Was Joseph First?

[Nathair/|\]

That sounds good to me, you might call that fire insurance

If you like limitations.

[Ivan Komotios]

If it is legitimate to talk about the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world:”

Revelation 13

:

8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Moses 7

:

47 And behold, Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through faith I am in the bosom of the Father, and behold, Zion is with me.

then it would be equally legitimate to talk about the “Only Begotten” before He was born.

I think it might be a good idea if you just gave up. You might save yourself further embarrassment.

[Ivan Komotios]

then it would be equally legitimate to talk about the “Only Begotten” before He was born.

I think it might be a good idea if you just gave up. You might save yourself further embarrassment.

I said the usage of the term only begotten, Jesus had many names in the Old Testament but "only Begotten" wouldn't be one. How about "Shiloh"

Rod of Judah etc

Revelation is new Testament and the reference is to a future event

[volgadon]

nm

[Stargazer]

If you want to believe Joseph Smith's account it was, since it's heresay evidence with no witnesses I would say it was a hoax.

We know Jehovah appeared as a man in Gen. 18 and several other occasions to Moses Gideon Jacob ETC but the Bible's very clear no one has seen God the Father and lived.

My reaction to your second sentence is if you're going to claim that when Abraham and Sarah seeing the Lord on the plain of Mamre they were seeing Jehovah and not the Father, unless you're not a Trinitarian, they had to be have been seeing the Father AND the Son. And managed to survive.

From the point of view of your first sentence, Jehovah appearing as a man in Gen. 18 and all other occasions to those you mention must also be a hoax because it's hearsay evidence with no witnesses. And EVEN if the Bible reports that others might have participated in these apparitions, that proves nothing because the accounts are 4,000 years old, written in languages that have long since died out (modern Hebrew only vaguely resembles ancient Hebrew, for example), and weren't even written accounts in the first place anyway. Who wrote the accounts? We have no clue. Were they truthful? We have no way of knowing. As evidence they are completely unreliable. And even in the case of the New Testament, we don't know how early there existed any written witnesses of the life of Jesus, but the earliest scrap of paper/papyrus/whatever that we have is was written a couple hundred years after Jesus was resurrected. In short, without Joseph Smith's modern witness of the Father and the Son, despite what you may WANT to believe, the account of the Bible has about the same quality, as evidence, of the account of Krishna and Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. You're not a Hindu are you? Without some corroborative witness of the Bible, you may as well be a Hindu, because the 'Gita is just as noble as a statement of faith as the Bible, at least from the point of view of being an ancient document and having a billion or so modern believers.

But you are right, the account of Joseph Smith's First Vision is nothing but hearsay without a corroborative witness. Yes, he was absolutely alone as far as mortal witnesses are concerned, but paradoxically a corroborative witness is nevertheless easy to obtain, if you believe that the God who Joseph claimed visited him actually exists and is responsive to sincere inquiries. If you won't grant this, then it will remain hearsay to you, but you cannot make a definitive statement as to its truthfulness -- the best you can do is disbelieve.

[Ivan Komotios]

My reaction to your second sentence is if you're going to claim that when Abraham and Sarah seeing the Lord on the plain of Mamre they were seeing Jehovah and not the Father, unless you're not a Trinitarian, they had to be have been seeing the Father AND the Son. And managed to survive.

From the point of view of your first sentence, Jehovah appearing as a man in Gen. 18 and all other occasions to those you mention must also be a hoax because it's hearsay evidence with no witnesses.

Genesis 18 says three men appeared to Abraham and Sarah 19:1 says two were angels One was Jehovah according to the chapter 18, I do believe in the Trinity Three separate and distinct person represent the One God

Genesis 18

¹And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; ²And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

³And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away,

Genesis 19

<a name="1">

¹And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

[Stargazer]

My reaction to your second sentence is if you're going to claim that when Abraham and Sarah seeing the Lord on the plain of Mamre they were seeing Jehovah and not the Father, unless you're not a Trinitarian, they had to be have been seeing the Father AND the Son. And managed to survive.

From the point of view of your first sentence, Jehovah appearing as a man in Gen. 18 and all other occasions to those you mention must also be a hoax because it's hearsay evidence with no witnesses.

Genesis 18 says three men appeared to Abraham and Sarah 19:1 says two were angels One was Jehovah according to the chapter 18, I do believe in the Trinity Three separate and distinct person represent the One God

Genesis 18

¹And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; ²And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground, ³And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away,

Genesis 19

¹And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground;

You might want to learn how to use the quotation feature; it would make reading your responses a little easier.

I'd say the account of Abraham's visitation in the plains of Mamre is fairly unclear, which is only to be expected in a 4,000 year old tradition which nobody knows when it was written down for the first time. Where the translators put in LORD uppeercased like that, it is meant to stand in for Adonai, which is meant presumably to stand in for the Tetragrammaton. So, Jehovah, accompanied by two angels, visited him during the day. Sarah saw them, too, and heard them. "[T]hree men stood by him" because the Lord has the form of a man (as Genesis makes plain). Abraham invites them to dine with him, which they assent to. After the meal, One stays behind as the two angels go to visit Sodom, and Abraham negotiates with Him who remained (who is, of course, the Lord) for the sake of those who are righteous at Sodom.

You write: "...I do believe in the Trinity Three separate and distinct person represent the One God."

An interesting take on the Trinity, and it makes me wonder, for most if not all classic Trinitarians hold to the Nicean creed and its various restatements. Your version of the Trinity diverges substantially (pun intended) from them.

So, are you some kind of Restorationist, or some interestingly curved version of Protestant?

[Ivan Komotios]

You might want to learn how to use the quotation feature; it would make reading your responses a little easier.

I'd say the account of Abraham's visitation in the plains of Mamre is fairly unclear, which is only to be expected in a 4,000 year old tradition which nobody knows when it was written down for the first time. Where the translators put in LORD uppeercased like that, it is meant to stand in for Adonai, which is meant presumably to stand in for the Tetragrammaton. So, Jehovah, accompanied by two angels, visited him during the day. Sarah saw them, too, and heard them. "[T]hree men stood by him" because the Lord has the form of a man (as Genesis makes plain). Abraham invites them to dine with him, which they assent to. After the meal, One stays behind as the two angels go to visit Sodom, and Abraham negotiates with Him who remained (who is, of course, the Lord) for the sake of those who are righteous at Sodom.

You write: "...I do believe in the Trinity Three separate and distinct person represent the One God."

An interesting take on the Trinity, and it makes me wonder, for most if not all classic Trinitarians hold to the Nicean creed and its various restatements. Your version of the Trinity diverges substantially (pun intended) from them.

So, are you some kind of Restorationist, or some interestingly curved version of Protestant?

[Ivan Komotios]

Actually I believe in the Trinity like it has came down from the New Testament, 1st century, 2nd century 3rd century and when it was formulated by the Creeds

The

Athanasion Creed

Now this is the catholic faith:

1) Whosoever will be saved, before all things it isnecessary that he hold the catholic faith; (2) Which faith except every one dokeep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.(3) Andthe catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity inUnity; (4) Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. (5) Forthere is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the HolySpirit. (6) But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spiritis all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal

(33) Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, andinferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

Confounding means not mixing them up, The Father isn'tthe Son, the Son isn't the Father etc.

Substance is a synonym for Godhead the same as Essence being or God

Trinity

USED TO EXPRESS THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNITY OF GOD AS SUBSISTING INTHREE DISTINCT PERSONS. THIS WORD IS DERIVED FROM THE GR. trias, firstused by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first usedby Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.

The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: (1.) That Godis one, and that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30). (2.)That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia,persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the HolySpirit. (3.) That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinctfrom the Father and the Holy Spirit. (4.) That the Holy Spirit is also adistinct divine Person.

Easton Bible Dictionary

[Maidservant]

I was just reading in D & C 130 this morning, where Joseph Smith refers to John 14:23 (which I did not take the time to read) as an appearance of the Father and the Son.

[cinepro]

I don't know if Adam saw The Father, or Jesus.

But doesn't the book of Moses say that Moses saw The Father?

While the Book of Moses might appear to say that "The Father" appeared to Moses, it's official LDS teaching that this was actually Jesus pretending to be "The Father".

Seriously.

Moses 1:1–11.

Moses sees God and talks with him face to face. Moses learns that he is a son of God in the similitude of the Only Begotten of the Father.

Note: Class members should understand that Jehovah, not Heavenly Father, appeared to Moses in this vision. Jehovah was the premortal Jesus Christ and the God of the Old Testament. He is one with his Father in purpose and represents him in power and authority. His words are those of the Father, and sometimes, as in Moses 1:6, he speaks in the first person for the Father. (See James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 12th ed. [1924], 470–71.)

And yes, that means that Jesus was referring to himself as "mine Only Begotten" while pretending to be "The Father".

Truly, the gospel is simply wonderful and wonderfully simple.

[LeSellers]

While the Book of Moses might appear to say that "The Father" appeared to Moses, it's official LDS teaching that this was actually Jesus pretending to be "The Father".

If there's a way to misrepresent anything, you seem adept at finding and presenting it as the only meaning.

Jesus was not "pretending to be the Father", He was "representing the Father". The difference is significant, and obvious to anyone except those with a purely binary outlook on the universe.

Lehi

[cinepro]

Jesus was not "pretending to be the Father", He was "representing the Father". The difference is significant, and obvious to anyone except those with a purely binary outlook on the universe.

Lehi

No, there's a difference between representing someone and impersonating them.

For example, suppose my boss, Carl, can't make a scheduled conference call, so he asks me to sit in for him.

Situation A: I dial into the call, and since no one has actually spoken to Carl before, I just announce to everyone "This is Carl from the Burbank branch." I then proceed through the call answering as if I were Carl. At a certain point, someone asks about Carl's employee Cinepro, at which point I say "My employee Cinepro is doing great."

Situation B: I dial into the call and at the start of the call, I announce to everyone "This is Cinepro. Carl regrets that he can't make this call, but I've been working closely with him on this project, so Carl asked me to represent him, and has given me permission to make key commitments for our department." The call then proceeds, and people understand that they aren't actually talking with Carl, but that I represent his authority.

Is there a difference between the two? Which one more closely approximates Moses 1?

[Avatar4321]

No clue. But keep in mind the Doctrine of Divine Investiture.(sp?) The Son speaks for the Father as the Father.

[cinepro]

No clue. But keep in mind the Doctrine of Divine Investiture.(sp?) The Son speaks for the Father as the Father.

Yeah, I think I said everything I can say about the subject in these two discussions:

Jehovah speaking as the Father

Moses 1: A Technical Approach to the Elusive Speaker

[Anijen]

I actually agree that no man can see the father and live. Let me explain; I think mortal man is not physically capable of seeing Him as He is. However I do believe Joseph saw Him, but I also believe that God the Father did something either to Joseph or to Himself or both so that it was possible.

[Anijen]

Trinity

USED TO EXPRESS THE DOCTRINE OF THE UNITY OF GOD AS SUBSISTING INTHREE DISTINCT PERSONS. THIS WORD IS DERIVED FROM THE GR. trias, firstused by Theophilus (A.D. 168-183), or from the Lat. trinitas, first usedby Tertullian (A.D. 220), to express this doctrine.

The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: (1.) That Godis one, and that there is but one God (Deut. 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa. 44:6; Mark 12:29, 32; John 10:30). (2.)That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia,persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the HolySpirit. (3.) That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinctfrom the Father and the Holy Spirit. (4.) That the Holy Spirit is also adistinct divine Person.

One of my favorite quotes of all time by Dr. Peterson;

"Whom do men say that I am?" he asked. And Peter replied, "Thou art the second hypostasis of the incomprehensible metaphysical Trinity, a hypostatic union of unconfused but coexisting deity and humanity, consubstantial with the Father, a separate person but, ontologically speaking, the same transtemporal being." And Jesus said unto him, "What?" Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, 17 February 2011 Mormon Times

[bookofmormontruth]

One of my favorite quotes of all time by Dr. Peterson;

classic!

[cinepro]

One of my favorite quotes of all time by Dr. Peterson;

Here's my favorite (from a discussion where someone insisted LDS used to talk about "Kolob" a lot more than we do now):

When I was a boy, the second Sunday of every month was "Kolob Sunday," when sacrament meeting talks were turned over to contemplation of Kolob and we attended dressed in spacesuits. There were at least thirty or forty hymns in the hymnal dedicated to Kolob. Every fourth year in the Sunday School and seminary curriculum was focused on Kolobology. Our stake used to run a group of observatories up on Mt. Wilson, above the Pasadena area, that we used to search for Kolob, and occasionally we got to go down to the even bigger Kolob-searching facility on Mt. Palomar, jointly run by the stakes near San Diego. But now there's only one rarely-sung hymn left, and we've sold off the observatories.

[ERayR]

Was Joseph Smith the first mortal to whom The Father appeared in the flesh?

No.

[ERayR]

Acts 7:55

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,