Jesus Christ as the Father

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was doing some reading yesterday during sacrament from the Book of Ether. While reading the account of the brother of Jared's encounter with the pre-mortal Christ; Jesus says the following

[David T]

In the Book of Mormon, there are very few instances where the term 'Father' refers to the personage we commonly refer to today as Elohim, The Father. Christ, and His roles, are the focus of the Book of Mormon.

[zeezrom]

I looks as if Joseph Smith believed in the Trinity like most other Christians. He appears to have veered away from that belief sometime after the Book of Moses.

[David T]

And I do understand how new members, long-time members, or even simply new readers to the Book of Mormon can be confused. The same happens when reading the early revelations in the D&C and the JST - they are often read expecting them to match up exactly with the further light and knowledge we have come forth since the production of the book, instead of in the context of the process and order by which things were made known to (and expressed through the words of) the Prophet and the Church.

However, the Book of Mormon is not Trinitarianism as believed by 'most other Christians' of the day. In fact, the book was publicly attacked (and mocked) for its views of the Godhead as being significantly different from the 'Standard' view.

[zeezrom]

However, the Book of Mormon is not Trinitarianism as believed by 'most other Christians' of the day. In fact, the book was publicly attacked (and mocked) for its views of the Godhead as being significantly different from the 'Standard' view.

I would be interested in reading about this early criticism of the book of mormon. Do you have a reference? Thanks.

[Kevin Christensen]

I found Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, wonderfully helpful. Brant Gardner has a lovely FAIR presentation a few years ago on the topic, and discusses the issue in his commentary. Margaret surveyed all the "sons of God" passages in the Old Testament and found a consistent distinction in that the sons of El Elyon are all heavenly beings, one of whom is Yahweh, and that the Sons of Yahweh are all earthly beings. Brant diagrams the roles as El Elyon Father to Heavenly Beings, and Yahweh as Father to earthly beings. One relationship going horizontally in the heavens, the other relationship descending vertically to the Earth.

The confusion comes when we forgo contexts, and assume that a word like Father always has the same referent, or if we uncritically assume that the writers of a text share our theological assumptions. But at any family reunion, no one assumes that because I have a Father, I cannot be a Father, or that because I am a Son, I cannot be a Father. At a family reunion, we pay attention to context. Who is talking to whom? In looking for theological trouble in the scriptures, we tend to stop at the first sign of trouble, and neglect telling contexts.

The Book of Mormon has a First Temple context. If you bring that in, and read passages in textual and historical context, things get a lot easier. For example, you should notice that Nephi's angel talks to him about his belief in the "Son of the most high God." Most High is El Elyon. And the Son is Yahweh. So Jesus says in 3 Nephi, "I am he who gave the law" which is Yahweh of the Old Testament. All this is part of preparing our minds, seeking out of the best books words, of wisdom, searching the scriptures, etc.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Binah]

In the Book of Mormon, there are very few instances where the term 'Father' refers to the personage we commonly refer to today as Elohim, The Father. Christ, and His roles, are the focus of the Book of Mormon.

That Christ is also the eternal Father was prophesied by Isaiah, but non-LDS folks tend to brush that passage off. We're the crazy ones, you see.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

[coolrok7]

I'm not confused as I don't accept the BofM as coming from God.

Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also share a common misunderstanding of the

[USU78]

English is a funny language. A lot of the time meanings are obscured by usage.

Like this, for example: "Yes, Sire."

What do these words mean?

What is the relationship between speaker and hearer?

[MDalby]

I looks as if Joseph Smith believed in the Trinity like most other Christians. He appears to have veered away from that belief sometime after the Book of Moses.

CFR

Please show a reference that verifies Joseph Smith's "believed in the Trinity like most other Christians." Belief in the trinity with the same view as the traditional Christians reflecting the following:

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

(Athanasian Creed)

Also please show how Joseph's understanding of the godhead transitioned from the creeds of men to the current teachings after the Book of Moses.

Thanks,

MD

[Scottie]

God is a God of order, not chaos. A God of chaos would give us multiple, conflicting scriptures, have common terms mean exactly the opposite of what we think they should mean, use word play to trick us into thinking one thing, but really meaning something different, etc. Yep. Good thing God is a God of order and would never do these kinds of things. After all, it's only our eternal salvation or eternal punishment that we're talking about here. Why should there be any reason to make the rules confusing? Only a God of chaos would do that!

[Flyonthewall]

Does anyone get confused when we say that George Washington was the "Father" of our country? Or "Sons" of the Pioneers? or "Daughters" of the American Revolution?

Specific words are used for a description, but they don't necessarily mean what they sound like they mean.

George Washington didn't really sire a country, that would be biologically impossible. I could be a called a "son" of the Pioneers as I have ancestors that settled in Utah as a Pioneer, but neither of my parents were pioneers. The American Revolution was a war...how can a war be said to have a daughter?

[Scottie]

Does anyone get confused when we say that George Washington was the "Father" of our country? Or "Sons" of the Pioneers? or "Daughters" of the American Revolution?

Specific words are used for a description, but they don't necessarily mean what they sound like they mean.

George Washington didn't really sire a country, that would be biologically impossible. I could be a called a "son" of the Pioneers as I have ancestors that settled in Utah as a Pioneer, but neither of my parents were pioneers. The American Revolution was a war...how can a war be said to have a daughter?

The difference here is that there IS a Father. Sometimes Jesus refers to the father. Sometimes he refers to himself as the father. Sometimes he makes it sound like there is no father.

I'm sure you can see how this might cause confusion.

[zeezrom]

CFR

Please show a reference that verifies Joseph Smith's "believed in the Trinity like most other Christians." Belief in the trinity with the same view as the traditional Christians reflecting the following:

Also please show how Joseph's understanding of the godhead transitioned from the creeds of men to the current teachings after the Book of Moses.

Thanks,

MD

References:

Trinitarian views in the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses, which Joseph wrote or is responsible for.

These views changed and are expressed in the Book of Abraham and D&C, and other writings of JS.

How do you know the view of the Trinity is a product of the creeds of men?

[Flyonthewall]

The difference here is that there IS a Father. Sometimes Jesus refers to the father. Sometimes he refers to himself as the father. Sometimes he makes it sound like there is no father.

I'm sure you can see how this might cause confusion.

Jesus has a Father who is God the Father. That is plain and simple. Under God the Father is the Son, Jesus Christ, who has made it clear that there is a Father and that He was sent from the Father.

Whenever someone starts a "movement", that person can be called the "father" of that movement. Anyone who follows that movement can be said to be children of that movement, even children of the person who started that movement.

Jesus can be seen as the founder of a movement, and as such is the Father. Anyone who are followers of that movement is a child of Jesus, even though Jesus himself has a Father.

This makes sense in my own head, not sure how it will translate for others.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not confused as I don't accept the BofM as coming from God.

Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses also share a common misunderstanding of the

[MDalby]

References:

Trinitarian views in the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses, which Joseph wrote or is responsible for.

These views changed and are expressed in the Book of Abraham and D&C, and other writings of JS.

How do you know the view of the Trinity is a product of the creeds of men?

That is not a reference. Show me a reference that reflects the views of the traditional Christians.

How do you know the view of the Trinity is a product of the creeds of men?

CFR that the views of the godhead of the traditional Christians are not from the creeds of man. Can you show me references in the Bible that substantiate the following?

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

(Athanasian Creed)

[zeezrom]

That is not a reference. Show me a reference that reflects the views of the traditional Christians.

1 Nephi 13:40

1830 edition - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior ... "

Current reading - "... These last records ... shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior ..."

"Wherefore, by these things we know, that there is a God in Heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting, the same unchangeable God, the maker of Heaven and earth and all things that in them is, and that he created man male and female, and after his own image, and in his own likeness created he them; and that he gave unto the children of men commandments, that they should love and serve him the only being whom they should worship, but by the transgression of these holy laws, man became sensual and devilish, and became fallen man: Wherefore the Almighty God gave his only begotten Son, as it is written in those Scriptures, which have been given of him, that he suffered temptations, but gave no heed unto them; that he was crucified, died, and rose again the third day, and that he ascended into heaven to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with Almighty power, according to the will of the Father. Therefore, as many as would believe and were baptized in his holy name, and endured in faith to the end, should be saved; yea, even as many as were before he came in the flesh, from the beginning, who believed in the words of the holy Prophets, who were inspired by the gift of the Holy Ghost, which truly testified of him in all things, as well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God, by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son, which Father and Son and Holy Ghost, is one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen."

Mormon 7

7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

2 Nephi 31

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Mosiah 15

How Christ is both the Father and the Son

[USU78]

English is a funny language. A lot of the time meanings are obscured by usage.

Like this, for example: "Yes, Sire."

What do these words mean?

What is the relationship between speaker and hearer?

Another example, a little closer to home. Magwa, the Huron spy, upon the Marquis de Montcalme's reaching terms with Colonel Monroe in Last of the Mohicans, asks, "Is the hatchet buried between the English and my French father?" "Yes, replies the Marquis.

[LinuxGal]

Can you show me references in the Bible that substantiate the following?

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

God is one.

1 Corinthians 8:4 So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that an idol is nothing at all in the world and that there is no God but one.

God is simultaneously singular and plural.

Isaiah 6:8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying,

[David T]

I would be interested in reading about this early criticism of the book of mormon. Do you have a reference? Thanks.

Here's one early answer to your CFR, "Barr, Oliver.

[David T]

I found Margaret Barker's The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God, wonderfully helpful. Brant Gardner has a lovely FAIR presentation a few years ago on the topic, and discusses the issue in his commentary. Margaret surveyed all the "sons of God" passages in the Old Testament and found a consistent distinction in that the sons of El Elyon are all heavenly beings, one of whom is Yahweh, and that the Sons of Yahweh are all earthly beings. Brant diagrams the roles as El Elyon Father to Heavenly Beings, and Yahweh as Father to earthly beings. One relationship going horizontally in the heavens, the other relationship descending vertically to the Earth.

The confusion comes when we forgo contexts, and assume that a word like Father always has the same referent, or if we uncritically assume that the writers of a text share our theological assumptions. But at any family reunion, no one assumes that because I have a Father, I cannot be a Father, or that because I am a Son, I cannot be a Father. At a family reunion, we pay attention to context. Who is talking to whom? In looking for theological trouble in the scriptures, we tend to stop at the first sign of trouble, and neglect telling contexts.

The Book of Mormon has a First Temple context. If you bring that in, and read passages in textual and historical context, things get a lot easier. For example, you should notice that Nephi's angel talks to him about his belief in the "Son of the most high God." Most High is El Elyon. And the Son is Yahweh. So Jesus says in 3 Nephi, "I am he who gave the law" which is Yahweh of the Old Testament. All this is part of preparing our minds, seeking out of the best books words, of wisdom, searching the scriptures, etc.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

I agree completely. Barker's works have given me some powerful new Atonement readings in the Book of Mormon as well.

(lots of scripture references)

Personally, my understanding is that the foundation of the Restoration was a revelation of Jesus Christ. The revelation of the character of the Father came towards the end (or climax) of Joseph's ministry, and even then was not clarified until later.

While we understand there to be a Godhead of three specific personages, which we refer to as the Father (Elohim), Son (Jehovah/Jesus), and Holy Ghost, I think the same terms can (and were) used additionally to describe aspects of the Divine Savior's Nature. He was the Father (The Spirit, Jehovah), the Son (the Flesh, Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit(the divine mind, will, and [priesthood?]power - we often refer it today as the Spirit of Christ, or the Light of Christ).

While I may have a father, a son, and a brother, I can also claim all of those attributes/titles as well., and still be One Me, which doesn't negate the existence of my own separate Father and Brother.

[MDalby]

Zeezrom... I don't even know where to start. Your scriptures do not even approach what you stated. These scriptures support a biblical understanding of God, the LDS doctrinal truths about God. These in no way come close to supporting the traditional Christians corrupted concept of an "incomprehensible" God.

To state that Joseph Smith had the corrupted view of the rest of the uninspired world regarding the concept of God is absurd. Joseph Smith knew more at the age of 14 than the rest of the world combined on the topic of the God the Father and His Son.

Peter and Stephen testify that they saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. Any person that had seen the heavens opened knows that there are three personages in the heavens who hold the keys of power, and one presides over all"

(Joseph Smith, TPJS, p. 312)

The scriptures that you point out that reference, "the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Savior" etc in no way support your statement. Every reference to Father does not directly refer to Heavenly Father. Does father have different meanings in different contexts? I suppose when you read the following reference, you will state the obvious that Jesus is in fact a hen, not a man.

37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

(Matt. 23:37)

I suggest you read the following document. I have this glued in my scriptures.

A Doctrinal Exposition - The Father and the Son

MD

[zeezrom]

Zeezrom... I don't even know where to start. Your scriptures do not even approach what you stated. These scriptures support a biblical understanding of God, the LDS doctrinal truths about God. These in no way come close to supporting the traditional Christians corrupted concept of an "incomprehensible" God.

I suggest you read the following document. I have this glued in my scriptures.

A Doctrinal Exposition - The Father and the Son

MD

Let me take a look at your document...

In the mean time, we don't need to get in a debate about whether those scriptures define the Trinity. I know where you are coming from. I've been reading the Book of Mormon for many years and am familiar with both sides of this debate. Keep in mind that you consider the Trinity concept to be corrupt and the Mormon concept to be of God. With that view, there is no reason to continue the debate. Let's go our separate ways. I just want to point out that Joseph Smith seemed to change the way he thought of the nature of God through the years of his life and it seems apparent in his writings. We can believe this at least to an extent without being critical of Joseph Smith or his calling.

Zee.

[Vance]

With that view, there is no reason to continue the debate.

Because you are losing?

I just want to point out that Joseph Smith seemed to change the way he thought of the nature of God through the years of his life and it seems apparent in his writings.

"seemed", "seems"? If that is the best you can put forth, then you are wise to not debate.

We can believe this at least to an extent without being critical of Joseph Smith or his calling.

Your approach seems to be very critical of Joseph Smith and his calling.

I looks as if Joseph Smith believed in the Trinity like most other Christians. He appears to have veered away from that belief sometime after the Book of Moses.

Trinitarian views in the Book of Mormon and Book of Moses, which Joseph wrote or is responsible for.

These views changed and are expressed in the Book of Abraham and D&C, and other writings of JS.

Last of all, on when JS may have made the jump to the modern LDS view, . . .

Yeah, it sure SEEMS like you are critical of Joseph Smith AND his calling.

Maybe it is just in the eye of the beholder.