelve only.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Only if we assume that what is in Moses is a modern kind of interpretive reading and a redactive text. These are not necessarily assumptions I would be willing to make on every point. Unless we want to abandon in this case the issue of whether or not God actually spoke to Moses and what God said to him, this is a rather risky proposition to make, don't you think?

This is why I am rather convinced that this refers to the call of Moses to go and be the god (elohim) to pharaoh and later for Aaron to go as his prophet. And in that light, this text speaks to issues which would have been far more understandable to Moses with his semitic cultural background than would be necessarily available to us.

Our other option is to simply throw the notion of historicity aside, and to say, as you do, that it is only an ancient theme, but a modern revelation. And the language wasn't really for Moses, but for modern LDS (or at least those LDS contemporary to Joseph Smith). But even if we make the language contemporary to Joseph Smith, it doesn't help us to introduce distinctions on the part of the names of God which are really only formalized more than a half century after Joseph is dead.

Ben, good insight once again. I don't really disagree or agree on this issue. I think both are possibilities and to conclude one way or the other would require a revelation or some such, which I don't think we'll be getting anytime soon. I don't consider it risky because on this point I really don't care nor "know" in any big sense of either. Both are plausible, and I am content to leave them there. Call me wishy-washy.;-)

But, I think that we have equally useful terms in the language of "God the Father" and any number of terms for "God the Son" which don't cause us problems because they aren't Hebrew words that are rather arbitrarily assigned as they are in LDS theology. When we are dealing with Old Testament stories, the use of these terms tends to cause confusion, not to reduce it.

I suppose God the Father and God the Son could do it. I read Hebrew, so I fully admit I simply appropriated a term for a unique instance, completely on the fly and without pondering the best method of differentiation.

--------------------------------------------------

The citation from Talmage in the passage from the Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual that BC Space quoted is not Talmage's own commentary, per se; rather it is from an Appendix in Talmage's book that quotes in its entirety the June 30, 1916, Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve on the Father and the Son, wherein the principle of divine investiture of authority is taught and explained.

Incidentally, one need not go to Talmage's Articles of Faith these days to find that doctrinal exposition. As I was reminded yesterday by one of the managers in the Correlation Department, it was printed in the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith manual that we studied in priesthood meeting and Relief Society a few years ago. Also, it was reprinted in the Ensign just a few years ago.

Scott,

I appreciate your input. As I already covered that proclamation, I feel that I have demonstrated that it doesn't say what others later took it as. If you could address my specific argument, I think it would really help to move the conversation along. I personally think it's a great and well thought out Exposition by the First Presidency and Twelve and an important addition to LDS theology.

-------------------------

My personal opinion on this particular issue is that the Jesus only doctrine is the likely truth of the matter since the notion of divine investiture is found elsewhere in the scriptures such as:

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

John 14:7-10

BC,

My issue, again, is not whether Divine Investiture exists, nor that it is extremely prevalent. In the vast majority of cases it is used. In my initial post and subsequent ones in response to Ben, I show that the issue at hand is that the text clearly implies two physically separate divine or angelic entities present at the same time in addition to the Holy Ghost, i.e., the whole Godhead is present. In this instance, Divine Investiture is not needed (at the beginning of the chapter... I think it comes in later on) and in fact goes against what the text is saying is happening. I further noted that since this is after the Burning Bush, where Moses already talked with the Savior, it should be no surprise that in light of John 14:23 and Doctrine and Covenants 130:3, that the Father makes an appearance. In fact, it should be completely and totally expected and natural for this to be so. Either that or those scriptures don't apply to Moses... which would be strange and unsupportable to say the least.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Anyone want to page Jeffk and Handy003. There were the most ardent defenders of their view and I specifically addressed their arguments in a good portion of my analysis. I would like their responses. It is possible they haven't seen this thread with their names in the sub-title...

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Really? Does no one have a good solid response to my analysis? I mean, I can think of one or two myself. I appreciate Scott and BCSpace for their efforts to touch at least on parts. I jsut am surprised that given the chance to have a more scholarly approach with less diatribes against people like Consig, that maybe we could have a meaningful discussion where we all learn something. I greatly apprecaite Ben's input which has brought several new thoughts to my mind I may not have otherwise considered. I am still disappointed in the lack of better conversation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Really? Does no one have a good solid response to my analysis? I mean, I can think of one or two myself. I appreciate Scott and BCSpace for their efforts to touch at least on parts. I jsut am surprised that given the chance to have a more scholarly approach with less diatribes against people like Consig, that maybe we could have a meaningful discussion where we all learn something. I greatly apprecaite Ben's input which has brought several new thoughts to my mind I may not have otherwise considered. I am still disappointed in the lack of better conversation.

Sorry that you are disappointed in the discourse, Matthew. You make good arguments and your reasoning is sound.

Why then have I told my gospel doctrine class that it is Jehovah who is doing the speaking to Moses, and why will I continue to do so? It is because this is very clearly position of the First Presidency and Twelve, under whose direction the curriculum materials are prepared. It has never changed, and I don't expect it to. So, all other things being equal, I will always cast my lot with the prophets.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Scott, thank you for your response.

I am not as certain as you are that it is the First Presidency's and Twelve's position that the speaker at the beginning of Moses 1 is Jesus. Especially in regards to "It has never changed", when clearly there wasn't a solid attempt of clarification and differentiation for almost a century. I do however have no problem with it being taught in Sunday School. It's in the manual! If I had a teacher who brought it up, I would most likely not say anything at all unless another class member started arguing, in which case my only input would be that it's what's in the manual, there are other valid viewpoints, and that we should move on with what the lesson is really about, which isn't who's speaking when.:-)

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, thank you for your response.

I am not as certain as you are that it is the First Presidency's and Twelve's position that the speaker at the beginning of Moses 1 is Jesus.

From my observation, the Brethren are in closer touch with what is published as Church curriculum than some people are apparently willing to believe. From time to time, I see references to "the Correlation Committee," some of them rather disparaging, as though it were some sort of semi-autonomous shadow government apart from the Church leadership. In actuality, the Correlation Committee comprises the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Unlike many Scott, I don't think the Church's departments and committee's who put these things together have any ill-intention or are filled with incompetency. I actually think some of the best minds in the Church (including the Apostles and Prophets) are involved. But I also don't hold any of them to be infallible. And to that extent, the inclusion of a quote from Talmage that erroneously attributes more to a First Presidency Doctrinal Exposition than should be falls into that category. It started with Talmage (who I have inestimable respect for, especially his methods), then it seems others took it and ran with it. Going back to the original text though only shows that one could in a rush read the "all" concept into it, not that you must read that or even that it makes the most sense.

So again, I am fine with others teaching otherwise. It's in the Sunday School manual. It's mostly irrelevant to the lesson. I hope that most people who teach have better things to do with their time than expound to a classroom for an entire lesson on why they hold reservations about an unimportant side-note to an exceptional lesson. If they stick with the manual, it's not likely they will go astray.

[Scott Lloyd]

Unlike many Scott, I don't think the Church's departments and committee's who put these things together have any ill-intention or are filled with incompetency. I actually think some of the best minds in the Church (including the Apostles and Prophets) are involved.

My comment was not about the competence of Church curriculum writers. It was about the authoritativeness of a statement in the Gospel Doctrine Teacher's Manual that I have no reason to doubt reflects the position of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

But I also don't hold any of them to be infallible. And to that extent, the inclusion of a quote from Talmage that erroneously attributes more to a First Presidency Doctrinal Exposition than should be falls into that category.

As I have already pointed out, the footnote to Talmage was not to his own commentary, per se, but rather, to an appendix in his book that contains the verbatim Doctrinal Exposition of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. I surmise that the reason why Talmage's book was cited was that, for a long time, it was the most accessible source for the Doctrinal Exposition. Very few people have access to the Improvement Era of 1916. On the other hand, Talmage's Articles of Faith is rather widely distributed; or, at least, it was for a time, being on the very short list of titles that full-time missionaries were expected to carry with them.

It started with Talmage (who I have inestimable respect for, especially his methods), then it seems others took it and ran with it. Going back to the original text though only shows that one could in a rush read the "all" concept into it, not that you must read that or even that it makes the most sense.

Be that as it may, it is more than obvious to me that the presiding Brethren of the Church consider Jesus to be the God of Moses 1, and, so long as they do, I will feel quite comfortable in teaching that to my class.

So again, I am fine with others teaching otherwise. It's in the Sunday School manual. It's mostly irrelevant to the lesson. I hope that most people who teach have better things to do with their time than expound to a classroom for an entire lesson on why they hold reservations about an unimportant side-note to an exceptional lesson. If they stick with the manual, it's not likely they will go astray.

I did nothing more than mention it in passing to my class last Sunday. I agree that dwelling on it at length might be an inordinate use of class time.

[handys003]

Honestly I am only briefly looking over and will give my pov later. Your post is bad timing for myself. We had a former beloved Bishop pass away last weekend and today we are digging the grave, and setting up the chapel. I am also to open and usher the event and cover the grave tommorrow. My plate is full today so I will be back Sunday.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

handy,

I always leave room open that people are just too busy. I may be disappointed, but I don't count it as an intellectual victory or some such nonsense. I hope all goes well and that hearts are touched through this brother's passing.

[handys003]

Deleted

[handys003]

Sorry my cat is in the way. Second sorry for being so long to respond. I buried 2 friends in 3 weeks and it's been a time of reflection. 17 in 9 years I counted at the graveyard. Kind of depressing. Third I got tired reading yours and Consigs threads. My mind is hurting.

In your OP you responded with your pov along with many points, but one I have issue and basically is the big one. It is as follows:

1.b) We do not know the exact point in time this vision occurs, at least at this point in time. We do know that it takes place at

[cinepro]

In case you missed it from the other thread:

The Pierian Spring blog has an interesting post about the history of the theory of divine investiture:

The History

On June 30, 1916 the Church published a pamphlet titled

[handys003]

Sorry folks to revive a lost thread, but another reason to support my view of JC speaking to Moses occurred to me today.

Other than the "I Am" scripture I quoted in another posted topic by Consig, I came to the conclusion that another reason IMO supports my assertion. I had been praying on this, and this scripture came to me through my personal revelation.

1. John 14: 6 6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the ^away, the ^btruth, and the life: no man ^ccometh unto the Father, but by me.

In essence when Moses was taken up in the PoGP he had to go through Christ first. No one gets to see the HF in the Spirit world without going through JC first. This IMO is a pivotal bases a finalizing my opinion that JC was the one who spoke to Moses no matter when and where.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I always like reviving long dead threads Handy.;-)

So this all boils back down to the premise of whether or not this particular vision occurred after the burning bush or if it was a part of the same experience. I believe the evidence is heavily weighted towards this being a separate vision. Thus, your scriptures on Jesus as the great "I AM" are of little consequence. You and I both agree that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and most definitely of Israel. The question arising then is whether that precludes the ability of God the Father to reveal himself to the faithful AFTER Christ has revealed himself to them first and if the Father is Revealed WITH the Son being a part of it and bringing the individual to the Father. This is exactly the scenario that both John and the Doctrine and Covenants portray, so there is nothing out of place in a follow-up vision to a faithful Moses where Christ is present and Moses meets the Father. I can think of very few people in the history of the world who would merit the visitation of the Father more than Moses if we are to believe Christ and Joseph Smith.

So in short: Moses first had a revelation of Christ (burning Bush), then he proved himself faithful in the manner prescribed by Christ and expounded upon by Joseph, and then in fulfillment of that promise the Father came and made a personal visit to Moses THROUGH Jesus Christ, who was also there. It should be further noted that the Holy Ghost was there and in the grand order of things would have been the one who brought Moses into the presence of the pre-mortal Christ to begin with. It sounds very Temple like to me....

And in all of this, it changes nothing of the fact that Jesus was the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, of Israel, and even of Moses. It simply means Moses had an expanded view of how things are.