Teaching on the Nature of God

[maupayman]

I am looking to find clear descriptions of God the father and Jesus Christ, as distinct physical beings, from sources dating before 1835. Lds-mormon.com claims that early in church history, Joseph, and others, were confused about the distinction between Jehovah and Eloheim. The site references some sources:

...trusting in the arm of Jehovah, the Eloheim, who sits enthroned in the heavens...

Joseph Smith,

(History of the Church, Vol. 5, Ch. 5)

"O Thou, who seest and knowest the hearts of all men-Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah - God - Thou Elohim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, 'enthroned in heaven,' look down upon Thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of Thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than Thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him."

(History of the Church, 5:127.)

"We believe in God the Father, who is the Great Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal with the Father."

(Times and Seasons 3;15 November 1841: 578.)

In looking at these references, it appears early members believed that Jehovah and Eloheim were the same being and that Christ was the son of Jehovah/Eloheim. According to Boyd Kirkland, confusion over these issues continued on until the time of Talmage. Kirkland claims that Talmage

[David T]

Don't think you're going to find them, because it wasn't taught or fully understood in those terms before then.

[Ahab]

I am looking to find clear descriptions of God the father and Jesus Christ, as distinct physical beings, from sources dating before 1835.

Would Genesis work, where a source before 1835 stated God said: Let "us"...

Or how about what John said in his gospel: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... etc, etc.

Or how about the actual EVENT where both Jesus and his Father appeared to Joseph, as distinct physical beings?

All 3 of those are clear descriptions of God the father and Jesus Christ being 2 distinct physical beings, and all 3 were given to us through prophets of God as sources before 1835. Take your pick.

[David T]

The request seems to be for references to publications or writings in the Restoration period, by Joseph, or other Church leaders. And within the Church then, I'm not aware of their bodily separateness being a point of emphasis.

[Ahab]

The request is to publications or writings in the Restoration period.

That's your reading.

I hear him asking for some evidence of that concept before 1835, and many of the publications or writings restored in the Restoration period were written about events that happened way before 1835.

[Ahab]

The request seems to be for references to publications or writings in the Restoration period, by Joseph, or other Church leaders. And within the Church then, I'm not aware of their bodily separateness being a point of emphasis.

Without harping on the fact that we had Church leaders before 1835, and even before Jesus was born in the flesh, and even without harping on anything written in the Holy Bible from the leaders of our Church, how about if we talk about what is clearly revealed in the Book of Mormon about the fact that our Father and his Son Jesus Christ are 2 distinct physical beings?

That's pretty simple, as long as you start with the premise that they were 2 distinct physical beings, even then.

I think the problem comes from the people who think they weren't, when in truth they always have been, even when Jesus was in the bosom of his Father.

[robuchan]

The Book of Mormon would've been a logical place for God to clarify this for us.

[David T]

The point isn't the truth of the matter, nor whether ancient documents taught as such. The question and point relates to when it began to be taught in the Restored Church. It's a completely different issue, and is not as clear cut. It doesn't add to the discussion to sidetrack it into a different issue without addressing what appears to clearly be the purpose of the OP.

[Ahab]

The Book of Mormon would've been a logical place for God to clarify this for us.

I think it is clear when ANY source states Jesus has a Father.

If you don't thnk so, perhaps you'd like to play devil's advocate and tell me why you don't think so?

In my perspective, no person can be the Father of himself, so if any person has a Father, then that Father is another distinct person.

Is that clear enough to help you understand that Jesus and his Father are distinct person?

If you're having trouble seeing how they are both "physical" persons, then perhaps you'd like to tell me how any real person can be anything other than a physical person?

We're not talking imaginary persons here. We're talking about 2 real, live, actual persons, and all persons who are real are physical, because there is no such thing as a real person who is not a physical person. To think there is doesn't make any sense.

[David T]

mosiah 15 explains the specific Book of Mormon usage of Father (The Spirit) and Son (The Flesh).

I do, however, think the voice of the Father announcing the Resurrected Christ is a notable exception.

[maupayman]

That's your reading.

I hear him asking for some evidence of that concept before 1835, and many of the publications or writings restored in the Restoration period were written about events that happened way before 1835.

He's right, I should have clarified that. I'm looking for explanations of the nature of God in the restoration teachings and revelations.

[maupayman]

Without harping on the fact that we had Church leaders before 1835, and even before Jesus was born in the flesh, and even without harping on anything written in the Holy Bible from the leaders of our Church,

Which leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote the Bible?

how about if we talk about what is clearly revealed in the Book of Mormon about the fact that our Father and his Son Jesus Christ are 2 distinct physical beings?

Where is this clearly taught in the Book of Mormon? Clearly being the whole point of this thread.

[maupayman]

The point isn't the truth of the matter, nor whether ancient documents taught as such. The question and point relates to when it began to be taught in the Restored Church. It's a completely different issue, and is not as clear cut. It doesn't add to the discussion to sidetrack it into a different issue without addressing what appears to clearly be the purpose of the OP.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[maupayman]

I think it is clear when ANY source states Jesus has a Father.

If you don't thnk so, perhaps you'd like to play devil's advocate and tell me why you don't think so?

The vast majority of christians don't even agree with you on this point Ahab, and they're reading the same book as you.

In my perspective, no person can be the Father of himself, so if any person has a Father, then that Father is another distinct person.

Is that clear enough to help you understand that Jesus and his Father are distinct person?

Current mormon thinking of the subject is not in quesiton here. You have explained it very clearly here, thank you for that. Now, as per the OP, can you show me where Joseph, or any other early church leader in the restoration, taught this same principle in a clear manner pre-1835? That's what I have been asking for.

[Ahab]

Which leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote the Bible?

All of the people who originally wrote the writings which later became included and contained in what is now known as the "Holy Bible" were leaders of our Church, which is the Church of our Lord, who is Jesus Christ.

Where is this clearly taught in the Book of Mormon? Clearly being the whole point of this thread.

As I said before, anywhere it clearly states Jesus had (and still has) a Father, because anyone who understands anything about Father/Son relationships knows that no Son can literally be his own Father, however much he may be like him.

[Ahab]

The vast majority of christians don't even agree with you on this point Ahab, and they're reading the same book as you.

Uh, yeah, I know, but that doesn't mean the truth isn't right there in plain and clear view in front of them when they read that Jesus had (and still has) a Father who wasn't (and still isn't) Jesus.

Current mormon thinking of the subject is not in quesiton here. You have explained it very clearly here, thank you for that. Now, as per the OP, can you show me where Joseph, or any other early church leader in the restoration, taught this same principle in a clear manner pre-1835? That's what I have been asking for.

It doesn't get any more clear than it already is. No real person can be his own Father, literally, even if they are exactly alike.

[robuchan]

When I think of plain and precious truths restored through the Book of Mormon, this is exactly the kind of thing I expect to find.

[Ahab]

When I think of plain and precious truths restored through the Book of Mormon, this is exactly the kind of thing I expect to find.

And still some people don't get it.

Interesting, isn't it.

[maupayman]

All of the people who originally wrote the writings which later became included and contained in what is now known as the "Holy Bible" were leaders of our Church, which is the Church of our Lord, who is Jesus Christ.

Well, that's a twist. I'm sure the Jewish people, along with biblical scholars, would agree with you on that one.

As I said before, anywhere it clearly states Jesus had (and still has) a Father, because anyone who understands anything about Father/Son relationships knows that no Son can literally be his own Father, however much he may be like him.

As noted in the OP, even Joseph seemed confused about the seperation of these individuals. And that's despite having access to the same scriptures, which you claim are so abundantly clear on the subject.

[maupayman]

It doesn't get any more clear than it already is. No real person can be his own Father, literally, even if they are exactly alike.

I'll take that as a no. Good grief.

[Ahab]

Well, that's a twist. I'm sure the Jewish people, along with biblical scholars, would agree with you on that one.

Whether they agree or not, it's still true.

As noted in the OP, even Joseph seemed confused about the seperation of these individuals. And that's despite having access to the same scriptures, which you claim are so abundantly clear on the subject.

The way you think things "seem" to be don't necessarily reflect the way things actually are, and that goes for everyone else who thinks they know the truth when what they know is actually wrong.

You probably don't think that applies to you, though, cause you're just different, like me. Or am I wrong, again, according to you?

It's interesting how everyone thinks they are right even when they are in contradiction of someone else who thinks that, isn't it.

Anyway, your source material is easy enough for you to find, yourself, if all you're looking for is some pre-1835 data showing members and leaders of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" made statements to the effect that the Son is a distinct person from the Father. Try looking in the D&C sections for statements stating that Jesus is the Son of God, and then ask yourself which God-person you think he is (purportedly) the Son of, and if you'd like to think that he is the Son of himself, go ahead and feel free to think that for as long as you like.

Nobody but you will stop you from being wrong about anything, with even God allowing you to think whatever you want.

[robuchan]

And still some people don't get it.

Interesting, isn't it.

You misunderstand me. I expect to see it in the BOM, but I don't find it. If anything, the BOM godhead doctrine is less clear than the Bible.

[Ahab]

You misunderstand me. I expect to see it in the BOM, but I don't find it. If anything, the BOM godhead doctrine is less clear than the Bible.

So you're someone (else) who thinks Jesus is saying he is the Son of himself when saying that he is the Son of God?

What in the world would make you think something like that?

To me, His meaning is crystal clear.

[robuchan]

So you're someone (else) who thinks Jesus is saying he is the Son of himself when saying that he is the Son of God?

What in the world would make you think something like that?

To me, His meaning is crystal clear.

That's a separate issue. It's obviously unclear to a lot of Christians on the earth, so that's enough to acknowledge it's a doctrine that requires further explanation than what's in the Bible.

The BOM sets Catholics straight on a number of issues, the trinity doctrine explanation is glaringly absent.

[Ahab]

That's a separate issue. It's obviously unclear to a lot of Christians on the earth, so that's enough to acknowledge it's a doctrine that requires further explanation than what's in the Bible.

I don't think so. I think all the knowledge a person needs to discover the truth of anything is within the pages of the Holy Bible, because even in the Bible it's clear that we need the Holy Ghost to help us, as well as everything else God gives us to think with.

The BOM sets Catholics straight on a number of issues, the trinity doctrine explanation is glaringly absent.

Uh, nope. The Book of Mormon is crystal clear on the doctrine of the trinity, too, while explaining how all 3 of those persons are united as one.